[JCB]

"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.

[captain albala]

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.