MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE
JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Milosevic Trial Discussion Archive
- ————————————————————————————— Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague. This marks the first time a head of state has been personally prosecuted before an international criminal court. Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial? ———————————————————————————— NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed. ———————————————————————————— discussion archive Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 1:12 am Of course you can read the suggestion that Greece should've used its veto as *also* reading that Canada should have used its veto. And likewise for Luxembourg and Spain and so on, for every Nato member state. Who ever suggested otherwise? And who is the *it* and the *Greece* who did more to protest the aggression than other Nato countries? Was it the Greek people or their government? This is the meaningful distinction here. And that was the point of mentioning the massive protests, which were not organized by the government and which were in fact giving the kollabo's of PASOK the willies. I don't know what table of measures we use to calculate who bargained away "more" of their people's honour. Opposition to the aggression in Greece was running at something like 95+%, making it for almost all statistical purposes as high as it was in FRY itself. One could argue that a government abetting a war which over 95% of its people oppose is being more contemptuous of its citizens' will than one governing a population whose support for said war is in the vicinity of 40-60%, for example. In each case it's criminal complicity, and putting one on a higher moral ground than the other seems an idle exercise to me. Canada is one of the anglo-North Atlantic countries where a decade's worth of saturation discourse of defamation of the Serbs, of lop-sided assignment of all the responsibility for the Balkan conflicts to them and their leaders, could be exploited by our political class to great effect. This discourse was much less well-implanted in Greece, since the population there has the unfortunate characteristic - in NWO eyes - of actually knowing something about the region and its history. That the Greek government's complicity was expressed with some differences can be seen as a function of the very different manoeuvering room they enjoyed vis-à-vis their population and its sentiments, but sentiments which the government still betrayed and didn't honour. "Neutral" Sweden agreed to passage of German troops across its territory in WWII. One could argue that the Swedish government was calculating the very dire and certain consequences of saying "no." And Serbs paid dearly for the officers' coup and the abrogation of the Tripartite pact which frustrated Nazi plans for passage to the South Balkans. Can anyone suggest an analogous fate awaited Greece's people if the PASOK government had said "no" to Clinton and Blair? What would have been the reaction to a "no" in the streets of Greece? And the Greek street would probably have been just as welcoming to a "no" to the EU oil embargo, an act of blatant economic warfare of the type which has shortened lives in Yugoslavia, Iraq, North Korea and elsewhere, and which the Greek government didn't oppose. Jim Yarker Canada Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 5:27 am (1) Fair trial for Milosevic - he may very well be acquitted, or whatever. The West is in a win-win situation at The Hague, so the US could not care less (see media). Beside, it hates both ICT and ICC. Conviction seals the issue officially. Acquittal proves fairness? Beside, why not let the poor man go back to Belgrade? It may well be the most subtle "cruel and unusual punishment" ever dished out. (2) What good did Milosevic do? Wagging the dog What good can anyone do to a corpse? Embalming it? By the time Milosevic came to power, Yugoslavia was already dead. The death certificate was signed on November 30th, 1989, at Bad Homburg, Germany - just in case you forgot, recall what Beobanka and the Deutche Bank were concocting in the early 80s while Ceausescu was massaging the Middle East right before his death - preview of the now famous theme "Ex-President caught disheveled". (3) What happened in Yugoslavia, really? - Red herring preparation The US wanted only this: ensure no Eastern European Union emerges out of the Block after Russia's retreat. The controlled demolition of Eastern Europe was a masterpiece, wasn't it? It imploded like the World Trade Center it could have become within a few decades. The intention behind the demolition, however, was just too thin for comfort. While the hunting dogs were still barking at the Wrong Wall, it was only a matter of time until the 'Indo-Europeans' woke up and smelled the oil. So, it was high time for a Good Red Herring. Yugoslavia was just what the Chef ordered, so it was prepared as usual - cured by salting and slow smoking to a dark brown, Nazi color. (4) What about Socialism? Alive and well in the 'technologically advanced West'. What do you think that "shareholders in mutual funds" stand for? And what are they calling for these days? Globalism, internationalism - time to learn the new speak of the working class 'quiet, naturally inevitable, bloodless' revolution, just as predicted by Karl Marx. (4) What now? Yugoslavia and Romania (the two non-Soviets ex-darlings of the West), and Albania (the no-to-everybody misfit) are in disarray. The others are back to normal - totally insignificant pieces, good only to puzzle the Keg, when it gets restless). Greece has no longer any sex appeal, now that Russia is away. In short, just like Milosevic, the Balkans is a "dead man walking", ready to serve its historic mission - buffer zone, against the inevitable second coming of Islam. The question is only a matter of casting the role of Ottoman Empire. Iraq, unfortunately, just doesn't have it - but then, there are a few good candidates left. The audition is ongoing. Turkey performed very well, it seems - just ask the Kurds. John North Canada Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 5:36 am Re: Greece Indeed, what goes for Greece vis a vie NATO goes for all the "good" guys within NATO (ie Canada, etc). And indeed one needs to make clear that the Greek populace supported peace, while the Greek Government shamefully supported war. Finally, Now I will agree that the Greeks could have been as courageous as the Turks, when the Turks denied the US facilities to attack Iraq from Turkey, and declined massive (US) bribes Shameful, that the Greeks (Canadians etc) could not have been as courageous as the Turks in standing up to the Washington War Party AP V NY NY Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 7:25 am NO German troops were allowed in Sweden during Worl War II. Sweden would have ceased to be neutral . Sweden rejected German demands in that regard. What happen to Greece (not the only one) during the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, shows what military alliances can lead to: killing your friends! Gogol Charlemagne Shangri-La Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 9:03 am My apologies. I am wrong. Sweden allowed troops, mostly unarmed and in civilian clothing but also a whole fully armed division (Engelbrecht) on the fateful days of the German invasion of the USSR in June 1941, from Norway to Finland. All new stuff to me. Sorry if I hurt anyone feelings. Gogol Charlemagne Shangri-La Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 10:02 am Serbia's assembly vote brings Milosevic's party to the political scene Milosevic Trial Hearings scheduled for Wednesday 4 February 2004 and Thursday 5 February 2004 have been cancelled. Godfred Louis-Jensen Copenhagen D E N M A R K Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 12:28 pm A nine year old boy was killed by the North American troops in Irak , the family is getting 25 hundred "bucks" for the dead one and 15 hundred "bucks" for the wounded , all this thanks to 45' liar and Halliburton's "invisible" WMD's . No problema , the ICC is exclusive for "Nukeless" countries. M P Panama Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 3:18 pm An interesting conversation on how Greece was complicit in the NATO re-Balkanization of Yugoslavia in the 1990's. Certainly Greece was in a position to prevent the misguided 1999 air assault that resulted in the final disintegration of any coherent regional government in the area. When the recent announcement that the Bush administration would be appointing a commission to review the failure of intelligence in Iraq, it struck me that it could also look into the failures in the Balkans. Certainly, the alleged Kosovo "genocide" of 1999 as a pretext to war has been put to rest with the extensive forensic investigation of the past years. Perhaps it is time to put the dirty laundry out on the line for everybody to see. Adrian Justinson Seattle Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 3:54 pm Adrian thank you for kind words I but I beleive Serbian People shall wait for a ling time for that type of investigation. You see we are poor nation and we do not have any money to finance politicians to request such action. We do not have Arab Oil many do do so. But we can hope:) Dakic Ana Serbia Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 3:56 pm The Greeks were the only people who pretty much collectively supported the Serbs in their struggle against NATO's illegal war. The Macedonians and the Russians also showed significant support (by that, I mean the people, not the governments). P.S.- Before today, I kept having these error messages appear at the bottom of the screen when I logged onto the discussion forum like " fatal error on milo_text_line931" and wasn't able to scroll all the way down the page. Does anyone know what this is and how to prevent it? Thanks. Ryan Mircic UK Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 3:58 pm Hi Adrian. love Seattle. Does it say something about how the rest of the world views the US that no one has suggested that the US was itself in the position to prevent the misguided 1999 air assault. A sort of "you can't blame them -- what do you expect of Americans" mentality. Yes, I'm inclined to think that your nation deserve a lot better leadership than you've be blessed with in recent times. At the time there wasn't anyone I could have imagined having less respect for than Bill Clinton, given his disgraceful conduct in the White house. But George Bush proved me wrong on that score. All of Bill Clintons failings, and none of his assets frankly. Ian Davis Wateroo Ontario, Canada Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 4:01 pm This page is way too long and the servers are timing out before they have fully transmitted it to clients which can only recieve it slowly. This is the reason for errors people are seeing. Frankly, I think this forum would be better managed as a regular newsgroup. Failing that the administers of the back end servers should try to accomodate slow lines better. Ian Davis Waterloo Ontario, Canada Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 4:39 pm Thank you for your welcome. I will try to visit more often, the level of discussion on this forum is very erudite. For those that are discouraged by US foreign policy (and for those enthusiastic, whereever you may be), rest assured that the only constant in our policy is change, and that reversal (often complete reversal) is the norm. Adrian Justinson Seattle Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 7:37 pm Iraq: No WMD’s : : Kosovo: No Genocide The WMDs haven’t turned up. In 1999 there was no genocide in Kosovo. But Tony Blair has never allowed the facts to get in the way of a good war. Amid the present furore over the no-show of Iraqi WMDs, let us remember that in Kosovo our humanitarian Prime Minister dragged this country into an illegal, US-sponsored war on grounds which later proved to be fraudulent. In 2003 Tony’s Big Whopper was that Saddam’s WMDs ‘could be activated within 45 minutes’. In 1999 it was that Slobodan Milosevic’s Yugoslavia was ‘set on a Hitler-style genocide equivalent to the extermination of the Jews during World War Two’. By Neil Clark, The Spectator 14 June 2003. No matter how much Phony Tony is “economical with the actualite” his supporters and his lackey poodle dog the BBC - recently brought to heel by Hutton - bask in his mendacious glory. Read again all the hyperventilating hypocrisy by Cherry Picking Teflon Tony over the alleged atrocities in Kosovo and those atrocities the West helped Saddam Hussein with in Iraq. Then consider his statements on the real Genocide occurring in the Darfur province of Sudan. You never heard or read these statements by the great “humanitarian”? No: Nor did anyone else! Post scriptum: It seems Blair has elected to be portrayed in the history books as a fool rather than a liar. He claimed today that when he decided to attack Iraq he did not “understand” that Iraq’s non-existent WMD’s were only non-existent battlefield weapons. So that’s why Britain’s servicemen and women did not have an adequate supply of NBC suits! We are still waiting for his excuse for attacking Serbia over the non-existent “rape camps” and “mass graves” in Kosovo. The inevitable conviction of Milosevic by Blair’s New Labour associate, Judge Richard May, will ensure that he never has to provide one. Such is the purpose of The Trial of Milosevic. Peter Taylor Herts/UK Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 7:43 pm I have much more negative interpretation of the failure of the US policy in the Balkans. Whereas in Iraq I do believe that the mistakes in the postwar situation are mainly being made out of ignorance, the Yugoslavia policy was deliberate destruction of the last “communist state”. In addition the Croatian and Albanian diaspora in the US has exerted a strong political influence through active financial contribution to the US politicians. They, the policy makers were not ignorant of the Croatian crimes in WWII neither were they ignorant of the terrorism of the Albanian mafia. They were the recipients of the large donations both from the Croatians here in the US and the Albanians. Once the position was taken to be anti Serb, the propaganda took over and the bandwagon was impossible to stop. Those who were ignorant the propaganda overwhelmed. D. Jovanovic,physicist USA Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 8:11 pm Once the position was taken to be anti Serb, the propaganda took over and the bandwagon was impossible to stop. Those who were ignorant the propaganda overwhelmed. Drasko: the media likes those who suck up to them. When Slovenes, or Croats, or BosMos, sucked up to the media, whereas the Serbs did not, the media naturally factored that into their reporting. The 'victims' then avalanched them with 'reports' which, confirmed or unconfirmed, were published. Retractions or denials were absolutely ineffective. When one media source painted this picture, the other media sources were similarly obligated, in order for competition to take place. With the entire media in a 'consensus,' the NGOs began to parrot media allegations in very general terms. Note, there has never been a thorough historical investigation into the crimes alleged in the Balkans anywhere near comparable to investigations surround WWII, for example. Finally, with the media and the NGOs in full attack mode, the governments that actually instigated and abetted the misfortunes (e.g. Germany and the U.S.) were able to get the public opinion on their side. This enabled military interventions and 'tribunals' that 'confirmed' the 'truth' of the media-NGO allegations. Conversely, actions by other governments and organizations like NATO, were only seen to bolster the contentions made by the media. P M USA Thursday February 05, 2004 at 3:21 am For those who are having trouble accessing the Milosevic Discussion on the Jurist site, you can download the whole page by typing in : http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/data/issue_milo_discuss.txt 'Milosevic Discussion Text Download' and saving it as an html file. Then use a Web Page editor such as Word or Front Page and open it. You can't post a comment but you can at least read the whole page of comments. Also, at the bottom of the left hand side of the fixed Jurist menu there is a link called FEEDBACK. Click on it and send the site administrators a note asking for the page to be shortened more regularly so we can all access it properly. What's the point of hosting a discussion if people can't participate? You might also want to post a link referring people to this page 'Milosevic Discussion Alternative' when the Jurist discussion is inaccessible. The Hutton inquiry was a cover up by the same Lord Hutton who was busy covering up the Irish rebellion Sunday Bloody Sunday slaughters. "Lord May", that's what Mr May will become, will do the same as Hutton in order to earn his title, just like Paddy Ashdown and that crooked mouth Robertson earned their "lordships" for services rendered. By that standard, every whore in Britain deserves a knighthood, at least their services are paid for but more real. As for the WMDs, they seem to be just as existent as the Kosovo genocides. That's yet another military escapade our democratically elected leaders got us into with CLEAR LIES! Those who blame the Greeks for not vetoing NATO ask a great deal. The Greek people were against attacking Yugoslavia. So were the French, the Italians and the Germans, yet the politicians defied their own people through FAKE polls and blew YU to smithereens despite the HUGE demonstrations which the "FREE" press never reported on. So much for our democracies! Spain's people were 85% against Iraq yet their two bit little jerk president went in with Spanish troops. Same goes for Britain, Italy and Poland. The politicians who are supposed to "serve" the people do what they like, no matter what their people say! They call it "leadership". Guess what Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and other totalitarian "leaders" called it!? DEMOCRACY! Government of the politicians, by the politicians, for the politicians (and their rich and powerful masters). The working class can kiss their ass. Period! And the media Neros who are supposed to keep them honest fiddle as the "Old Democratic World Order" burns. Sure enough, they own them too. No point calling the fire brigade. That's been privatised as well. Given all the media bull written about Milosevic and his genocide and so on, in most civilised countries that would be "contempt of court" as it prejudices the courts findings. If Blair were in Milosevic's shoes, no British paper would dare write the crap they write about Milosevic. Gilligan suggested that the Iraq intelligence may have been "sexed up" and look at the way the Establishment comes down on the BBC for even raising the possibility that something MAY have been improper! CENSORSHIP AT ITS BEST... "Mr Gilligan and co, you will raise the questions we want you to raise or you will not raise any questions at all!" ... Shades of Peter Arnett and his carrer going down the gurgler for daring to mention the milk factory being bombed in Baghdad, Iraq War, Version 1. ...Shades of John Simpson and co being censured by Blair and Campbell for reporting on NATO's Yugoslav bombing excursions. David Oztralia Thursday February 05, 2004 at 5:21 am When the Serbian Flag Flew Over the White House On July 28, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson gave the following message to the American people. It was read in churches throughout the country and published in virtually all major newspapers. The Serbian flag was raised over the White House and all public buildings in this nation's capital. The message read: To the People of the United States: On Sunday, 28th of this present month, will occur the fourth anniversary of the day when the gallant people of Serbia, rather than submit to the studied and ignoble executions of a prearranged foe, were called upon by the war declaration of Austria-Hungry to defend their territory and their homes against an enemy bent on their destruction. Nobly did they respond. So valiantly and courageously did they oppose the forces of a country ten times greater in population and resources that it was only after they had thrice driven the Austrians back and Germany and Bulgaria had come to the aid of Austria that they were compelled to retreat into Albania. While their territory has been devastated and their homes despoiled, the spirit of the Serbian people has not been broken. Though overwhelmed by superior forces, their love of freedom remains unabated. Brutal force has left unaffected their firm determination to sacrifice everything for liberty and independence. It is fitting that the people of the United States, dedicated to the self-evident truth that is the right of the people of all nations, small as well as great, to live their own lives and choose their own Government, and remembering that the principles for which Serbia has so nobly fought and suffered are those for which the United States is fighting, should on the occasion of this anniversary manifest in an appropriate manner their war sympathy with this oppressed people who have so heroically resisted the aims of the Germanic nations to master the world. At the same time, we should not forget the kindred people of the Great Slavic race--the Poles, the Czechs and Jugo-Slavs, who, now dominated and oppressed by alien races yearn for independence and national unity. This can be done in a manner no more appropriate than in our churches. I, therefore, appeal to the people of the United States of all faiths and creeds to assemble in their several places of worship on Sunday July 28, for the purpose of giving expression to their sympathy with this subjugated people and their oppressed and dominated kindred in other lands, and to invoke the blessings of Almighty God upon them and upon the cause to which they are pledged. Woodrow Wilson, President, The White house Mrya Antonov Rossija Thursday February 05, 2004 at 7:11 am Mrya, can you provide the link of the above declaration - thanks Serjoe b Italy Thursday February 05, 2004 at 7:48 am http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/SerbianFlag.html Dakic Ana Serbia Thursday February 05, 2004 at 7:51 am Of course, http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/ and http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/nato/mess59.htm Mrya Antonov Rossija Thursday February 05, 2004 at 9:41 am Those who read carefully will know that no-one blames the Greek people as a collectivity for not vetoing the Nato aggression. The veto didn’t rest with them, but with their government, which didn’t exercise it and played a very real ancillary role in the aggression which the Greek people opposed by furnishing airspace and putting transport and logistical infrastructure at the disposal of Nato forces. The latter is so easy to document that it doesn’t justify the space it would use up here. The Greek government’s role and perspective was not as different from that of the other governing Euro-élites as some might think. I quote from an ANA news item from the spring of 1999: Without refraining from NATO's decisions (as it is a member), Greece has made it clear to its allies that a peaceful solution will benefit the stability of the entire region. Along these lines, Greek FM George Papandreou proposed a temporary 48-hour truce to give Belgrade time to accept the UN Security Council's decision and to put an end to the bombings. The Italian government issued a similar proposal as well. [my emphasis] And as to the longer view: Athens definitely wants to play a leading role in the restructuring of the region following the war's end. For this reason, it supports the EU's efforts for the drafting of a stability pact concerning southeastern Europe. The establishment of democratic principles, economic prosperity, stability and the creation of a regional security architecture throughout the Balkans are among the first objectives that need to be set for the "day after." [my emphasis - link: http://www.ana.gr/hermes/1999/jun/politics.htm] The code language used in the latter passage should be familiar to Jurist’s passionate scourges of forcible globalization and neoliberalism by Nato bayonets. IOW, just like Chirac and Schroeder apropos Iraq, we’re not crazy about the thuggish methods being pushed by the U.S./UK but we certainly don’t want to be “frozen out” from the booty or have our own élite suffer demotion or ostracism within the supranational structures of imperialism like NATO/EU and the various “pacts” and consortia cobbled together to loot the conquered peoples in question, etc. We, like Washington and London, want the few remaining recalcitrants blocking the completion of the Nato/EU-integrated post-socialist strip mall in the region to be put out, because we stand to benefit thereby. It’s just a question of means, not ends. And genuinely anti-Nato groups in Greece realized this of course, and pointed this out about their country’s government and élite, and they are Greeks, so I guess they’re entitled. And as for Canada’s governing Liberal tuning forks for neoliberalism and the New Nato, if public opinion in Canada had been running at 95+% in vehement opposition to Nato’s aggression, then it’s well to wonder whether Chrétien’s complicity and support for Nato would have been as careful and understated as PASOK’s was. If in the final reckoning France and Germany were to have been completely cut out of the spoils in Iraq as ostracism for heeding their own citizens’ opinion and world opinion on U.S./UK aggression, I don’t think it’s asking too much to expect French and German workers to accept that their country's corporations aren’t able to claim a share of the booty. It brings no meaningful long-term benefit to the ordinary people of these countries (or Greece) for their bourgies to be in on these imperial lootings (a little Lenin, anyone?), in fact, quite the contrary. And if “sacrifices” of this order are too extravagant to expect or to be even raising as protest demands, then we might as well throw in the towel right now as far as changing this corrupt and criminal international order of power relations is concerned. Understanding why the Euro-élites fly at half-mast in these Anglo-American muggings is not to justify their complicity in them. Jim Yarker Canada Thursday February 05, 2004 at 9:44 am Peter Taylor, - indeed: "Such is the purpose of The Trial of Milosevic" (February 04, 2004 at 7:37 pm). I may seem to you as a trivial detail, - but at least your mr. Blair has actually chosen his status as 'a fool' (in lieu of that as a liar). Our Danish Prime Minister, mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen (whom you may remember for sending a submarine, the HMS 'Sælen' (or: Phoca Vitulina!), to the Persian Gulf, if not up the River Tigris, as well as a snow plough in support of the Coalition) hasn't got quite that range of choice; now, as investigations into the 'background' for the war and occupation of Iraq are coming up in the U.S. and Britain, we, the Danes, also need to 'discuss' a little. Thus Tuesday in Parliament, mr. Rasmussen declared that: "There is nothing to investigate, as the decision of the Danish Parliament (Folketinget) on our participation in the war was all but based on open sources" of information (åbne kilder og tilgængeligt materiale), - incl. presumeably phone calls" from mr. Bush to the Prime Minister." Adds mr. Rasmussen: I have no recollection whatever of having been told that there might not be any WMD's (masseødelæggelsesvaaben) in Iraq... PS: Incidentally while I am on this subject of 'quality of information' I will refer to an article in the Danish daily Politiken, and written by mr. Jens Holsøe on the basis of info from "an eyewitness" and "an Albanian source wishing to remain anonymous". Holsøe writes that: "...KVM's experienced observers inform (us), that the majority of those 45 (people who were) killed, have been gunned down at short range. Several have had their eyes put out and ears cut off. One was beheaded. Most of the men were between 50 and 75 years old, all of them in civilian clothing. None of them wore the uniforms of the UCK or its shoulder insignia." Well, - when some time ago I confronted Jens Holsøe with this account he flatly denied having written anything like that. Just like our Prime Minister he had no recollection whatever..." Godfred Louis-Jensen Copenhagen D E N M A R K Thursday February 05, 2004 at 10:22 am Hello to all. Little more about the Greek Serbian connection: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/balkanhr/message/6372, related to « Athens mayor regrets Greek backing for Milosevic » from Financial Times of January 16, 2004. Spiro Supermanovic Mexico Thursday February 05, 2004 at 11:33 am Sarajevo massacre remembered by By Jim Fish BBC World Affairs Correspondent It was one of the single most bloody events of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and one of the most mysterious. The single shell blast in Sarajevo's Markale market on 5 February 1994 killed 68 people and wounded more than 100. The Muslim-led government blamed the besieging Serb forces. They, in turn, accused the government of shelling its own people, to win international sympathy. A report by United Nations peacekeepers at the time was inconclusive, although there have been persistent rumours that a secret UN report later pointed the finger of blame at the government. A mortar shell landed in the crowded market place just after noon, scything down the mainly civilian shoppers and traders between the tightly packed stalls. Rescue workers and UN personnel who rushed to help described a hellish scene spattered with blood and body parts. What aroused suspicion in some quarters was that the market was surrounded by high buildings and would normally have been considered safe from all but the most precisely targeted shell. Other reports noted that television crews were on the scene, filming within seconds of the blast. Shocking footage Indeed foreign broadcasters at the time, including at the BBC in London, were surprised at the speed and shocking detail with which they received the raw television pictures from Sarajevo. General Michael Rose, the British head of the Sarajevo-based United Nations Protection Force (Unprofor), said at the time that he could not be sure who was responsible. But in his memoir, Fighting for Peace, General Rose relates how three days after the atrocity he told the Deputy Commander of the Bosnian government forces, General Divjak, that the mortar shell had indeed been fired from their own side, according to UN experts. That proved to be a telling intervention from the British general. Within days the government and the Serbs had agreed to a ceasefire which resulted, under Nato pressure, in the removal of most of the Bosnian Serbs' heavy weapons from the Sarajevo area, and the first loosening of the nearly two-year siege. Although the UN never publicly accused the Bosnian Government of shelling its own people, Unprofor did accuse government forces of firing to provoke the Serbs, and of using hospitals and public buildings as cover for such fire. Under General Rose, Unprofor was firmly focused on preserving or extending ceasefires, and opposed to any escalation of the fighting which might drag Nato or the Western powers into conflict. Suspicion The Bosnian Government, on the other hand, was deeply frustrated by the arms embargo and Western diplomacy, which it felt tied its hands and those of its hard-pressed troops. In such an atmosphere of mutual mistrust, the Markale massacre 10 years ago and a similar attack in August 1995 became the focuses of outrage, recrimination, and ultimately successful military action by Nato forces to lift the siege of Sarajevo and bring the two sides to the negotiating table. What angered many Sarajevans was that even if their government had shelled its own civilians in order to drag the Western powers into war against the Serbs, it was the Serbs who were responsible for the protracted shelling of the city and for the deaths of at least 10,000 people, including almost 1,800 children. Perhaps the final verdict on the Markale incident lies with the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. Last month the court sentenced Bosnian Serb General Stanislav Galic to 20 years in prison for his part in the attacks on civilians, including the Markale massacre. General Galic was in command of the 18,000-strong Bosnian Serb Army from September 1992 to August 1994. However, there will almost certainly be those who continue to blame the Bosnian Government for the atrocity. The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia noted that while the verdict on Markale against General Galic was widely reported in the international media, it was ignored in Serbia itself. Dakic Ana Serbia Thursday February 05, 2004 at 11:36 am PS. What does this mean that BBC is after all this years saying this? Dakic Ana Serbia Thursday February 05, 2004 at 2:19 pm Carla cara mia , hai fino il 19 di questo mese per finire la commedia nella quale tu sei la prima donna . Then we will wait for three months to start contemplating the shit tsunami that's going to hit the ICTY . Al final la verdad prevalecera y la justicia sera hecha y Uds no pasaran . Takva je sudbina moja Karla kad se cisto igra cisto se dobia ali ako se krivo igra znas sta te ceka . Kisses and remember "un bel fugir tutta la vita scampa" M P Panama Thursday February 05, 2004 at 2:27 pm What really happenned at Srebrenica By Nebojsa Malic Peter Taylor Herts/UK Thursday February 05, 2004 at 2:48 pm Estas borracho? comportate como un hombre! ... ... ... Thursday February 05, 2004 at 3:29 pm Boy¡ I'm lucky I got mail from "the invisible man" hope to get some from "wonder woman" M P Panama Thursday February 05, 2004 at 4:13 pm SOY una mujer! Buenas noches MP... ... .... ... Thursday February 05, 2004 at 5:24 pm Jim, you talk of how things would have been different in Canada had been 95% opposed to the war against Serbia. Who is to be blamed for the fact that Canadians were not 95% opposed. Those who created the propaganda or those who bought into it. For surely Canadians by and large believe that they should back the UN, and in this instance NATO acted essentially in defiance of the UN; they did not put resolutions before the UN security council as required by the UN charter because they knew such resolutions would be vetoed by Russia. Canadians support NATO strongly, but surely not an offensive NATO that Russia had always warned of. Why did Canadians allow NATO's founding charter to be so grossly violated without even a word of protest. It was not at all in Canada's interest to transform NATO from a benign old boys club of musketteers (one for all and all for one) into a mere extension of US foreign policy. Neither was it at all in Canada's interest to see Europe subsequently distancing itself from NATO as it has. Canadians as a rule don't believe in bombing peaceful nations just because they can, but we jumped right into this one guns blazing. This is in stark contrast to Bosnia, where it was the US planes that bombed and the Canadians who had to try an remain neutral despite US violations of neutrality. Canadians as a rule have championed diplomacy over bombs, but in this instance Canada wasn't even talking; didn't even have seats at a table. The war against Serbia was by all these measures a very un-canadian thing. Canadians believe in justice, but I saw no one cringing when Cretien said of Arbour, "She's a very fine judge and I'm sure she'll make the right decision. We are considering nominating her for a seat on the supreme court..". To my mind this comment showed an utter contempt for justice and due process, and constituted a blatant attempt (quite possibly successful) to influence a judge before that judge had delivered a ruling on a case in which one was a defendant. When core canadian values are to be undermined by propaganda; the immovable object meeting the irresistable force so to speak, which is it that you as a Canadian think should give. What are we to do as Canadians if when the chips are down we prove ourselves so very un-canadian. Try harder, or give up on Canada? Ian Davis Waterloo Ontario, Canada Thursday February 05, 2004 at 5:47 pm Review of Spinning on the Axis of Evil by Scott Taylor. With some commentary on earlier conflict in Kosovo. Ian Davis Waterloo Ontario, Canada Thursday February 05, 2004 at 6:45 pm Those who think the intelligence services have "failed" in Britain and America are in cuckoo land. The same intelligence services did exactly the same in Kosovo, despite there being millions of sources of historical information as to who was doing what in YU in the last 100 years. THEY KNEW THE WHOLE STORY. It was in Britannica, it was on the CIA site, it was on the US Army site. The MEDIA also had plenty of resources in its own writings BEFORE Milosevic and they too changed them or ignored them. Loook at the Britannica editions BEFORE 1990 and after 1994. Quite different, edited to suit! Now that's not a failure of intelligence, that's downright DELIBERATE LYING and distortion. Don't anyone kid themselves, there is no INCOMPETENCE or FAILURE by anyone. IT is a deliberate and calculated operation which is designed to accelerate GLOBALISATION and the corporate takeover of the small and weak nations before it's too late and the American people wake up to the real story. As more and more Milosevics naturally spring up in those countries, the New Empire will start bleeding to death like all empires past and future. But not before it's sucked the lifeblood from the small and weak. Institutions like the ICTY are solely designed to buy them more time under the veneer of "humanitarianism and justice". When the Russians get spooked enough by the ever increasing US military presence on their borders we will no doubt have yet another nation added to the "axis of evil". So called "terrorism" will never look quite the same again... and the West's "humanitarianism and justice" will lead us into yet another bloodbath and not necessarily thousands of miles away but on our doorstep! Those who trust the puppet politicians in Washington and London to be smart enough to avoid it is a fool. It won't be a case of preserving our way of life but a case of preserving life on our planet. Now that's REAL INTELLIGENCE FAILURE for you! David Oztralia Thursday February 05, 2004 at 6:57 pm Intelligence failure or DELIBERATE, CALCULATED DISINFORMATION: 'Lies and More Lies' How could Milosevic's words and speeches be so misunderstood by accident? David Oztralia Thursday February 05, 2004 at 7:23 pm Ian, my answer to your 1st question about blame would be that I think both the purveyors of the propaganda and those who buy it have responsibility, but I don't think I'd say it's an equal responsibility, because I can't help but feel that those buying the shoddy product are victims in a way. I think of numerous people I know whose basic human decency as shown in their everyday lives is beyond doubt, including people who'd consider themselves to be in the ranks of the peace and social justice movements, but who actually bought into this stuff about Milosevic and the Serbs more generally. If you buy my theory, it was the greater geographical and cultural distance of Canadians from the region and its conflicts (compared to say, the people of Greece) which enabled the core values to which you referred to be so effectively neutralized in this case. Comedian Garry Shandling parodied the state of North Americans' knowledge of the Balkan conflicts perfectly when he had his talk show host character, Larry Sanders, quip "I'm so confused. I don't know whether to pull for Bosnia or Herzegovina." And in answer to your last question, I'm for trying harder, not giving up. Jim Yarker Canada Thursday February 05, 2004 at 8:19 pm Interesting how the Indians and Eskimos don't seem to be part of the discussion about a multi-national Canada. It is not too late to adapt the Yugoslav constitution! Gogol Charlemagne Shangri-La Thursday February 05, 2004 at 9:44 pm Jim, I have two problem with your far away principle. (1) The Serbian community makes up a small but important component of our population. When I went to Caravan in Toronto there was always a vibrant Serbian pavilion. In the university where I teach there is a Serbian community. Behind me lived for many years a family of Croats who like many fled Yugoslavia during/after the war. Surely large numbers of Canadians have visited Yugoslavia; its not like Yugoslavia was as obscure as somewhere like Turkmenistan. How can we as a nation claim ignorance of Yugoslavia or the Yugoslav people. To my mind it would be a bit like trying to pretend that we knew nothing about Austria. My second problem is this. Canadians pride themselves on being a tolerant multicultural society, and would I think strongly oppose the suggestion that we remained at core racists. But, if we can think bad things of an entire ethnically identifiable people merely because as you say they are a long way away and not well understood, and lied about, does not that imply that we remain capable of being extremely racist, despite all our protests to the contrary. I don't see how we could think like racists, and not even realise this, if our opposition to all things racist was genuine. My own suspicion founded on zero evidence, is that the roots of our willingness to demonize the Serbs is probably related to the fact that Serbs are orthodox, and it was the very unfamiliarity with this christian orthodox faith, which made it easier for Canadians than Greeks to demonize Serbs. In a strange sense it is easier to identify with what is known to be known (Catholisism) or known to not be know (Islam) than it is to identify with that which is just plain murky. For myself I know very little about orthodox christianity, but I do know that in Alaska the russian orthodox church was unique in treating the native peoples of North America as equals, and I respect the orthodox faith for that. Indeed my sense is that the Orthodox church puts the same emphasis on equality that the Catholic church put on inequality [the Pope for example being deemed infallible]. The original dispute that lead to the schism between the faiths was precisely about the equality of bishops on the one hand, versus the supremacy of Rome on the other, and I think this meme has purcolated down through the ages largely unchanged. Gogol, just so you know: Eskimo is a non-native name imposed on the Inuit by ignorant foreigners. Inuit have at least the right to consider the term Eskimo a racial slur. Native Americans are part of the discussion. It was Elijah Harper a native american who along with Clive Wells who electorally defeated Meech Lake, and I've talked about the concern of the Cree in northern Quebec. Indeed much of the conflict between the Quebec government and the Cree was that on the one hand Quebec said the French were a distinct founding nation within Canada entitled to sovereignty and protection of their culture, while in the very same breath denying that this was equally true for the Cree, and other native americans. Ian Davis Waterloo Ontario, Canada Friday February 06, 2004 at 12:13 am "core canadian values"…"What are we to do as Canadians if when the chips are down we prove ourselves so very un-canadian. Try harder, or give up on Canada?"…"Canadians believe in justice" and similar nonsenses. Well, the "core value" of this forum is that it mistakenly thinks that the only subjects of this world are "Serbs", "Greeks", "Canadians". This is the basic outlook and vocabulary of most of the participants, like Ana, Ian…, not to speak of pathological Serbian nationalists like Pera and others. Hence the most relevant argument which could be delivered to this forum is the refute of this backward view, held by most of the participants, the backward view that coincides with that of the book "Hitler's Willing Executioners", the critical review of which could be found in: #### Anti-Semitism, Fascism & the Holocaust ## A critical review of Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners link to: Hitler's Willing Executioners "Here we encounter a terrible problem: For all that has been said and written about the Holocaust, it remains a strangely obscure event. It is true that a vast amount of empirical data about the Holocaust has been collected. We possess detailed information about how the Nazis organized and executed their "Final Solution," the murder of 6 million European Jews. And yet the issues that are central to an understanding of the Holocaust--its historical origins, political causes and, finally, its place in the history of the twentieth century--have, with very few exceptions, been dealt with poorly. This is, really, an intolerable state of affairs. The one basic question raised by the Holocaust, "Why did it happen?", is precisely that to which it is most difficult to obtain an answer. " "The principal theme of Goldhagen's book is easily summarized. The cause of the Holocaust is to be found in the mind-set and beliefs of the Germans. A vast national collective, the German people, motivated by a uniquely German anti-Semitic ideology, carried out a Germanic enterprise, the Holocaust. The systematic killing of Jews became a national pastime, in which all Germans who were given the opportunity gladly and enthusiastically participated." For the thorough rebuttal of this outlook, and indeed the outlook of most of the participants of this forum, please refer to the above link! Goran Mihajlovic Yugoslavia Friday February 06, 2004 at 12:31 am When Alaska was first sighted in 1741, the Native population numbered about 74,700. Thirteen years after Alaska was sold by the Russians, the population was decimated to 33,000. The Eskimo population went from about 54,000 to about 18,000, in just 150 years. Walter Trkla Kamloops Canada Friday February 06, 2004 at 1:16 am Goran, the article you cite contains the word social[ist] 80 times in it. I've zero problem with socialists being socialists, but I do get a little concerned when it is all they can talk about at a party. The author of this article has a tendency to ramble on without end, providing not even a road map for where he is going or why he is going there. I had real trouble reading this article as a critical review of anything or anyone. If he had a point to make he might consider making it in fewer words. All I got from this article was a lingering sense of the authors resentment that socialism wasn't everyones topic of choice, coupled with a belief on his part that every wrong can be explained by "the failure of the working class to overthrow capitalism". What intrigues me with that premise is how one then goes on to explain the failure of just about every society where workers have actually succeeded in overthrown capitalism. I refute Goldhagen's belief system but for different reasons. I believe in the goodness of our shared humanity -- not in the claimed evil that lurks in the heart of each of us. My dilemma given that belief system is the very understanding of why good people do bad things. This is why I grapple with what it was that lead Canadians astray. I hope that I and others in understanding wrong better, will in future be better armed to do right. Ian Davis Waterloo Ontario, Canada Friday February 06, 2004 at 4:15 am Ian Davis: I thought you are a literate person. When you can find word ‘socialist’ 60 times, I presume you could find the major points easily. But the problem is, perhaps, that you don’t want to know the truth, because that would be a kind of instantaneous exposure of yourself in front of the mirror. So you can safely go on reflecting on the very important question “why good people do bad things.” In that endeavor, Joel Aksamit could share with you some insights of his own. Eventually, you might even find out “what it was that lead Canadians astray” . Yugoslav saying: ‘Maksim u Zagreb, Maxim iz Zagreba’, or ‘Ian in Zagreb, Ian from Zagreb’. Few more words on the content of your masterpiece: You start with a stupid remark that “the article you cite contains the word social[ist] 80 times in it”. All that not realizing how many times there is word ‘Canada’ in only few passages of yours. In an article on fascism and social systems, why is it strange to mention socialism many times? After all, socialism is the main critical thought for century and a half. “The author of this article has a tendency to ramble on without end, providing not even a road map for where he is going or why he is going there. I had real trouble reading this article as a critical review of anything or anyone.” For road maps you can ask Bush. As to the length, it is exactly because it is a critical review supported with historical facts, it is not a paper consisting of only titles, what is, apparently, what you would like more. I wander what would become of literature and Art, if Tolstoy or Shakespeare would have adopted your advice to make the point “in fewer words”? But animosity towards culture is another merit of you and participants of this forum. And finally: “I refute Goldhagen's belief system but for different reasons.” But you don’t! Goldhagen's belief system is the only system you have, and you display it here repeatedly (together with others). “What intrigues me with that premise is how one then goes on to explain the failure of just about every society where workers have actually succeeded in overthrown capitalism.” E pa necu da ti kazem. Kad porastes kasce ti se samo. Well, I wont tell you. When you grow up, you will understand it yourself. Goran Mihajlovic Yugoslavia Friday February 06, 2004 at 6:54 am "Goran I don’t agree with you about Vera (even if she does not agree with me about a lot). She provides critique of trial. She does make political points sometimes that I do not agree with but c'est la vie. Your last message starting to sound unnatural like you have party line. You cant expect open mind when your own mind is not open. Though I dont think there are much open minds here. Most already made up their mind up." Arandjel Pasic, my friend, thank you for your remark! You are right. Its nice when there is somebody to correct me. In fact, Arandjel’s posts come as a great refreshment. It is delightful to be reminded that some of that distinct, talented freedom-loving spirit that characterized some of our people in Yugoslavia still exists! As to Vera Martinovic, I am sorry, but I cannot withdraw my criticism of her. One would hope and expect from a talented woman like her, who belongs to not-so-many educated people in Serbia who have access to international resources of information, that after more than a decade of tragedies assume somewhat different role than she does at present, the role that is illustrated by her translation of that poor article from Yu newspaper. There are much more useful things she could meaningfully do, or for that matter, translate. And she must not let down the theory of evolution, by remaining all her life the very same petty-bourgeois snob. There should be, after all, some progress in the heads of people there. If my remark was a bit too sharp, it is to wake her up, certainly not to insult, exactly because her bright mind gives some reasons for optimism when her development is concerned. That’s perhaps the main difference between her and other Serbian nationalists on this forum, namely that for her there is still some hope! Goran Mihajlovic Yugoslavia Friday February 06, 2004 at 7:26 am Buenos Dias "misteriosa" espero que tu belleza vaya acorde con tu "bravura" , yo no tengo temor en identificarme y si te es "incomodo" mi mail es milemir@hotmail.com M P Panama Friday February 06, 2004 at 7:43 am This is unreal , some "bongo bongo" paper in Nigeria posts Gen. Augusto Pinochet like former Pres. of Peru in some Taylor - Milosevic "Spaghetti" tangle news .Learning form the Brits , first spinning steps , lousy students . M P Panama Friday February 06, 2004 at 8:22 am Russians: Friends of the Serbs? Extracts from an article by Alexander Ivanko in the NYT Dayton tried to equate two things that couldn't be equated: civility (Izetbegovic, Oric, Mujahedin …)and barbarity (Karadzic, Plavsic, Mladic …). It set a precedent that still sends shivers down my spine - and not only mine - by legitimizing ethnic hatred. The Bosnian Serbs, after waging a vicious war against their neighbors, were awarded their own state, Republika Srpska, even if it was called an "entity." A policy of extermination of thousands of innocent civilians in concentration camps led to international recognition and acceptance. The Bosnian Serb entity has failed the "German test." No program similar to the de-Nazification of Germany after World War II was ever introduced in Srpksa. Wartime barbarity should be punished by both political and constitutional means. There is, of course, room here for some blackmail … Republika Srpska should also institute a de-Nazification program that would start exorcising the population of the demons of hatred still howling in the minds of many. The only honorable leader in Bosnia and Herzegovina was the country's first president, Alija Izetbegovic, who tragically died last year. He personified the civility of the defenders of Sarajevo, the tragedy of the hundreds of thousands of ethnically cleansed, the memory of those who were killed in Srebrenica and in the many other plains, hills and mountains of Bosnia. His sad eyes during the Dayton talks said more than the upbeat press statements issued by its powerful organizers. It was the civility of thousands of Bosnian citizens (not the Serb citizens?) that saved the country's honor. Did Ivanov never hear of Nasser Oric, the Mujahedin fighters and the comments of UN force leaders such as General Rose on the culprits for the Sarajevo massacres? Peter Taylor Herts/UK Friday February 06, 2004 at 8:28 am Ian, I was aware of the Eskimos, real and acceptable, name being Inuit. I, however asked patrons having coffee at a cafe under the shadow of a major learning center here, and unfortunately only the old imperial term was understood. Gogol Charlemagne Shangri-La Friday February 06, 2004 at 9:09 am IAN Eddy-baby, sorry, I just remembered one scene from Amadeus, when Austrian ruler gives his opinion on one of Mozart’s melodies: “Its excellent…excellent, …just…just…too many notes!”, he says. That expresses you meaning more vividly, I guess. Goran Mihajlovic Yugoslavia Friday February 06, 2004 at 9:47 am Many who post on this web page have used statistics in one way or another as evidence of who influenced the breakup of Yugoslavia. There is a great deal of discrepancy as to what nation group was most influential in the government of Yugoslavia after Tito.Tito, prior to his death had created a rotating presidency where one could not be the national or party president for more than one year. In his wisdom he felt that there was no one of his stature to replace him.After his death a position, president of the collective presidency, was created. This person held the post for one year. Tito was president for life. After Tito’s death the president (prime minister) was the head of Yugoslavia, These persons came from various ethnic groups that made up Yugoslavia. As you can see each table is related to Table #1 total population. It is clear from these statistics that Serbs even though, comprised the largest nation group did not have proportional representation in position of power. This was also true of the top positions in the army and the police. After Tito’s death it was these ministers and heads of police (Internal affairs) that held all the power in the country. Tito’s ethnic distribution of power added to the merry go round that developed after his death. It seems that Tito was a visionary as he did not expect Yugoslavia to survive after his death. He shared this prophecy with Mrs. Harriman the wife of Averill Harriman the 1950’s American diplomat> In an ABC interview, Mrs. Harriman spoke about her conversations with Tito explaining his concerns for post Tito Yugoslavia. One can see that the system (revolveing presidency) created by Tito became a three ring circus but it is clear from the tables who gave the orders and who carried the water and who ultimately broke up Yugoslavia. Table #1 illustrates who lived in post Tito Yugoslavia and the tables that follow show the The New Class that ruled Yugoslavia. It is clear from these tables that proportional representation did not exist. Tabled Statistics: Yugoslavia ### Table No.1 : Population of Yugoslavia (Census for 1991) Source: Statistic Institute NFRY
  Nationality | Population | %
  Serbs | 8,420,523 | 35.8
  Croats | 4,455,897 | 18.9
  Muslims | 2,305,929 | 9.8
  Slovene | 1,764,870 | 7.5
  Macedonian | 1,393,903 | 5.9
  Montenegrin | 580.468 | 2.5
  Albanian | 2,220.564 | 9.4
  Jugoslav | 1,034,845 | 4.4
  Hungarian | 463,101 | 2.0
  Turkish | 127,368 | 0.5
  Other | 773.000 | 3.3
  Total | 23,540.448 | 100.0
  Comment: Table #1 indicates that in July 2003on the territory of former Yugoslavia lived 23,056,839 people, less than in 1991. ### Table # 2: Who Ruled Yugoslavia after TITO Source: Statistic Institute NFRY
  Year | Prime Minister | Nationality | Minister of the Interior | Nationality
  1981 | V. Djuranovic | Montenegrin | Franjo Hrqevic | Croat
  1982 | Milka Planinc | Croat | Stane Dolanc | Slovene
  1983 | Milka Planinc | Croat | Stane Dolanc | Slovene
  1984 | Milka Planinc | Croat | Stane Dolanc | Slovene
  1985 | Milka Planinc | Croat | Stane Dolanc | Slovene
  1986 | Branko Mikulic | Croat | Dobrosav Culafic | Montenegrin
  1987 | Branko Mikulic | Croat | Dobrosav Culafic | Montenegrin
  1988 | Branko Mikulic | Croat | Dobrosav Culafic | Montenegrin
  1989 | Ante Markovic | Croat | Petar Gracanin | Serb
  1990 | Ante Markovic | Croat | Petar Gracanin | Serb
  1991 | Ante Markovic | Croat | Petar Gracanin | Serb
  If one gives the same weight to the President whose main job is the national economy and the most important Minister in the country who safeguards the regime one can see which national group had the most say in government. ### Table # 2: Who Ruled Yugoslavia after TITO Source: Table #1 & #2
  Nationality | Percent of Total Population | Percent in Top Ministerial Positions | Power vs. Population X
  Serbs | 35.8 | 13.6 | 0.38
  Croats | 18.9 | 50.0 | 2.65
  Muslims | 9.8 | 0.0 | N/A
  Slovene | 7.5 | 18.2 | 2.43
  Macedonian | 5.9 | 0.0 | N/A
  Montenegrin | 2.5 | 18.2 | 7.28
  There is no question from these statistics which nationality gave the ORDERS and which nationality carried the WATER Table #1 &#2 show who gave orders in Yugoslavia while Table #3 show which nationality dominated international affairs. ### Table # 3: Who represented Yugoslavia Internationally by Nationality? Minister of International Affairs and key ambassadorial positions
  Year | Foreign Affairs | USA | Germany | France | USSR | UN | UK
  1981 | Croat | Croat | Croat | Croat | MNegro | MNegro | Serb
  1982 | Macedonian | Croat | Croat | Macedonian | MNegro | Slovene | Serb
  1983 | Macedonian | Croat | Croat | Macedonian | Serb | Slovene | Serb
  1984 | Macedonian | Serb | Croat | Slovene | Serb | Slovene | Serb
  1985 | Muslim | Serb | Serb | Slovene | Serb | Slovene | Macedonian
  1986 | Muslim | Serb | Serb | Slovene | Serb | Slovene | Macedonian
  1987 | Muslim | Serb | Serb | Slovene | Serb | Serb | Macedonian
  1988 | Croat | Serb | Serb | Slovene | Serb | Serb | Macedonian
  1989 | Croat | Muslim | Croat | Croat | Serb | Serb | Serb
  1990 | Croat | Muslim | Croat | Croat | Croat | Serb | Serb
  1991 | Croat | Muslim | Croat | Croat | Croat | Croat | Serb
  The main job of Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Ambassadors was to represent the interests of their homeland as well as explain the host country’s interest to the citizens at home. ### Table #3: Who Represented Yugoslavia Internationally Source: Table #1 & #3
  Nationality | Population (%) | Positions in International Affairs (%) |
  Serb | 35.8 | 35.0 | 0.98
  Croat | 18.9 | 27.3 | 1.44
  Muslim | 9.8 | 7.8 | 0.80
  Slovene | 7.5 | 13.0 | 1.73
  Macedonian | 5.9 | 13.0 | 2.20
  Montenegrin | 2.5 | 3.9 | 1.56
Even here there is no question who gave the orders and who carried the water. ###

The media up to now has everyone believing that the Serbs dominated Yugoslavia when in fact the opposite is true. As Yugoslavia starts to disintegrate there are less and less Serbians in position of authority and in international service in NATO countries protecting Yugoslavia. Those in positions of power supported their ethnic interests and they, excluding the Serbs, spoke openly after the fall of Yugoslavia that their intention was to partition the country. In many cases after the fall of Yugoslavia they were greeted as national heroes in their home republics, More importantly, the accredited ambassadors in the NATO countries worked exclusively to promote the ethnic group of the ambassadors rather than the interests of Yugoslavia. I think that these Statistics lay to rest the MYTH that the Serbs were responsible for the demise of Yugoslavia,
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 10:21 am

  Walter Trkla, what a despicable fascist scum you are!

  Typically for this kind of fascist propaganda, you give selective data, manipulate them, not define the categories, what is the basic requirement of any statistics. You cite as Source: Statistic Institute NFRY. What is NFRY, do you have any shame? In your fascist propaganda you have just missed to mention those 10% Albanians, as if none held any position. More important is that, like you -- Serbian fascists, other fascists, Croatian, Moslem and others would be able to produce similar arguments to prove their fascist agenda. And even if some statistics of this kind would expose some asymmetries, it could never, except in your fascist dirty mind, be interpreted as: ¡°There is no question from these statistics which nationality gave the ORDERS and which nationalitycarried the WATER¡±

  What a scum you are! But you just excellently expose dirtiness and bankruptcy of Serbian nationalism on this forum. It would be better if you would ask for help some specialists, in medical institutions responsible for this kind of problems.
  Goran Mihajlovic
  Yugoslavia

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 10:27 am
  I read this discusion often but without contributing, partly because my English is not so good. However now I have to react because some people are being very narow minded, although they pretend to be very liberal and open minded in very weird way.
  First I have to say all criticism of the Greek people is out of place, because they helped Serbs when everyone els was against us and they helped so much it nullifies everything their goverment did. You know your friends in trouble and that is why we call Greeks our brothers with every right. Politicians are politicians and people are people.
  I think Arandjel's views are very worrying. Before I thought all stories about Soros brainwashing is just socialist propaganda, but now I have to wonder. If Serbs in begining of XIX centurey had Arandjels atitude there would be no Serbia today, nor Greece, nor Bulgaria, especialy German-servant countries like Slovenia or Croatia. They would have said "why fight the Turks when we can join them and prosper". Maybe our ancestors should have all converted to Islam that would have prevented many misfortunes, Arandjel? Maybe Serbs should have allowed Austria to conquer them and live long and prosper? To convert to Catoliks and speak German?
  And what about Hitler, what would you Arandjel said on Hitler's ultimatum: "better slave than grave" and "better pact than war"? Like Croats and Slovenes did, who you admire so much? To turn against Greeks and kill them with our vilains Croats and Germans? I now see why you are criticising mister Trkla's pride, because you don't have any. Where is your dignity? Do you have any? Or can that be bought? The same goes to Goran, the Marxist liberal democrat, whatever.
  Goran doesn't like self conscious Serbs so he insults people who have dignity not to insult back and get on that level, like Vera. You show you open mindness and liberal spirit calling Vera "underf@@@@d Belgrade p@@@@". You are shining with open mindness, is that your level? Remind me not to vote for whoever you are voting. Radicals and Socialists may be slimes, but they are your level too.
  Also I have to object to mister Vucelic and other American Serbs. Do your children know a word of Serbian except baba and deda? How exactly are you being patriotic Aleksandar, by arguing with patriotic Albanians on internet? Why not learn from Jews and Japanese dijaspora, who got together and invested and built factories in their homeland that are now examples of prosperity? Couldn't American Serbs do the same? We don't need George Soros to have prosperity nor NATO, but some solidarity from our compatriots abroad could turn things around! Kingdom of Serbia was the most prosperous country in the region before it formed Yugoslavia, it can be done again. But of course I am probably talking to the deaf.
  I also have to say that I am pleasantly surprised that people from so many countries are so well informed about things in Serbia and posts of Peter Taylor and Ian Davis and others are inspiring.
  Finally, Mr. Wilcoxson Arandjel did make you look silly about the Socialists who you like soo much, have you now learned what kind of slimes they are?
  Jovan N
  Serbia

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 10:29 am
  MP Again you dont have any argument so why even try? Your 'heritage' may seem important to you but if it were that important you could return. It is easy to preach from long way and to call patriotism into question of other people. Ask yourself question first. If you expect better from somebody else than you give yourself then it is wrong. Words are cheap. Try living in Serbia today and see how much energy you have to question patriotism.

  Walter Trkla 'The Serbs in Hungary have been Madjarized'. Does that mean we now have to Serbianize Hungarian minority in Vojvodina? What do you suggest Mr Trkla? Really what do you suggest? Maybe getting rid of Vojvodina autonomy (something which will create Hungarian seperatists so you can say 'see I told you they are seperatists'). Maybe we should do same thing in United States. Rule from Washington That way to stop Hispanics taking over in Florida! Lets start it now should we? 'O hispanics will want their own state soon... Americans are being hispancized'. Actually Klu Klux Klan probably already started this talk.

  Hungary official policy is that Vojvodina is a part of Serbia. The people of Vojvodina dont want to become Hungarian. But why not scare people anyway?

  I am at war with myself? Strange Im quite at peace now that all the warmongers and killers have gone away. Mr Trkla you are the one who seems at war with himself. One moment disgusted with Western policy another admitting love of the West and happy to take the financial benefits the West have given you. Benefits ripped from poorer nations through policies of North American governments.Of course you accuse me of loving the West when I worship neither Western policy or way of life. Thats after your medicine of telling us that you dont care for Serbian peoples suffering today or on protests in 90's because it is nothing compared to your own suffering.

  No I dont have problem with your opinions Mr Trkla. It is that you are incapable of seeing anything from another view. And you want others to suffer as you have. I believe opposite. You have been blinded by your own experience. I am sorry for that and if you choose not to listen to people you dont agree with you lose not me. I continue my education. Mr Peric I gambled nothing. The Serbian government gambled it. I thank you for picking out only 1 of the 6 points I answered to you. I must admit I dont really understand point you are making. Can you say it clearly? J Askamit I have child yes. You should read some about behaviourism and nature nurture debate. Even biggest Freud follower doesnt say child is even 50 percent experience / 50 born. Most experts agree that a child behaves way it does 80 percent due to experience and 20 percent nature. So yeah its easy to blame child or mysterious nature but fact is that child is product of upbringing.

  P Bora so I understand you now withdraw your comments about invented Vojvodian and Montenegrian nationality? If only you would answer point I will stop asking you about it.

  Gorane Im not sure if you are making fun at me or something else but I accept your comment in a nice way.

  I hope I will not dispoint you to again try to correct you but I think you are also hard on Ian Davis. Point is that people are not lighted up by political philosophy. You know this. I agree with you that much to much ethnic points are made here and that most problems in soceity are social and economic not ethnic. This is the point that most people are missing. You also know that most people from Yugoslavia dont even understand Socialism / Communism. They think it is same sytem as Tito that they grow up in.

  As for Vera it is not possible to change her mind either. Maybe problem is / was that she started up being fan of the West (ukoliko sam ja razumeo') and got completely pissed later after collapse of Jug. (Forgive me Vera for this simple and not good enough explanation) She does make some very good points on the trial believe me.
  Arandjel Pasic
  Jug

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 10:42 am
  I watched yesterday on the TV History channel : “The End of War in Europe”. The scenes of horror imbedded themselves again into my brain. Particularly those of the heaps of dead bodies found in the concentration camps.

  That was truly a systematic GENOCIDE!

  To now start accusing Serbs or Milosevic of “genocide” is a travesty of justice and common sense. Based on the picture of one emaciated “prisoner” allegedly behind the wires, after few months of imprisonment makes NO case of genocide. It is the insult to every Jew on this earth to equate such alleged crimes with the horrendous, systematic extermination undertaken by Nazi Germany.
  D. Jovanovic,physicist
  USA

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 11:01 am
  “Too many notes”

  These words attributed to Emperor Joseph ll of Austria on hearing Mozart’s opera Il Seraglio remind me of those of comedian Eric Morecambe in reply to Maestro Andre Previn’s criticism of his ham fisted attempt at a piano concerto.

  Putting down his baton and walking over to the piano conductor Previn expostulated “You are playing all the wrong notes.”

  “No I’m not.” replied a contrary Morecambe. “I’m playing all the right notes.”

  “But not necessarily in the right order.”

  The words on musical notes by comic Morecambe or Emperor Joseph should not be taken too seriously: Mozart ranks among the supreme musical geniuses of all time.

  Unlike many commentaries on The Trial of Milosevic: truth and beauty are the very essence of Mozart’s work.
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 11:31 am

  Jovan N: “But of course I am probably talking to the deaf.” -- No, how can that be, there are so many ears for your 19th century vision of “Kingdom of Serbia” with national “pride”. You missed only to put it all in a Orthodox-Christian fundamentalist context, inadvertently I presume. We are enlightened by your vision. It is such a novelty these ten-more years.

  I don't take responsibility for that impolite remark to Vera, but your petty concern for morality is comical as always. By the way, I don't believe Vera herself would argue that she has too much of that. Usually, the more -- the better. I hope Vera you don't mind this innocent joke.

  While we are still on the subject of “morality”: “The baring of pop singer Janet Jackson’s breast during the halftime show at Sunday’s Super Bowl football game has become the occasion for a vast and hypocritical outpouring of official moral outrage in the US. It has given rise to demands for further censoring the television airwaves and provided yet another opportunity for whipping up the Christian fundamentalist “base” of the Republican Party…The guardians of American decency are up in arms…Right-wing “family groups” had a field day piously denouncing Jackson’s nationally televised exposure…“but it is even more encouraging to see moms and dads rise up in defense of their sons and daughters to say ‘Enough is enough.’ That reaction, more than any government agency’s action, has the greatest potential to clean up what passes for popular entertainment these days.” (This “rising up” has the usual character of such stage-managed affairs. Extreme right web sites and radio talk-show hosts call on their readers and listeners to bombard the corporation or government body in question with protests and the media obediently describes the “public outrage.”)…The Wall Street Journal’s editorial (“Viacom’s Porn Channel”) is so sex-obsessed that it raises questions all on its own. In a handful of paragraphs, the Journal editors refer with apparently considerable relish to “simulated masturbation,” “simulated sex,” “breast-baring incident,” “scantily clad nymphettes,” “casual sexual hookups,” “triple-X stars” and “the daily sex diet [on MTV].” The editorial calls on the Viacom entertainment conglomerate (owner of CBS) to rein in its subsidiary, MTV, and fire the latter’s president, Judy McGrath.”

  link to: Hypocrisy and right-wing politics fuel furor over Super Bowl episode

  I guess, you are a great supporter of death penalty as well. After all, petty-bourgeois Serbian nationalist cannot fail to imitate US republican right-wing ideology in its entirety, can he?

  Arandjele, of course it was in a nice way! Your criticism is always welcomed, I might not always agree however, but I enjoy your style of polemic. You have made many witty points before, which made me laugh sweetly. I have copied them and will keep them for the time I miss that spirit I described. And, you are right again, though I am a little bit naughty in nature, so not always able to listen to your good advices. I don’t try to be perfect anyway, somebody else would have to achieve that for me. I say what comes to my mind, whatever.

  As to Vera, again, she catches details, misses the substance, and we are loosing generations…
  Goran Mihajlovic
  Yugoslavia

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 12:03 pm
  Arandjel , Is it that hard for you to understand few simple points , Milosevic isn't the sole responsable for the destruction of Yugoslavia , You as a former yugoslav have your share of the shame of having your ex-President on trial in a foreign country by the same people that bombed your country with no justification , That the whole world thinks of us Serbs as if we belong to some barbaric horde still uncivilized thanks to the western media and you think that bending over is the best way to overcome injustice and prejudice , this is what we are fighting for here in case you have not noticed , so nobody points at your children and the children of your children as a scorn race and true justice is made , after I,m finished with my share of cleaning our race I don't give a shit for your political crap and what you do afterwords , and if after all this struggle for the truth you as Serbs don't put your shit together I'm going to be the first one to start pissing on you .
  M P
  Panama

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 12:04 pm
  Arandjel and Goran; I think you misunderstand me a little if you see me talking of Canada as one who is ethnocentric. I emigrated here as an adult from England in 1976. Therefore I've known two very different cultures, and very naturally find myself comparing them. I have one foot in Europe and one in the New World. They really are different worlds, and the values held by one culture are not necessarily the values held by the other.

  I see societies values deciding whether a societies works or does not work, and it is the effective working of society which make the holding of the values possible. Both depend very much on the other. And it is a very much more precarious balance than people grasp. Defining values cease to define when they no longer are useful values to hold. This is why it is so very easy for any community to become that which it never was.

  Bosnia from what I read was very much like Canada -- a multinational harmoneous community proud of its diversity and its tolerance. It was these things because it needed to be these things to work. When it stopped being these things it stopped working.

  Canada didn't become what it was when I arrived through being somehow better than other nations. It became what it was primarily as a result of political manipulation. Trudeau, concerned about Quebec's aspirations to separate from Canada diluted the "Pure Wool" Francophone vote, by transforming Canada from an us English, them French dicotomy, into the multiculural nation it is today. He drastically altering Canada's immigration policies. When I applied to emigrate to Canada my application was denied on the grounds that Canada had enough English people.. back then they wanted essentially any one but more English or more French.

  Arriving in 1976 I saw things very much with open eyes. I saw precisely how the then government manipulated an entire population to become something it hadn't till then ever imagined itself even wanting to be, by use of clever propaganda, and massive advertising campaigns. Back in the 1940's and 50's Canada had been anything but tolerant. It wasn't as easy as it might be imagined today to get English speaking Canadians comfortable with the idea that cereal boxes should be labelled in both English and French.

  But todays values are no more cast in stone than the values which in times past defined what it was to be a Canadian. If we casually walk away from them we will become yet again a different nation with different problems.

  If we casually bomb Serbs for no better reason than the US wants us to, we become no more than an extension of US foreign policy, and cannot on the international stage then expect to be percieved as having anything worth saying. If we casually undercut NATO, we are really shooting ourselves in the foot because NATO is of vital importance to Canada. With Europe balanced against the US, we can obtain protection and support from both and have some real say in influencing both. Without NATO we are very much out in the cold. If we undermine international justice we again shoot ourselves in the foot; we are too small to say might is right -- international justice, trade laws etc. can be our only defence, when we feel wronged.

  The attitude that everything can be explained by economics, and that those who have the gold make the rules, fails to see the bigger picture. It is whether nations work or do not work which determines whether they have prosperity or calamity. If it was only economic resources that dominated this equation then the US would still be 50 waring states, and Iraq would be the superpower. And if it was just an issue of scale, Russia would remain today the superpower it used to be.
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 12:14 pm
  Goran,

  Are you the same Goran Mihajlovic who contributes in the italian news "Notizie Est "??

  If so, I understand your real purpose in partecipating here:

  To produce fumes for your masters:

  a "professional" with...a long tonge and sold brain.
  Serjoe b
  Italy

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 12:23 pm

  Peter, thanks for bringing some more of Mozart to us. “Truth and beauty are the very essence of Mozart’s work.” - beauty perhaps more than truth…What do you say on Richard Straus?

  Ian Davis: “The attitude that everything can be explained by economics, and that those who have the gold make the rules, fails to see the bigger picture. It is whether nations work or do not work which determines whether they have prosperity or calamity. If it was only economic resources that dominated this equation then the US would still be 50 waring states, and Iraq would be the superpower. And if it was just an issue of scale, Russia would remain today the superpower it used to be. “

  You can call me a dreamer, but I think you desperately need to become a regular reader of the World Socialist Web Site, despite “too many words”, to help you clarify some notions and strengthen your logic, for this passage testifies to the disastrous problems in both. Its not a problem to err, problem is to be committed to erring. This is a sincerely friendly, or better fraternal advice.
  Goran Mihajlovic
  Yugoslavia

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 12:24 pm
  Am I smelling pair bonding? Valentine's day is approuching when Adam and Steve will embrace each other.
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 12:47 pm

  Dear Serjoe b, in beautiful Italy, to which I hope I’ll not have to wait for too long to be able to travel to:

  Obviously I am not that Goran Mihajlovic to whom you refer. I am even not necessarily Goran Mihajlovic at all. But you further help to demonstrate how low species are you Serbian nationalists (like any other nationalists). It shows the way your mind works. Apart from that, it is unbelievable how operated from common sense you are, for even a half-inteligent person would know that it would be impossible for an employee of the western media to be assigned to propagandize the World Socialist Web Site. Think yourself! On the contrary, it is your reactionary ideology that they propagate 24 hours a day, in order to deflect workers' anger at the misery produced by capitalism away from the profit system and, by splitting the working class, render it helpless before globally-organized capital.

  Pero, I don’t know what are you smelling. I hope it is not that, what somebody refered to in Serbian language few days ago.
  Goran Mihajlovic
  Yugoslavia

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 1:07 pm
  Gorane, I respect your opinion (belief) you are entitled to it. However the passion with which you are expressing your stand and disrespect for anybody else that thinks differently is not ok. Your stand that your truth is the absolute truth does not differ too much from any other religious zealot. You call people reactionary orpetty-bourgeois snob just because they disagree and like choice. Socialist movement shall not acquire to many supporters, if people that belong to it don’t loosen up and start respecting other believes. I do not know if others are right or wrong, but I do believe that person has a right to make choice even if it is a bed one. What makes religion an cult is non tolerance for others that differ from your spec - in that there is no difference between your presentation of socialism / communism and Islam.
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 1:12 pm
  Gorane, I am impessed how much your are relying on posted qotes of cowards that do not dare to post insullts in English and have no honour to sign them with their own name.
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 1:38 pm

  Hungarians of the world unite, the homeland says so:

  > In June Parliament passed the Status Law, which is scheduled to take effect in January 2002, and provides certain social, educational, and economic benefits to ethnic Hungarians living outside the country in neighboring states, with the exception of Austria. Under this law, ethnic Hungarians living abroad may qualify for temporary work permits, and the Government would promote Hungarian minority education in neighboring states

  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 2:07 pm

  Ana: You provide a classical example of a reactionary petty-bourgeois, attempting to “in the name of a right to make choice” black out critic to which you are not able to counter, by an appeal to your “codex of petty-bourgeois morality”. You object “the passion with which you are expressing your stand” and you misrepresent me by stating that I “disrespect anybody else that thinks differently” (what would be my right on the first place, to be perfectly clear about that, and can disturb only your mediocre petty-bourgeois notion that you should be guaranteed respect even if you deserve none, just because you might live a life of a social parasite, for example). I don’t disrespect “anybody else that thinks differently” (you have learned your set of petty-bourgeois phrases well! - prenemaganja), but specifically you nationalists and fascists, in this case Serbian nationalists and fascists. “Your stand that your truth is the absolute truth does not differ too much from any other religious zealot”. Only, you hope we would forget that I have never made that “stand”, its your invention, because you are not able to discuss with arguments, being yourself of a tribal outlook, if not a “religious zealot”, so your only hope is to impute to your opponent your own nonsense, and then debate within that narrow set of phrases you have learned from your petty-bourgeois education thus far. “In that there is no difference between your presentation of socialism / communism and Islam”. Again you displayed your racism by invoking only Islam and not Christianity for example, if you already wanted to make this rather stupid remark.

  Since you want so eagerly to establish censorship here, I feel the following citation would be helpful in defense of the freedom of speech:

  I would like to begin by noting that the first work Karl Marx produced as a revolutionary journalist, at the age of 23, was a comment on a set of instructions issued by the Prussian government censor.

  The instructions had contained the observation that "the censorship should not prevent serious and modest investigation of truth." In his derisive response Marx asked rhetorically, "Is it not the first duty of the seeker after truth to aim directly at the truth, without looking to the right or left? Will I not forget the essence of the matter, if I am obliged not to forget to state it in the prescribed form?"

  He continued: "Further, truth is general, it does not belong to me alone, it belongs to all, it owns me, I do not own it. My property is the form, which is my spiritual individuality. Le style c'est l'homme. [Style is the man] Yes, indeed! The law permits me to write, only I must write in a style that is not mine! I may show my spiritual countenance, but I must first set it in the prescribed folds! What man of honour will not blush at this presumption ... ?

  "You admire the delightful variety, the inexhaustible riches of nature. You do not demand that the rose should smell like the violet, but must the greatest riches of all, the spirit, exist in only one variety? I am humorous, but the law bids me write seriously. I am audacious, but the law commands that my style be modest. Grey, all grey, is the sole, the rightful color of freedom. Every drop of dew on which the sun shines glistens with an inexhaustible play of colours, but the spiritual sun, however many the persons and whatever the objects in which it is refracted, must produce only the official color!"

  So wrote Marx in early 1842, five years before the writing of the Communist Manifesto. I cite his words by way of underlining, or if necessary -- arguing, that those who founded our movement one and a half centuries ago had incorporated in their world outlook a certain attitude toward culture, artistic expression and intellectual freedom. That attitude, I am convinced, remains an objectively-significant and irreplaceable component of the Marxist view of things. Our efforts here today are aimed principally at attempting to elaborate, at least in an initial way, what might make up the aesthetic component, if one can call it that, of socialist consciousness.

  Pera again: Gorane, I am impessed how much your are relying on posted qotes of cowards that do not dare to post insullts in English and have no honour to sign them with their own name.

  Pero, it is a job of petty-bourgeois to be “impressed” (IZNENADJEN I UVREDJEN). Only that I have from many tens of postings refered to what you mention only once. But in your petty-bourgeois posture ‘only once’ becomes ‘how much your are relying on’. You didn’t mind when others used that against me. And have forgot that my mentioning of that what allegedly happened to you (I don’t know is there a substance in that claim?!), was in response to your sexist remark. Are you jelous? More i za tebe ima da se nadje nesto.
  Goran Mihajlovic
  Yugoslavia

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 2:13 pm
  can somebody please define the word "nationalist" to This "socialist"-Soros-liberal-whatever, Goran? What is the difference between an american "freedomloving" brainboild idiot and an iraqui(Serb or Afghan) who defend his country, is the american agressor the only one entitled to call himself "nationalist" in a positive sentence?
  Mrya Antonov
  Rossija

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 2:16 pm

  Ana: You provide a classical example of a reactionary petty-bourgeois, attempting to “in the name of a right to make choice” black out critic to which you are not able to counter, by an appeal to your “codex of petty-bourgeois morality”. You object “the passion with which I am expressing my stand” and you misrepresent me by stating that I “disrespect anybody else that thinks differently” (what would be my right on the first place, to be perfectly clear about that, and can disturb only your mediocre petty-bourgeois notion that you should be guaranteed respect even if you deserve none, just because you might live a life of a social parasite, for example). I don’t disrespect “anybody else that thinks differently” (you have learned your set of petty-bourgeois phrases well! - prenemaganja), but specifically you nationalists and fascists, in this case Serbian nationalists and fascists. “Your stand that your truth is the absolute truth does not differ too much from any other religious zealot”. Only, you hope we would forget that I have never made that “stand”, its your invention, because you are not able to discuss with arguments, being yourself of a tribal outlook, if not a “religious zealot”, so your only hope is to impute to your opponent your own nonsense, and then debate within that narrow set of phrases you have learned from your petty-bourgeois education thus far. “In that there is no difference between your presentation of socialism / communism and Islam”. Again you displayed your racism by invoking only Islam and not Christianity for example, if you already wanted to make this rather stupid remark.

  Since you want so eagerly to establish censorship here, I feel the following citation would be helpful in defense of the freedom of speech:

  "I would like to begin by noting that the first work Karl Marx produced as a revolutionary journalist, at the age of 23, was a comment on a set of instructions issued by the Prussian government censor".

  "The instructions had contained the observation that "the censorship should not prevent serious and modest investigation of truth." In his derisive response Marx asked rhetorically, "Is it not the first duty of the seeker after truth to aim directly at the truth, without looking to the right or left? Will I not forget the essence of the matter, if I am obliged not to forget to state it in the prescribed form?"

  "He continued: "Further, truth is general, it does not belong to me alone, it belongs to all, it owns me, I do not own it. My property is the form, which is my spiritual individuality. Le style c'est l'homme. [Style is the man] Yes, indeed! The law permits me to write, only I must write in a style that is not mine! I may show my spiritual countenance, but I must first set it in the prescribed folds! What man of honour will not blush at this presumption ... ? "

  "You admire the delightful variety, the inexhaustible riches of nature. You do not demand that the rose should smell like the violet, but must the greatest riches of all, the spirit, exist in only one variety? I am humorous, but the law bids me write seriously. I am audacious, but the law commands that my style be modest. Grey, all grey, is the sole, the rightful color of freedom. Every drop of dew on which the sun shines glistens with an inexhaustible play of colours, but the spiritual sun, however many the persons and whatever the objects in which it is refracted, must produce only the official color!"

  "So wrote Marx in early 1842, five years before the writing of the Communist Manifesto. I cite his words by way of underlining, or if necessary -- arguing, that those who founded our movement one and a half centuries ago had incorporated in their world outlook a certain attitude toward culture, artistic expression and intellectual freedom. That attitude, I am convinced, remains an objectively-significant and irreplaceable component of the Marxist view of things. Our efforts here today are aimed principally at attempting to elaborate, at least in an initial way, what might make up the aesthetic component, if one can call it that, of socialist consciousness."

  Pera again: "Gorane, I am impessed how much your are relying on posted qotes of cowards that do not dare to post insullts in English and have no honour to sign them with their own name."

  Pero, it is a job of petty-bourgeois to be “impressed” ( IZNENADJEN I UVREDJEN ). Only that I have from many tens of postings refered to what you mention only once. But in your petty-bourgeois posture ‘only once’ becomes ‘how much your are relying on’. You didn’t mind when others used that against me. And have forgot that my mentioning of that what allegedly happened to you (I don’t know is there a substance in that claim?!), was in response to your sexist remark.
  Goran Mihajlovic
  Yugoslavia

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 2:17 pm
  In other simple words for the ones that didn't understand "It is not a matter of been right or wrong its just the opposite"
  M P
  Panama

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 2:21 pm
  Mrya Antonov,

  My thoughts exactly. Why is 'Serb Nationalist' a derogatory term while 'American Patriot' is laudatory??
  M Donne
  Canada

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 2:23 pm
  Ian, as an anglo-Quebecker, permit me a reaction on some of your points. In 1985 the Parti québécois government passed a resolution in the Québec National Assembly which recognized Québec native communities as "nations" enjoying the right to self-government. It is true that the resolution did not recognize the right of native communities to operate a secession of territory from Québec, but there isn't any English Canadian province which accords the right to native communities to secede from its territory, nor does Canada's federal constitutional framework accord it either, to my knowledge. In the early 90's, following the PQ's return to power under M. Parizeau, the Québec government shelved the Grande Baleine hydro-electric project, much cherished by and originated under previous Québec Liberal (pro-federalist) governments. Grande Baleine, a blueprint for socio-ecological disaster which invites comparison to World Bank-sponsored “mega-dam” projects in India and elsewhere and Scotland’s Highland clearances, would have flooded large areas of Cri land and permanently and negatively altered the ecoscape of the James Bay basin. In last year's Québec elections, the Grand Chief of the Québec Cri, Ted Moses, endorsed Bernard Landry and the Parti québécois. Moses cited the Liberals' and Adéquistes' support for reviving Grande Baleine, and noted that it contravened the principles agreed to in the Paix des braves.

  I'm not aware of any evidence that the Québécois have any more hostility to the right of self-government for native nations in Québec than do English Canadians for natives in English Canada. I know however that many Quebeckers, including this writer, are left a little cold by English Canadians who think native people are "nations" but the Québécois somehow aren't, who are enthusiastic about the "right" of native peoples like the Cri to secede from Québec but who're distinctly less enthusiastic about such a "right" for the Dene of NT or the Métis of Manitoba or the Micmac of New Brunswick to secede from Canada, and who just generally hold the Québécois to a different standard in the treatment of natives and minorities than they do themselves. And I know Quebeckers, including this writer, who're left a little cold by how difficult Messieurs Charest, Chrétien and Dion find it to say that Québec is a country, while finding it somehow self-evident that Bosnia and the Czech Republic (no referendum, remember?) are. All by way of saying that I think Québec’s spirit of "Yugoslavism" in nationality and self-determination questions can be put up against Canada's any day. And as for internationalism, Québec's national assembly voted unanimously against any participation in the impending U.S./UK aggression against Iraq and any recourse to force against Iraq. If you know of any English Canadian provincial legislature which did so, please provide a reference. It's interesting to see how despite the chauvinists on the Right and the lefter-than-thou's who treat the notion of the Québécois nation as a "petty-bourgeois" conceit, that it stubbornly continues to manifest its will and existence.
  Jim Yarker
  Canada

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 2:31 pm
  In considering the semantics of agruments, I was also wondering what, exactly, constitutes a 'worker', or maybe who is not a 'worker'?
  M Donne
  Canada

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 2:41 pm
  Gorane, More I listen to you less appealing (and less sensible) your ideas and arguments seem to me. Your lack of concern and insults are a product of your Stalinist mind. Do you have Goli Otok ready since first you call people names and that you shoot them at the wall. Nice presentation!
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 2:54 pm
  Or in other words you sound as " ...You shall have no other gods but me ... "
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 3:13 pm
  The discussion of nationalism is at the core of the Milosovic trial. Not being from the Balkans, I was initially swayed by the spin coming out of Ruder Finn and other PR firms. Their sad story, in summary, was that rabid Serbian nationalism was forcing them to leave the Yugoslav Federation. In particular, the 1989 Kosovo battle speech by Milosovic was referred to as the seminal event that triggered the whole breakup of Yugoslavia. It was only in 1999, when the Kosovo crisis was shaping up (or should I say "getting shaped up"?), that I spent the time to do a little research. First of all, I found out that Croatian nationalists were the ones who hired Ruder Finn to camouflage the true nature of the their own aspirations, and then I got to the crux of the argument by locating the text of the 1989 speech, and much to my complete surprise, I found it saying things like: "Serbia has never had only Serbs living in it. Today, more than in the past, members of other peoples and nationalities also live in it. This is not a disadvantage for Serbia. I am truly convinced that it is its advantage. National composition of almost all countries in the world today, particularly developed ones, has also been changing in this direction. Citizens of different nationalities, religions, and races have been living together more and more frequently and more and more successfully." (US Commerce Dept Translation) Remarkable! This is one of the most Orwellian scams of all time.
  Adrian Justinson
  Seattle

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 3:26 pm

  Gorane, what are your arguments actually? So far, I see just insults, name calling, and same old, zillions of times repeated accusations without any substance, that's excluding your thoughts about coming brotherhood of workers of all lands - which are really, out of context here. Did you try to win Croatian nationalists (Croatia as far as Drina, Zemun and Monte Negro, Srbe na vrbe…), SDA and KLA guys for that concept? If you succeed, we can build (maybe), on that philosophy, until than, we heave more urgent priorities - to survive and protect what's ours.

  If you know of any proef for aqusation against S. Milosevic, please, do let us know.

  Please, keep in mind what is this discusion about - Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial or not? Does ICTY do it's proclaimed job of finding out the truth about what happened in Yugoslavia?

  Question for everyone - what would you do diferently in S. Milosevic place?

  And finally, Gorane, let me sugest an interesting site:

  http://www.michaelparenti.org

  I'm curios, would you find him a Serbian nationalist as well?

  Rade Plecas
  Amsterdam
  The Netherlands

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 3:58 pm
  Gorane, I am quite honored to be petty-bourgeoi. We saved many countries from miracles of Marxism and Stalinism. I am happy that I am human and have my sensitivities and feelings and I injoj my right to be right and wrong. You are posting freely on this board, since Marxism is not rouling the day here.
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 5:27 pm

  Mrya and M Donne: "My thoughts exactly. Why is 'Serb Nationalist' a derogatory term while 'American Patriot' is laudatory??". -- Who ever said it is laudatory?? I really don't understand you. I must post again the following paragraph:

  "We have made the point that so much that would have been taken for granted by socialists and artists alike sixty or seventy years ago -- an elementary hostility, for example, to bourgeois morality, patriotism, the forces of law and order, religious superstition -- is virtually unknown in intellectual circles today. "

  Ana, now you go step further into trying to impose censorship. Now the one that has an opinion is the one who "shoots them at the wall". All that to hide the dead end of your nationalist perspective. Dear Ana, you might be attractive, but I would nevertheless not wrestle with you in mood, where you are dragging us with your comments. “Gorane, More I listen to you less appealing (and less sensible) your ideas and arguments seem to me.” -- bas me mnogo zabole da ti pravo kazem. Blago nama, sace streber da nas brani od staljinizma.

  Mrya, your fascination with Soros is touching, but be careful, that lascivious old man Pera is out there seeking for boys for Valentine's day, so…
  Goran Mihajlovic
  Yugoslavia

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 5:36 pm
  Pera (ne znam jel zdera, al sudeci po tome sta mu se desava...): “Gorane, I am quite honored to be petty-bourgeoi. We saved many countries from miracles of Marxism and Stalinism...” Yes, you are playing a major role, specially in the conditions in which you have found yourself few days ago.
  Goran Mihajlovic
  Yugoslavia

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 5:49 pm
  Now you shown your quality (not)and I will leave it at that. Psi laju a karavani prolaze.
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 5:55 pm
  B92 BELGRADE - Friday - The Socialist Party of Serbia demanded that the state pay for Slobodan Milosevic's defence at his war crimes trial in return for breaking the stalemate in the Serbian parliament and voting for Dragan Marsicanin as speaker, Serbia-Montenegro's outgoing foreign minister claimed today.

  The Socialists also demanded an end to extraditions to the UN tribunal in The Hague and an overhaul of the privatisation process, Goran Svilanovic said in a statement posted on his party's web site. Svilanovic, who is part of the Democratic Party caucus in the Serbian parliament, said the Socialists had asked for shares and senior posts in a number of public companies, and for the state to reverse a decision taken in 2000 to freeze bank accounts held by Socialist Party members.

  "I don't know if I've missed something, but that's what I know they asked for and what they probably got," he said.
  M Donne
  Canada

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 6:01 pm
  Goran Mihajlovic,

  Sorry, I did not make my post clear. I was not referring to your posts and/or your theories in particular, but rather to those terms used generally - maybe more especially in the U.S.
  M Donne
  Canada

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 6:22 pm

  M Donne: I see, in that case I hope you agree that both Serbian and American nationalism and patriotism are deplorable. As to American patriotism, I hope that recent years have convinced everyone that this word is a synonym for plunder at home and abroad, in the same way as Serbian, Croatian, Moslem, Slovenian, Albanian, Montenegrian... nationalisms were, as we have witnessed.

  Dakic Ana: Zaboravila si da pljunes pod prozor!
  Goran Mihajlovic
  Yugoslavia

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 6:23 pm
  Jim, can you explain why it was that the Cree voted 97% against the Quebec governments desire for sovereignty in their parallel referendum. The impression I had was that the Cree were concerned about erosion of their rights in a society where the important thing would subsequently have been that one was French.

  I was not in favour of seeing Canada break up. It was not I who was suggesting that Canada should. But the harsh reality is that when countries break up you are going to have communities who feel disadvantaged by the change in their status, and this is simply a recipe for creating very large problems out of much smaller ones.

  In Ireland the population got to vote on whether they wanted in or out, and the counties that votes to leave the UK did. But this didn't solve anything. There was subsequently decades of conflict. Likewise the endless conflicts between Pakistan and India. Why would I wish the risk of Canada becoming another Ireland or another Yugoslavia.

  I'd agree that Quebec's has a much stronger case to demand that it be recognised as a distinct nation within North America, than Bosnia (from what little I know of Bosnia) did within in Yugoslavia. The preamble to Bill 1 laid that out that right very clearly.
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 6:47 pm

  Why should I be a minority in your country when you can be one in mine

  Forgot Who Said It
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 6:49 pm
  Goran Mihajlovic

  Why don’t you go and rent a flat in Pristina, Kosovo since people there would love to hear your ideas and thy do not care about nationality. You can be an example of “Workers of the world - unite” and where better place to start than in Kosovo.
  A. Turcotte
  Ottawa, Canada

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 6:50 pm
  WARREN ZIMMERMANN (1934-2004)
  A DIPLOMAT WITH BLOOD ON HIS HANDS
  by Srdja Trifkovic

  http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic04/NewsST020604.html
  Peter Varavejke
  Belgium

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 10:49 pm

  I'm not sure whether I should feel pride or shame for being, as Goran Mihajlovic says, a "Serb nationalist". First, I will need to apply to whoever it is these days, for conversion to Serbianism and then no doubt apply for nationality so I can become a real Serbian nationalist. Then again, given the likes of Goran Mihajlovic, it seems that my naturalisation and nationalisation papers are already signed sealed and only need to be delivered.

  More likely Goran Mihajlovic hails from the "old Titoist socialists", you know the ones Milosevic got rid of because they sat comfortably in their leather armchairs while the Serbs in Kosovo bled to death under forced migration, murder, maltreatment etc, BEFORE Milosevic showed up.

  These are the same people of the ilk of Stambolic who headed the Serbian Communist Party and just watched and watched as the Serbs in Kosovo quietly died off or migrated out to save their families and future.

  No wonder one has an axe to grind! They should have been put to trial for treason by the Serbs! Instead they were quietly removed without a whimper, slime as they were, and now at last they have the indecency to raise their voices and blame Milosevic for treason.

  Well, I have news for you guys! If you'd done your duty and represented the Serb people properly, Milosevic would never have had the chance to show up. Instead you just sat back in your cushy armchairs and finally they pissed you all off. Not Milosevic! The people pissed you off in the end because you betrayed them. Get that part right at least.

  Now of course, you want Milosevic found guilty so you can give us the "We told you so!" line. Nothing worse than an old time titoist YU commie turned socialist! Yuk!
  David
  Oztralia

- Friday February 06, 2004 at 11:16 pm
  Aboriginal peoples and the 1995 Quebec Referendum: A Survey of the Issues

  The Crees have asserted for many years that they are a people, with a right to self-determination recognized under international law. They argue that no annexation of them or their territory to an independent Quebec should take place without their consent, and that if Quebec has the right to leave Canada then the Cree people have the right to choose to keep their territory in Canada. Cree arguments generally do not claim the right to secede from Canada; rather, the Crees see themselves as a people bound to Canada by treaty (the JBNQA), and as citizens of Canada.

  The Crees have stated that a unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec would be a violation of fundamental principles of human rights, democracy and consent. If secession were to proceed, the Crees argue they would seek protection through the Canadian courts as well as asserting Cree jurisdiction over its people and lands.

  The Crees voted 96.3% to stay with Canada.

  Like the Crees, they assert the right to self-determination, and the choice to remain in the Canadian federation. The Inuit held a separate referendum, on 29 October 1995. Inuit voters were asked the question: "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign?" With about 75% of eligible voters casting ballots, 96% voted against Quebec’s becoming sovereign. This result was similar to the outcome of the vote carried out by the Inuit parallel to the 1980 Quebec referendum, in which 94% had voted "no."
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada