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.

JCB,

Izetbegovic never expected JNA to help him against the serbs. That's why croats and muslims were defecting JNA. JNA was attacked in Sarajevo and Tuzla because of that. JNA was ideologicaly yugoslavian, as serbs, not islamist like Alija. Just because bosnian muslims were unprepared to wage war against serbs, doesn't mean they didn't start the war. Serbian soldiers were amazed that muslims were using "line-tactics". Instead of sticking to truce agreement, they form several lines, but only first line having arms. So, when a guy from the first line gets killed, the guy from the second line hops in, taking arms, screaming "Allahu aqbar!" and attacking.

Izetbegovic decided to push war because he thaught he'll receive help from the west (and he did) against "commie agresor serbs". That explains his later behavior.

You can't accuse people they live in 1942, especialy not in former Yugoslavia, because once an islamic fundamentalist guy that was in nazi muslim youth came on power in bosnia, or pro-fascist ustashe guy came on power in croatia, who could possibly blame serbs for their collective memory coming up front???

Yeah, Serbs were not majority in Bihac, but they were supported by great part of muslims from that area to fight islamist Izetbegovic's 5th corp. under Atif Dudakovic.
Serbs were not majority in eastern Bosnia in Visegrad and Zvornik, but muslims there were arming themselves, and even , if you remember, one of them was threatening to blow the dam in the air, Shaban Muratovic. But, you can't speak just about towns, since rural areas were full of serbs. Serbs were mainly rural population, due to Turkish rule. So, that's why they claimed about 70% of Bosnia. Based on their personal properties.

JNA didn't become Bosnian Serb Army. It's not true. Members of JNA from Bosnia and Krajina just came back to their home towns becoming part of Bosnian Serb Army. Yes, Bosnian Serb Army was receiving money from Serbia, but so were muslims receiving money from Saudi Arabia, iran, Turkey, and Croats from Roman catholic Church. So, what's your point?

parts of western serbia were bombed from bosnian muslim side in several occasions, so? And it's not true serbians were shelling over drina, because they couldn't afford to be portrayed as agressors, and why would they do it - bosnian serbs were fuly capable to do it themselves.

How can you compare serbia and croatia in "agression" on bosnia? Croatians had whole combat units in bosnia (from Shibenik, Split, Drnish), while serbians were sending supplies, and volunteers TO BE UNDER BOSNIAN SERB COMMAND. And that's not the same.

You can not expect me to say that serbs were wrong to secure themselves once they were sure what was going to happen? Why there was Sjekovac in the first place? Why murder in the middle of Sarajevo? Why attacking Pofalici and other serb parts of sarajevo? Why Kupres??? Like Sijekovac was in Iran, and not in Bosnia. PLN was arming muslims all over bosnia, why? And it was going on all the way from mid summer 1991. Why did muslims even form "poorly armed militia in Bjeljina"? Wasn't that part of Yugoslavia, back then? Wasn't JNA our army?

Again, Bihac was attacked both by Serbs and muslims against 5th corp. under command of islamic militants of Atif Dudakovic. Now tell me, why did serbs pullout from Bihac, once they came in the center of the city? My best friends mom was there to witness that, and it made no sense.

I don't see rapings have anything to do with millitary conflicts. If there were rapings in Zvornik as you claim (sounds like echo of 1992 anti-serb propaganda), why is that important now? I could speak about serbian women from Tuzla and Sarajevo, or may 1992 around srebrenica slkaughters of serbs, but I thaught we were speaking about conflict escalation?

Serbs were securing their territories and lines of communication in 1992. being superior in arms, they didn't want to take anything more then their territories. They didn't even take Bihac and they could. But they took Brcko so they could "breathe". They took parts of eastern bosnia to secure communication with herzegovina. But why they had to go to war in the first place? Because they couldn't trust muslims after what took place in sarajevo, sijekovac, and sarajevo again. Kupres also. For if they didn't do it, we would be talking now about 1992 slaughter of serbs in many more places.

JCB said "Justification for war comes BEFORE you fight, not after."

Justification of serbian struggle wasn't about presence of mujaheedins, but because of bosnian muslims and croats breeching both Yugoslavian and Bosnian Constitutions, harming serbian rights and security. That was what led to serbian claims they have no obligation to be part of bosnia dominated by croats and muslims. Serbs took arms to defend their constitutional rights. Muslims and croats were heavily under influence of brave struggle against serbs in WW1 and WW2, so were serbs. Muslims didn't just receive money from arab countries and iran, they were receiving cultural and religious influence. Serbs found themselves in their millitary traditions. It all went by those lines. I have never heard anyone in serbia or in republic of Srpska to claim that "everything would be fine just if there were no mujaheedins coming to bosnia". We had them already there, our muslim relatives.

JCB - "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. "

You didn't answer my question. besides not being true croats rejected the plan. It was alija Izetbegovic, muslim leader that first accepted it, before rejecting it. There was no war before that, so failing to act on that Plan was clear entrance in war. in hell. Say, why did serbs accept such plan, if they were trying to occupy all bosnia after their agression???

JCB - "One killed at a wedding is hardly a Muslim offensive."
Could be, if there was police action to capture the murderers whole Sarajevo knew, as well as bosnian muslim officials from izetbegovic's party. Did that happen? What was serbian reaction after that? Barricades in Sarajevo? What happened then? SDS (serbian party) leadership along with police was trying to persuade people to calm down and wait for police action, but it was all going under pressure of illegal bosnian referendum about independance. It was the sign of the whole atmosphere of lack of trust and hatred, not some usual case of murder. But you couldn't understand this trough anti-serb medias. trough media reports at all!

Why was JNA attacked by muslims in Sarajevo and Tuzla (but in other places, like in Hercegovina, western) ??? Could you tell me something more about "...Bosnian government call on the Serb-led JNA to help them ..." ??? When, how? Why did muslims leave the army? Like Sefer Halilovic for example?

hahahahahaha... I realy wonder if you're lying all of us that you're not muslim. You said "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."

First of all, you have source I was quoting about. Second - DID YOU EVER READ THE DOCUMENT OF SERBIAN ACADEMY CALLED "THE MEMORANDUM" BY YOURSELF, AND NOT BY INTERPRETATION OF MUSLIM AND CROAT PROPAGANDA? What is it in "Memorandum" that reminds you on writings of "Novi Vox"??? This is one of the shiniest examples of anti-serbian bias in your posts. You didn't even read the "Memorandum" but you have to make a balance. I would be very surprised if you're not from yugoslavia!
But I can't check this.

I have said this few lines before, muslims were all in "independant bosnia" story based on "Islamic declaration", and great return of islamic practicing in bosnia. They were unarmed and if you remember Karadzic in bosnian assembly speaking "YOU ARE DRIVING THIS COUNTRY INTO CHAOS, IT IS NOT GOOD WHAT ARE YOU DOING, YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT MUSLIM PEOPLE IS NOT IN POSITION TO DEFEND ITSELF." It was notorious serb leader Karadzic almost beging bosnian muslims not to breech the constitution.

Let me turn the question around. Why were serbs so easily slaughtered in Sijekovac, Kupres, Pofalici, Srebrenica region? And before that, in croatia, in Vukovar (before the JNA attack!), in western slavonia, in Sisak in Pakracka Poljana, in Gospic???

If you say serbs commited worse and larger number of crimes during the wars, could we speak about this? let's go this way. From the start of the war, I'll say one crime against serbs, and you come with one crime serbs did. So, we'll go like this untill the end of the war. Ok?

Just let me ask you this. Compare your opinion that "All sides committed crimes in the Balkans (Serbs more than others) and all sides shoulder some blame. " with actions of international community during the war, when serbs were blamed for everything, and muslim s and croats portrayed as innocent victims. What has happened JCB? How come, after all those years of antiserbian propaganda, you say "All sides committed crimes in the Balkans (Serbs more than others) and all sides shoulder some blame."??? WHy UN didn't put croatia under international sanctions for agression on bosnia? for ethnic cleansing in central bosnia??? Wait for few yours more, you'll realise that this I'm speaking isn't "denial of obvious", or "justification of unjustifiable", but facts.

Heh, the sooner you realise it's not the truth and morale and justice that guide great powers in their actions, but pure selfish interests (I recommend you to read G. Schwarzenberger's "Power Politics"), you'll realise how it's possible to breech the international law and claim you're doing good thing, how to lie about serbian agression and concentration camps, how to claim Izetbegovic is moderate pro-western, and nazi tudjman's croatia is democratic and tolerant.

One more thing. Before JNA whithdrowal from Bosnia, JNA was on it's own territory, ie. Yugoslavia, and people like bosnian muslims and croats taking arms claiming independance from Yugoslavia were nothing more then rebels. Moreover, they were attacking JNA, claiming it's occupation force! So, it's not serbs fault they had the same enemy as JNA (before pulling out), because both JNA and Serbs were in favour of Yugoslavia. Remember yugoslavia, UN member, officialy recognised by UN, USA, Germany, France as sovereign, independant state???

Comparing Serbs and Jews and Holocaust... JCB "...yeah and the Jews just took over Berlin and executed 3,000 Germans to prevent another Belsen." Well, the paralel would be truthful if Germans invaded Palestine, opressing jews for centuries, including commiting genocide, renaming Jerusalem into Berlin. So, bosnian story is happening in serbian land, which makes your comparison very, sorry to say, stupid.

Yeah, it's not WW2 anymore, but for people in bosnia, WW2 wasn't finished in 1945. Serbian victims were starting in 1989. to come up from pitfalls they were thrown into by fathers and grandfathers of people denouncing genocide over serbs, praising Handjzar SS division... etc.

Again you and your "balancing". in 1994 serbia put up sanctions on "warmongering" (as called in Milosevic medias) bosnian serbs. Watching calmly serbian defeats in Krajina and western bosnia. Why did bosnian serbs need support from serbia in 1993 attack on srebrenica? They were better armed and equiped. You're trying to balance the whole issue, but I ask again, why there were no sanctions for croatia?

I salute you, though, because sometimes it seems to me you're realy interested in what's (was) going on here, but it's just that it's obvious you're having hard time to recognise that it is possible for someone stronger (like serbs in the 1992 were) not to be responsible for start of the war, nor for the greatest amount of evil doings commited in it. Once you realise that, like before during history of the balkans, great powers and their interests are very, very important to understand most of our conflicts here.

I think something like this:

According to the first population census in 1879, of the 1,158,164 strong population, Orthodox Serbs accounted for a relative majority: 496,485 (42.88 percent, while in 1910, of the 1,898,044 inhabitants, the Serbs once again represented the most numerous part of the population - 825,918 (43.49 percent). Despite migrations (over 40,000 of them had emigrated by 1914) the Serbs were, due to their high birth rate, with the agrarian population accounting for 87.92 percent, a population in constant demographic expansion. According to Austro-Hungarian sources, the Serbs dominated Bosnia and Herzegovina not only in the demographic, but also in the economic sense (in the small but growing capitalist sector), although the Muslims were still more numerous in the towns. At the beginning of the 20th century, out of the 19 millionaires in Sarajevo, 17 were Serbs. The number of Muslims, due to their slightly lower birth rate and large-scale emigration to Turkey, kept dropping: the authorities feared that, in time, the Orthodox Serbs would totally prevail in Bosnia. To prevent this, the authorities constantly kept settling new people, mostly Roman Catholics, for the needs of their economy and the bureaucratic and police apparatus. The Croats, considered as a Habsburgtreu nation were quietly but systematically settled in those regions: around 230,000 people, mostly Roman Catholics and predominantly Croats, came to live in Bosnia and Herzegovina by 1914. In 1910, there were 124,591 people living in Bosnia-Heregovina who did not have Bosnian citizenship, and by 1914 around 180,000 people had been settled in regions bordering on Serbia. Around 140,000 people, mostly Serbs and Bosnian Muslims, were stimulated, by various means, to emigrate.

Instead of the Serbo-Croat language, the official language became "Bosnian", the Cyrillic script used by the Serbs and Muslims kept being systematically pushed out, and Serbian elementary schools had to face numerous problems in their work. The Austro-Hungarian ideology about a separate Bosnian nation was propagated by richly subsidized newspapers, with the intention of reviving Bosnian individuality ("Sarajevski list", the official "Bosnische Post", the Muslim "Bosnjak"). It was strictly forbidden to bring any Serbian newspapers printed in Montenegro, Vojvodina, Dalmatia or Serbia into Bosnia; Kallay even banned his own book "The History of the Serbian Nation", because in it the Serbs were described in a much too positive way.

For the purpose of strengthening Catholic influence, in 1881, Jesuits were brought to Bosnia. They were considered more aggressive in proselytist action than the local Franciscans who, over the previous decades, closely cooperated with the domestic Serbs and the governments in Belgrade. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sarajevo, Josip Stadtler, was especially ardent in sowing the seed of discord between the Serbs and the Croats, and between the Serbs and the Muslims. Numerous books and brochures containing insulting names for Orthodox Serbs were frequently printed and the persecution on a national and religious basis often verged on open racism.

There soon emerged out of the Muslim intelligentsia, a movement of young Muslims rallied around the society and magazine "Gajret", which after several years started to cherish Serbian national sentiment, referring to their common origin with the Serbs. Poets like Osman Djikic and Avdo Karabegovic represented the leaders of an important group of Muslim-Serbs. Only several Muslim intellectuals, like Safvet-beg Basagic, advocated the theory of a Croat origin of the Bosnian Muslims.

As for Croatia,

Another Hungarian aristocrat, Khuen Hedervary, who administered Croatia-Slavonia (1883-1903), skilfully took advantage of the Croat open intolerance of the Serbs, which had gradually acquired a social dimension. Being more organized and enterprising in economic affairs, the Serbs had a disproportionately important position in trade, industry and banking.

The Serbs in Croatia-Slavonia and Krajina were considered to be an enterprising nation, skilful in trade and banking affairs, unlike the Croats whose intelligentsia, from landholders to the bureaucratic stratum, was mostly involved in agriculture and administrative affairs. Also, the Serbs in Vojna Krajina were free peasants who, instead of fulfilling feudal obligations, did military service, unlike the Croatian peasantry which found it difficult to discard the mentality of feudal subjugation.

Along with the strengthening of the economic power of the Serbs in Croatia, the Serbian population also grew. At the beginning of the 20th century, in Croatia (with Slavonia and Krajina) there lived 708,993 Serbs, compared to 467,247 Serbs who lived throughout Hungary. Around 1900 among Serbs Zagreb took over the position of economic supremacy from Novi Sad, capital of Vojvodina, becoming the Serbs' main centre in Austria-Hungary. The foundation of the craftsmen's society "Privrednik" ("Entrepreneur"), then "the Alliance of Serbian Farmers' co-operative societies (or zadrugas)" in 1897, and finally the "Serbian Bank" in 1895, was the economic expression of the prestige of Zagreb as the Serbs' new national centre.

"Izetbegovic never expected JNA to help him against the serbs."

Yes he did. He called on them after Bileljina and they did indeed intervene - to secure Arkan's gains.

"You can't accuse people they live in 1942"

When Croats are Ustashe and Serbs Chetniks, yes I can. Many of these fears were well founded, others not so.

Aside from linking up Krajina with the Banja Luka area, attacking Bihac was of little significance to protecting Serb populations. It simply stood in the way of complete Serb control over the area.

"Serbs were not majority in eastern Bosnia in Visegrad and Zvornik, but muslims there were arming themselves"

Everyone was arming themselves, the Serbs more so judging by their early successes in the East. If the Muslims were so well armed they would not be threatening to blow up dams and flood their own homes.

"But, you can't speak just about towns, since rural areas were full of serbs."

I accept that Serbs were mostly rural - but when you're claiming they were simply taking "what was theirs" you can't expect attacks on Muslims-majority towns to not stand out and contradict the theory.

"JNA didn't become Bosnian Serb Army"

Sure they did. That's how Serbs ended up with the best weapons.

"Yes, Bosnian Serb Army was receiving money from Serbia, but so were muslims receiving money from Saudi Arabia, iran, Turkey, and Croats from Roman catholic Church. So, what's your point?"

The point is that Milosevic insisted the whole time that he had nothing to do with the Serb offensive.

"it's not true serbians were shelling over drina, because they couldn't afford to be portrayed as agressors"

That ship had sailed the momment Arkan was unleashed. UN observers reported shells falling on Bosnia from Serbia several times during the war.

"How can you compare serbia and croatia in "agression" on bosnia? Croatians had whole combat units in bosnia (from Shibenik, Split, Drnish), while serbians were sending supplies, and volunteers TO BE UNDER BOSNIAN SERB COMMAND."

What's the difference? Either you're sending troops or you're not. Putting them under someone else's command (who is very much on the same side) is just a cosmetic change.

"Why did muslims even form "poorly armed militia in Bjeljina"? Wasn't that part of Yugoslavia, back then? Wasn't JNA our army?"

Serbs also armed their own militias. After the JNA blasted Vukovar and Dubrovnik the Muslims would've been stupid to put all their trust in the JNA. They had shown themselves to be a Serb army that would prevent any other group from leaving and taking Serbs with them.

I can fully understand why Serbs would not want to live under Croat or Muslims rule. They just went about it the wrong way.

"Now tell me, why did serbs pullout from Bihac, once they came in the center of the city?"

Not sure what time you're talking about. I do know that the Bihac troops once faked a coup/surrender and fooled Abdic into sending in ammunition (1994 I believe).

"Serbs were securing their territories and lines of communication in 1992. being superior in arms, they didn't want to take anything more then their territories."

You admitted earlier that they took Muslim-majority towns.

"Justification of serbian struggle wasn't about presence of mujaheedins"

Finally, that lie is put to rest! If I had a dollar for every time a Serb brought up the legions of Muj fighters in Bosnia I wouldn't be at work right now posting responses.

"It was alija Izetbegovic, muslim leader that first accepted it, before rejecting it."

A day AFTER the Croats rejected the deal. While negotiations were going on all sides were positioning their forces. There was no working agreement at Lisbon as Bosnia was so mixed. Peace would inevitably mean partition which would mean population shifts.

I'm leaving for Holland in a few hours (for two weeks) so I don't have time to respond to all your points, but I will say this: the international community DID often act unfairly during the war. I have stated this several times and see how this is probably why Serb nationalists lash out and deny wrongdoing or try to take brutal crimes and justify them.

I know the Muslims and Croats bear responsibilty for war as well. Just so happens that there are a few Croats/Muslims on Free Republic saying their hands were essentially clean which is why I don't point it out as much as I do with the Serbs.

On February 29th, muslims and croats from Bosanski Brod welcomed members of Croatian paramilitars ZNG, after JNA was asked and accepted to pull 25km back from Sava river, thus creating fear in serbian population. That was JNA's pro-serbian role in the start of the war. Sijekovac massacre came just after that.

On march 18th under influence of negotiations led by Jose Kutillero, all thre ethnic groups adopted "Statement on principles of new constitutional solutions for BiH", stipulating BiH would remain in it's borders (which serbs didn't like before), but it would be divided in three constitutional units (which muslims didn't like before).

On march 22nd, presidency of BiH asked JNA to move out completely from area of Bosanski Brod.

Then, in Bjeljina , on april 2nd , sporadic clashes of serbs and muslims ended with intervention of Serbian Volunteers Guard under Arkan. In total, 41 person died. Serbs and muslims, but already tommorow, rummors became facts, proven facts about slaughter of serbs in Kupres and near "tomislavgrad". There was no JNA to protect them.

As far as izetbegovic's relation toward JNA, he demanded from JNA to give arms to mobilized units of Teritorial Defense under his command. If Izetbegovic was trying to rely on JNA to protect peace in Bosnia, he wouldn't ask JNA to withdraw 25 km from Sava, so Croatians could come in to slaughter serbs in Sjekovac.

On April 5th people of Sarajevo went infront of republic assembley asking for peace, but soon sniper shots were fired and 8 people got killed and 50 wounded. Who did this? Izetbegovic accused Serbs, but why would serbs do something that would directly lead into war. Serbs acted very cooperative after puting up barricades after serb got shot dead during ilegal independence referendum (wedding murder). Now we could point finger at Izetbegovic's thughs around Caco and JUka Prazina for April 5th sniper killings.

So, on april 8th in western herzegovina, JNA was attacked by croats and muslims, and, although on april 9th truce was agreed between JNA general Kukanjac, Karadzic and Izetbegovic, fightings continued throughout whole Bosnia.

And in that moment, Serbs took over Zvornik. Arkan was there also. So, in that situation, we should have been waiting muslims to establish their positions near Drina so they could easily cut us into peaces later? No, thanks.

On april 14th, US issues warning to Serbia and JNA for interfearing into "internal issues of independant state of BiH", no matter independance was "achieved" contrary to all values of practiced international law, contrary to UN Charter.

On April 22nd, lord Carrington warned Tudjamn and Milosevic about their responsibility for situation in Bosnia,a nd president of the council of EC, Joao de Pinheiro said for british TV that "Serbia isn't the only responsible for situation in Bosnia".

I think you don't have arguments to relativise Lisabon agreement because I'm looking at the map that was agreed there, and serbian territory is cut in several pieces. For example, most of eastern bosnia goes under muslim constitutional unit. But, once war apeared inevitable, and I blame Izetbegovic for this, why should serbs act like idiots, not trying to take what they need in order to establish defense lines?

Just on tip for u, when you quote me, please quote entire context, not just "You can't accuse people they live in 1942." period.

I see you know few facts but not situation on the ground. Because of agressive activities of 5th corp in Bihac, krajina and bosnia serbs had to place significant units there. Failing to take Bihac in 1992, they created few hundreds miles of new front lines. And serbs were inferior in numbers very much. Just look at krajina front. Only 40 000 people at max was defending it. Noone needed Bihac front also. If we were inteligent, we would have done exact what we did in Zvornik and Visegrad, just in this case, Bihac region was full of pro-serb muslims. In 1994, when 5th corp was in offensive, krajina serbs welcomed muslims from bihac area into their impoverished homes.

I ask again, and again, why were muslims arming themelves in the first place, from mid summer 1991? Once serbs saw that the only way to escape muslim-croat domination was war, who could blame them for acting in accordance to millitary necessity? Why there was war in the first place?

No, what, Serbs should have taken their villages and then leave few urban holes in their territory? Muslims are 80% majority in serbian town of Novi Pazar (my mom was born there), so, I guess we should leave Novi Pazar to be independant state, but to keep serbian villages around? What a logic!!!

According to the international law, helping one side in war can not be considered as act of agression. So, having Milosevic, and serbia, and whole serbian nation, helping bosnian serbs everyway they could, proves nothing. Do you expect pope John Paul II to be trialed in the Hague for agression on Bosnia, because he was helping bosnian croats? or USA to be held responsible for agression because of their help to croatians and muslims break serb lines in bosnia? And yes, there is great difference in having marked units, officialy belonging to neighboring state in other independant state, and having volunteers from one state fighting in another. Serbs were soming from serbia and joining bosnian serb army, having no responsibility toward Milosevic. That's why Mladic and Karadzic were able to do what they want and reject Contact group plan in the start of 1994. Milosevic had no other way to put pressure on them to accept that plan but to call them warmongerers and put them under sanctions. But Tudjman was in command of several combat units in herzegovina,and even croatian generals Gotovina and Norac, were in few occasions commanding over bosnian croats. And that's established chain of command, all the way from mostar to zagreb. Matter of international humanitarian law.

I say Serbians had no reason to shell muslims across drina, because bosnian serbs were always very capable to do the same thing. makes no sense.

No, muslims would have been stupid to put their trust in JNA if croats were not responsible for war in Dubrovnik, Vukovar and Croatia at all. Croats were seccessionists, croats were attacking JNA, and JNA had full right to fight rebels. If bosnian muslims felt unsecure that JNA would fight them too for acting against independent state of Yugoslavia (SFRJ), breeching all it's laws, not to mention international law, then I understand their concern. But, if Muslims wanted peace, and full respect of law, then they had no reason to fear JNA, to call young bosnian muslims not to serve army in JNA (in october 1991). So, what's it gonna be?

JNA was in Bihac in 1992, and then pulled out.
JNA was in Zadar in 1991, and then pulled out. JNA was in position to take Osijek, but didn't. JNA was in position to destroy croatian MUP, or hit it hard, but didn't. JNA was in position to protect serbs in many places, but didn't. Just to mention western Slavonia in 1991. So, having all this, Serbs had no reason to trust JNA either. And it proved correct. Inspite Serbs wer in favor of Yugoslavia, and it's laws. JNA was never being prepared for civil war. Ideology of JNA was to fight hard against agression, but not against seccession. JNA was ideologicaly socialist, brotherhood-unity, yugoslavia, brain-washed. That's why we had 14 consecutive cease-fires with croatian seccessionists, inspite JNA being superior in arms. JNA was lot's of muscles, but completely confused . That's why you had "serb nationalist" gen. Mladic saying in Knin in 1991, "only by my dead body will socialist Yugoslavia collapse", and on the other hand croats and slovenes defecting JNA to their national armies. maybe you're realy not from Yugoslavia, since you can't understand way of thinking of people from around here. And it's very important.

Muslim majority towns, few of them, actualy, don't make such drama over it, were lines of communication for survival of serbs in bosnia. It was necessery for serbs to take them in order to secure themselves better fighting position. They ware forced to gihht war, so that's what they did. I don't blame them for that at all. And, could you count how many muslim towns serbs had took over?You'll see the list won't be long, and number of muslims not so high there. And it was war raging.

As for "mujaheedin lie", I'm realy surprised to see it's so important. Presence of mujaheedins was very important to prove that bosnian muslims were not so secular, liberal, and western tolerant. I've never heard bosnian serbs speaking about fear of some dark-skin arabs cruising around harassing them. It was their neighbours they feared, like always. I think I can understand serbian-americans putting much attention on that issue. It's that they believe americans would comprehend more easily why serbs had to wage war. But it's all over now, and we believe we have enough arguments to support our view. We fought war in bosnia to protect our fundamental right, and that's our right to decide what country we want to live in. We're forced by international pressure to go back to 19th century position. Ok. We believe it's not justice. We believe our rights are breeched. We'll wait until we come to position to exercise our natural right. And God be our witness, we will do it.

So, let me accept, for the sake of conversation, that it was croats to reject the Plan from 1992 first, and then Izetbegovic. So, why did "better armed agressive serbs" accepted it? Why did Milosevic offer Izetbegovic to be the first president of new Yugoslavia? Why did serbs accept to be separated from their brothers from serbia?

No, partition of bosnia would mean federalisation of bosnia, but without population "exchange". Presence of international observers, peacekeepers would then bring stability and security to serbs in muslim entity and muslims in serbian entity. Serbs just wanted to know what is theirs inside "independant" bosnia, something joint croats and muslims could not take from them. After 3 years of bloody war, we came again on the propositions of 1992 plan, once accepted by serbs. Just now, it's imposed by heavy presence of western powers, just like it was in the end of 19th century. look up in one of my previous posts for comparison. It's great! Imposing bosnian nationality, bosnian language... BS!

Ok, your view that intl community acted few times unfairly (I suppose toward serbs), is great step for us serbs, because once people start doubting official history, we have a chance to present our arguments. Still, after so much beatings and torture of our nation, we still refuse to forget our arguments in order to be "accepted", yaeah like Germs after ww2. No way, we're not guilty for what has happened, and our basic rights were and are being breeched.

JCB : "I know the Muslims and Croats bear responsibilty for war as well"

But tell me, be honest, and tell me, why just my nation bears with the sign of the guilty one, agressor, and genocide-doer? Why there was no objectivity and fairness during the war? Why Srebrenica wasn't demilitarised? Just one question of many more. Why fabricating lies about serbian concentration camps, tens of thousands of raped women? I say again. We know, by what we felt on our skin, it was wrong what was done to us. And we'll wait for our time to fight again for our rights. Look, Albanians have right to take Kosovo from us, but Serbs from bosnia have to be part of bosnia. I won't bother arguing on serbian rights on kosovo and serbian parts of bosnia. It's jsut that you can't convince my dad, simple serb, that bosnian serbs did something wrong (I'm not saying he can't believe serbs did war crimes!) for wanting to become part of serbian state, and not to live under muslim-croat domination.

Like many powers before, US will stay in Bosnia for some time, and after it's gone we'll fight again.

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.