It is sometimes hard to tell Russia and the USA apart

@ishamid: don’t worry one bit about being off-topic. There is only one real topic to my blog, resistance to the evils of empire, and your question is therefore very much ON topic :-)

You ask Do you believe Srebrenica never happened? Not at all, I do believe that something happened there, I just know for a fact that the official account of what took place there is largely false. To write a detailed account of what really took place there is not something I can do now, but I will give you the following pointers:

a) the UN’s Akashi made AT LEAST three requests to NATO to reinforce and protect Srebrenica. NATO refused and then, later, blamed the UN for what happened there. Srebrenica was literally ‘staged’ by NATO to push out the UN and allow the USA to take control of the conflict in Bosnia.

b) a very large number of Muslim fighters actually managed to flee Srebrenica. They walked for several days, dropped their weapons and turned up as “refugees” in several locations including Tuzla.

c) The entire Bosnian-Serb population in the villages surrounding Screbrenica had been eitehr massacred or ethnically cleansed by Bosnian-Muslim forces earlier in the war and the local Bosnian-Serb commander had gone on record, in front of TV cameras, promising that his forces would one day take Srebrenica and take revenge for that. NATO, of course, knew about it.

d) Ratko Mladic showed up in front of TV cameras and participated in the loading up of civilians in buses. Mladic can be called many things, but a fool he is not. Why would he do that while planning a massacre?

e) most killings in Srebrenica did actually take place in the outskirts of the city and these were spontaneous acts of revenge and not a planned ‘genocide’ or any such corporate media nonsense.

f) the casualty figures for this event are vastly exaggerated and can be compared with other such propaganda “massacres” as Timisoara or “hindered of thousands” of killed Kosovo-Albanians in Kosovo.

I would add that I know that the above is true for a fact, as I was personally in the position to get classified information on the events in all of Bosnia at the time. I also would say that I do not consider what I wrote above “leftist” or “progressive”. Lastly, I would hope that nobody even superficially familiar with my blog would suspect me of being “anti-Muslim”.

The case of Bosnia is particularly hard to clear from lies and propaganda because it is one of the few cases in which the US Empire and many Muslim nations had a vested interest in supporting the SAME propaganda line. This resulted in events such as the one in Srebrenica being massively distorted and other being outright false-flag operations (the Markale market bombing) or cover-up (Racak). There are many people in government who know all that and there are many more in the UN or humanitarian organizations who know all this too. But nobody has ANY kind of interest in a) speaking the truth or b) being suspected of being pro-Serbian or anti-Muslim (as I am being at least somewhat suspected by you – and others – of being).

(see below for part II)

Well, I mostly agree with you, and I also didn’t like the comments on Medvedev and Putin to change and toughen legislation to fight terrorism. But they say that “al Qaeda” is behind these attacks because many militants and terrorists are supported and trained in the Afghan-Pakistan border, and financed by countries like Saudi Arabia (and probably Turkey, despite the recent improvements in relations). I guess this is probably true, but the label “al Qaeda” surely is delusive.

yes, this bombing is a terrible set back to those of use who hope that Russia will be an important voice resisting US imperialism. it will encourage Russia to ‘join’ America in its ‘war against terrorism’. it is blowback for the wars in Chechnya. the logic is perfectly clear.

@VINEYARDSAKER

No, I’m not convinced :-) but I am open-minded enough to consider more research on the issue.

[BTW: I did alot of research on this over a decade ago and, no, I never take the mass media as Gospel]

I will only address one point here:

“d) Ratko Mladic showed up in front of TV cameras and participated in the loading up of civilians in buses. Mladic can be called many things, but a fool he is not. Why would he do that while planning a massacre?”

This has a simple answer. The Serbs believed they were doing Europe’s dirty laundry by their actions against the Muslims of Bosnia. They said as much many times quite openly, and this feeling was reinforced by, eg, the Russion media, echoes of which are obvious in a recent article you posted on the topic.

The Serbs dehumanized the Bosnian Muslims and convinced themselves they were Europe’s savior against the Muslim Terrorist Extremist Hordes, and that they had the backing of Europe.

So Mladic’s actions were just another example of hubris and overconfidence. And, yes, he was a fool as well.

And the Serbs actually did have the implicit backing of Europe, until the Bosnians — including some Serbs and Croats. The non-Muslim provinces of Yugoslavia were supported from the start. But no, God-forbid that there be a strong Muslim-majority country in the heart of Europe! Even if they are mostly secular, white, and blue-eyed!

After all, the Bosnians were under an arms embargo. Sure, the embargo was “against all belligerents” but that is the ultimate joke: It was effectively against the Bosnians, since the Serbs were already a major arms manufacturer.

So Serbia maintained the implicit support of Europe until the Bosnians finally figured out how to defend themselves — that included help from fellow Muslims of course, such as Iran. Once the Bsonian’s began to defeat the Serbs on the battlefield, THEN Nato and the US intervened to prevent an outright Bosnian victory.

The plan was for the Bosnians to lose the war — People in the Clinton administration resigned in disgust at the collusion of world powers and the US in the rape of Bosnia –. When that did not happen, Nato intervened and Dayton was imposed to keep Bosnia from becoming a full state like Croatia. If Serbia was punished, it was for failing to get the job done. Milosovec himself alluded to this while at Dayton.

I agree that the Croats were as bad as the Serbs in many respects, against both Serbs and Bosnians. But as far as matters of scale go, I’ve seen no compelling evidence that the behavior of the Bosnians — which included not only Muslims but Serbs and Croats — came anywhere close to approaching the crimes of the Serbs in this conflict. The relativism approach — “All sides committed crimes” — is largely a red herring in my view, used especially too good effect by the zionists of today against the palestinians.

In any case, I appreciate your efforts on your blog and maintain an extended hand of respect and

Peace

@ishamid: This has a simple answer. The Serbs believed…

Well, here we already disagree. I don’t believe that there ever was such a thing as “The Serbs”. At the very least, there was Slobodan Milosevic and his ruling elite on one side, and the Karadzic-Mladic duo on the other. Furthermore, Mladic had much closer ties to Belgrade than Karadzic. Then there were the Federal (Yugoslav) forces in Bosnia and the local forces of the Respublika Srpska. One took their orders from Belgrade and had their families in perfect safety, while the others were locals who were fighting for their families and their land (yes, most of Bosnia in terms of square footage, of land, was Serbian. Muslims were primarily city folks).

I met A LOT of Serbs from Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia and I have never. repeat *never* met one who would serisouly claim that the Serbs were “hey were Europe’s savior against the Muslim Terrorist Extremist Hordes”. Some Serb *politicians* tried to use that kind of language to appeal to European anti-Muslim feelings, but the Serbs themselves had two major thoughts:

a) not to allow a repetition of what had happened in Croatia and Bosnia during WWII (Serbs are at least as traumatized by the horrors of the Pavelic regime as the Jews are of the Nazis)

and

b) that they would not accept to live under Papist or Muslim rule. You might find the latter offensive, but I urge you to study the Ottoman policies in Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo to fully appreciate why being ‘under the Turks’ is something which no Serb would ever accept.

The Serbs had ZERO backing in Europe. The only country which had some folks backing the Serbs was France in which there had been a pro-Serb sentiment for a long time and that, mostly in the military. The rest of Europe was anti-Serb from day 1. Germany, in particular, was vicerally anti-Serbian.

You also seem not to be aware that

a) the Bosnian-Serbs were under a total embargo from the Yugoslav side since they were not willing to accept Belgrade’s terms

b) that the US Air Force was engaged in an “air bridge” to smuggle in weapons for the Bosnian-Muslims.

You can research these topics for yourself. The info is out there.

You ask about Bosnian-Muslim crimes? I already gave you a pointer: find out what happened to the Bosnian-Serb villages around Srebrenica.

I will add one more thing: the Bosnian-Muslims never succeeded in fighting the Serbs. In Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo the exact same scenario took place:

The US designed and implemented a plan of attack in which the US Air Force, in coordination with special agents on the groud, provided close air support and air cover to the Croat forces in the UNPAs and the Serb Krajina and to the KLA in Kosovo. Again, you don’t have to trust me on that, just follow up my leads.

Kind regards,

The Saker

@ishamid: The Bosnian Muslims are ethnically identical to Serbs; they are not Turks

Correct, And neither are the Kosovo Albanians (who are, however, from an ancient ethnic group which is totally distinct from the Serbs). But if you want to scare a Serb, or infuriate him, it does you little good to speak of the Albanians or the Bosnian-Muslims. What will really get him/her to react is the term “Turk” used not so much to accurately describe an ethnicity or culture, but the image of a ruthless enemy which threatens your very existance.

Again, I was not saying that Bosnian-Muslims were “Turks”, only that the fear of the Serbs is to live under “Turkish” rule or, as a matter of fact, under Nazi rule. This is why folks like Tudjman with his black and white “chessboard” like flag or Itzebegovich with this “Islamic Declaration” provided Milosevic exactly with the kind of boogeyman he needed to have the Serbs feeling that their very existence was threatened.

At least the Bosnians emphasized a multi-identity approach from the start.

That is factually incorrect. Since there is no such thing as a ‘Bosnian’ entity, much less so a “Bosniac” ethnicity, the term “Muslim” has always been used to describe not a religion, but a distinct social group. This, by the way, comes from the Ottoman system of rule in which the ‘Millet Bashi’ is the highest political/religous leader reponsible of a group. The Muslims in Bosnia by insisting that they are “Bosniacs” and by calling the Bosnian-Serbs “Serbs” (minus the “Bosnian” prefix) perpetuated the myth that they are the real ‘locals’ as opposed to the ‘occupying’ Serbs and Croats. It is enough to know the basic history of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to realize that the Croatian Krajina was the border area between this empire and the Ottoman Empire and that the territories to the east of it (Bosnia) were essentially occupied Serbian land in which the Ottomans converted a part of the previously Christian population. All this, however, was swept under the rug for hte need of political expediency. What Clinton & Co. needed was a clearly identifiable bad guy (the Serbs, and Slobodan as a “2nd Hitler”) and a suffering innocent victim (the “Bosniacs). Add to this that “the Serbs” were inevitably described as former Communist apparachiks (nevermind that Mr Tudjman was a general himself and that the ‘Communist’ Tito was a Croatian Jew) and all the proper elements for a black and white narrative were there. This is why nobody, NOBODY, seriously condemned the US and NATO for fighting a first clearly illegal war (Bosnia) and a 2nd one soon thereafter (Kosovo). But when the same Empire used EXACTLY THE SAME methods to attack Iraq, the doubleplusgoodthinking progressives were outraged.

Sadly, most of the Muslim world fell exactly into the ideological trap which Martin Niemöller made famous in reference to the Nazis:

“They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

“”At least the Bosnians emphasized a multi-identity approach from the start.””

“That is factually incorrect.”

Hmm, here we have a serious disagreement I guess. There were Serbs and Croats who believed in the Bosnia project and emphasized a multi-ethnic Bosnian identity, and who participated in the Bosnian government.

“Since there is no such thing as a ‘Bosnian’ entity, much less so a “Bosniac” ethnicity,”

Well, there was no such thing as a Yugoslav identity, [or American identity, or Iraqi identity for that matter], but it developed over time.

“The Muslims in Bosnia by insisting that they are “Bosniacs” and by calling the Bosnian-Serbs “Serbs” (minus the “Bosnian” prefix) perpetuated the myth that they are the real ‘locals’ as opposed to the ‘occupying’ Serbs and Croats.”

It is not clear to me that the Bosnian Army ever officially fought on that basis. There were high-ranking Serbs and Croats in the Bosnian Army. The expulsion of the Serb and Croat populations was never part of the Bosnian platform, unlike some Croatians and the followers of Karadic.

“please look carefully at the circumstances surrouding the so-called 1992 “Carrington-Cutileiro” peace plan WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY ALL SIDES AND WHICH COULD HAVE PREVENTED A WAR and which was then rejected by Itzebegovich (who took his orders from the USA)”

This plan was like the plan of biden and others for Iraq: a surrender to nationalism for a weak state [for the benefit of Israel in the Iraq case]. The CC plan was meant to make sure that Muslims power in Bosnia was severely curtailed; it was born out of a spirit of anti-Muslimism, even though Bosnia was not conceived as a Muslim state per se.

As for Itzebegovich, I see things differently: He was no US puppet, though he — and everyone else on the chessboard — was used and abused by bigger powers. I am not at all convinced that he and his political party withdrew from CC because the US told him to. They were already committed to the ideal of a sovereign state, not a decentralized rump. At Dayton, he was finally forced into accepting just that.

I sense that your analysis has led you to conclude that Itzebegovich was a villain in this matter. I could not disagree more. He was an Islamic ideologue for sure, but there is no sin in that either. He certainly never wanted to “purify” Bosnia of other communities. That Milosovic used the Islamic Declaration as a bogeyman — written 20 years earlier as an anti-communist dissident — is not Itzebegovich’s fault. Rather it is a reflection of the demagogics of nationalism which Milosovic exploited ruthlessly and to the ruin of his country. Which relates to my own position that nationalism per se is evil.

@ishamid: I think that it is perfectly normal and, in fact, desirable, that two thinking people come to different conclusions based on their own experiences and thinking. You most definitely did not waste my time, and I dare hope that some of the readers who will go over our exchanges will find some of it interesting. If anything at all, this proves that people of good will can sincerely disagree yet continue to respect each other as I definitely do.

Saint Augustine once wrote: “unity in the essential, freedom in the debatable, and love in everything”. Neither you nor I can do anything about the past. We can only act, however modestly, on what will happen in the future. And here, I think that you and I can agree on “the essential”: nationalisms, ALL nationalisms, are inherently bad and generators of violence. Sometimes nationalisms are made even worse by religion even though both true Islam and true Christianity are fundamentally above ethnic or national differences. Call it one ‘Islamic umma’ or remember the words of Saint Paul “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28) – the message is the same.

Let us disagree about the war in Bosnia, but stand together in doing all we can, however little that might be, to denouce any ideologies or plans to repeat the horrors which happened there to happen again (as, in fact they have, and still are) in other countries.

I also wish you peace, sincerely and respectfully,

The Saker

My view: this movie has played before, in 1999…

http://americangoy.blogspot.com/2010/03/putin-and-bombmakers.html

@ishamid: one more thing. earlier I mentioned classified materials which I had access to on a daily basis at the time of these events. Well, turns out that at least to such documents were leaked by somebody and are available for download on the internet. I recommend that you carefully read them. They are here:

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/documents/UNMO_Debriefing.pdf

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/documents/06361547.pdf

You might also want to take a look at this article which sums up some of the issues with the so-called “Srebrenica genocide”:

http://grayfalcon.blogspot.com/2010/03/bleiburg-in-potocari.html

@jack: If you knew the scope and scale of the terror network created by western intelligence

But I am aware of that. This is why I wrote in a comment above It is at least plausible that having had its minion Saakashvili humiliated and the “NATO miltiary training” comprehensively ridiculed, the US Empire felt that Russia’s position in the Caucasus needed to be weakened by making it look like Russia is loosing the control of the situation in Chechnia. Since I firmly believe that there is no relationship whatsoever between the military/security situation in Chechnia proper and the ability of the nominally ‘Chechen’ terrorist groups to strike in Moscow I don’t believe that there is a link here. But what matters is not so much facts as perceptions.

But for the life of me I cannot figure out how you managed to squeeze Hezbollah into this list. Hezbollah has NEVER been active in the Caucasus or Central Asia and it is definitely not a vassal of Iran which, in turn, is not a vassal of anybody…

And why would Putin not increase security and resources he is in fight a 50 state international Islamic terror network financed to tune of a billion dollar

You are assuming that there is a link between Russian legislation and the capability of the Russian state to fight terrorism. Can you explain HOW the CURRENT Russian laws are to blame for terror operations conducted by multi-billion dollars terror groups?

Paul Kleibnakov believed Berezovsky was behind the 99 attacks.

I know and that is very possible. I also believe that Berezovsky and his Chechen friends are those who really poisoned Litvenenko, BTW.

The apartment bombing where I think a false false flag attack perpetrated by Berezovsky, the Chechens and maybe with the help of a foreign intelligence agency to carry out the attack and make it look like the FSB carried it out.

There is, as far as I know, zero proof of that. Can you offer something in support of this hypothesis?

But let me be clear here: I believe that the ‘sudden’ resurgence of ‘Chechen’ terrorism has much less to do with Chechnia proper, and much more to do with a Western attempt to destabilize Russia, make it weaker and have it cave in on its demands about Iran. It is also payback for the Western defeats in the Ukraine and, of course, Georgia.

In a recent judgment handed down by the International Court of Justice, the Army of the Republic Srpska was named as a possible perpetrator of genocide against Muslims in Srebrenica. Despite the fact that charges against Serbia for complicity in genocide, albeit a local one that did or did not take place in Srebrenica, have been dropped, prejudiced political proponents ascribe all manner of guilt to Serbia and have thus concluded that the Serbian Parliament must issue an official public declaration that is tantamount to an apology for Serbia, which, during the years of Slobodan Milosević’s rule did not prevent the crime that took place in Srebrenica, and did not either then or afterwards make an effort to satisfy all the demands of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague by arresting and remanding every individual indicted by The Hague Tribunal who is sought in Serbia.

Milivoje Ivanišević, a publicist and war-crimes investigator in former Bosnia-Herzegovina, in his essay “Searching for the Truth,” proves that there are at least two sides (he refers to them as two “Identification Cards” or “IDs”) for Srebrenica, which are tied to the events that took place in May 1995. The first Srebrenica ID, to which Bosnian Muslim leaders in Srebrenica subscribe, is that genocide took place for which the International Court of Justice did not set an example by punishing the guilty party. According to the other ID card, subscribed to by Milorad Dodik and the government of the Republika Srpska, a war crime took place, but not genocide. These two IDs for the same city prove that the Srebrenica controversy cannot and will not be easily resolved.

Mr. Ivanišević’s investigative essay pleads in favor of the wartime Srebrenica ID that refutes the genocide charges. The editors, who do not wish to enter into disputes or commentaries on Srebrenica’s ID cards, wish to extend readers the opportunity to read Mr. Ivanišević’s engaging essay closely as a contribution to possible debate about such a Declaration from the Serbian Parliament.

Mr. Ivanišević privately believes that the Serbian Parliament cannot and will not issue a Declaration that would characterize the Republika Srpska as a possible initiator of genocide. He supports his convictions with compelling evidence.

http://serbianna.com/analysis/?p=496