 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
- Thursday August 07, 2003 at 6:46 am
P. TaylorGood find via a vie the murder of Kelemendi by the KLA.
Please note that a number of Kelemendi were murdered in KLA style hits prior to Clinton's bombing. There was a well publicized incident in which a farmer and his young boys were machine gunned while plowing their fields.
I also believe that the Kelemendi clan was anti-fascist during WWII.
AP V
NY
NY - Thursday August 07, 2003 at 7:00 am
The New Janissaries
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Thursday August 07, 2003 at 7:33 am
‘Further grovelling will only invite further abuse’ Nebojsa MalicThe ICTY prosecution has been desperately seeking a link to prove that the Serbian President and his prime minister sought to engage in a ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise’ responsible for massive destruction, displacement and the deaths of tens of thousands throughout the Balkans.
Carla del Ponte now has that link: right out of the prime minister’s own mouth!
As Slobodan Milsosevic once famously reminded the court: ‘Be careful what you wish for’.
Post Scriptum: You beat me to it Gogol. Doesn't Malic write well?
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Thursday August 07, 2003 at 11:04 am
A little education helps, having something to say helps even more and being able to tell it beats it all.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Thursday August 07, 2003 at 12:10 pm
This could be fun, I have acquired Jeffery Kuhner's telephone number it is:(202) 636-3273
In case you forgot Kuhner wrote this article:
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030804-090706-1701r.htmBTW, he published it on precisely the 8th anniversary of operation storm. So you can see that he is a man who has no class.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Thursday August 07, 2003 at 12:46 pm
What on earth do you mean, Wilcoxson? (August 07, 2003 at 12:10 pm)Fun?
Now is time for "fun"? Well, - "use your own judgment."
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday August 07, 2003 at 12:56 pm
OPEN LETTER TO RAMSEY CLARK!Are you "back"? (ref. Posting, August 01, 2003 at 12:09 am)
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday August 07, 2003 at 1:41 pm
So if I understand correctly ICDSM has been divided into two subsections. Each with Slobodan Milosevic at its head? A little complicated but if it staves off internal conflict then so be it although it is a little sad.Andy as for 'fun' Im not wasting a transatlantic call on such a fool. If you can get hold of his email address thats a different matter although I very much doubt if Kuhner will ever see sense.
What I meant by Vic was Vlad sorry about that.
Alf Bentley
UK - Thursday August 07, 2003 at 8:54 pm
Alf Bentley: Will Kuhner ever see sense?Well, if you wish to convince this commentator, that Croatian General Ante Gotovina "has been allowed to run free long enough," then the answer may be: No!
On the other hand it makes a lot of sense (to me) however for ICTY to reconsider its indictment against Gotovina if in fact the general is "falsely accused". Isn't the Washington Times quite right in suggesting that "normally this would be a cause for celebration"?
If those responsible were to come to their senses, reconsidering the false accusations against mr. Milosevic, - then surely we would celebrate the ICTY for that! Wouldn't all?
It's human to make mistakes, they say - it may be very human to make serious mistakes, even. What is unacceptable is this pathetic persistance demonstrated by, say, mrs. del Ponte in striving to bring ficticious "connections" in court.
It is sadly likely that a variety of warcrimes were indeed committed during "Operation Storm" (as well as in the Serbian Province of Kosovo in 1998-99). But if it is not clear, that these were a matter of 'command responsibility', then we should support the ICTY's move towards reviewing the case, I would have thought.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030804-090706-1701r.htm
PS: The ICDSM may indeed have (several) "subsections" - but action need to be coordinated to ensure complete credibility. I am looking forward to a response from mr. Varkevisser (August 06, 2003 at 4:43 pm)
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday August 07, 2003 at 11:05 pm
Godfred Louis-Jensen,Do you have a problem with fun?
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Thursday August 07, 2003 at 11:49 pm
Andy Wilcoxson, - not really! Not "a problem", no!We say: Skæg for sig og snot for sig!
What that is supposed to mean: Ask Danish friends.
Do you have yourself a problem with focussing, Wilcoxson? I have, quite frankly, the little "problem" with you, I think, that you do not answer when being asked. The requests for "clarification" made (by many apart from me!) have been left unanswered so far. Well that IS some kind of answer, or may be at least. I still believe though, that it would be valuable in several ways if you were to enlighten us (as Alf Bentley says). I even think, that it is important for the cause involved.
But what do I know, really? When you said: "I honestly have no idea who Peter Bescher is", I thought that was a joke, - even I had some idea from the papers concerning the ICDSM Hague meeting conclusions. How funny, that you did not read them?
I also "knew", that he is Betscher, not Bescher...
I thought it was great fun. But was it?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday August 07, 2003 at 11:51 pm
Kuhner writes: "Tribunal officials confess in private that the case against the Croatian general (Gotovina) is 'being reconsidered' because it is weak and based mostly on 'circumstantial evidence'." He also writes that the "the Gotovina indictment was politically motivated from the outset".If these objections work in Gotovina's case, why not in Milosevic's case? The Milosevic indictment is also weak, based on circumstantial evidence and politically motivated.
On one point all seem to agree, though. Kuhner doesn't seem to have any confidence in the fairness of the trial. He says Gotovina is an innocent man, so he shouldn't have been indicted at all. If the trial were fair, the trial would be his opportunity for proving his innocence! Now an indictment sounds almost as bad as a death sentence, regardless of whether the accused is innocent or not.
Too bad Kuhner gets lost in semantics. Gotovina may be a hero. But even heroes can commit crimes. You know, Milosevic is a hero too.
But we may also look beyond semantics. True, what Kuhner calls a "decisive victory for the forces of civilized decency" may still be an ethnic cleasing. They may be just two ways to call the same thing. On the other hand, Kuhner could mean that since the ethnic cleansing was a "victory for decency", it wasn't ethnic cleansing. Then he in effect admits that justice is in this case victor's justice. Again, we may all agree. He is absolutely right. In fact, Kuhner should take the advice and be careful what he wishes for.
The Gotovina indictment may have been politically motivated from the outset, as Kuhner writes, but so is the "reconsideration of the indictment". Kuhner's article leaves no room for doubt about that. The article is also an eloquent reminder of how effectively the ICTY can be swayed by lobbying interests, if one goes on long and loud enough about nothing, as Kuhner does.
J W
Canada - Friday August 08, 2003 at 1:03 am
Godfred Louis-Jensen,I wrote what I wrote, and I asked what I asked. There isn't anything else to clarify. The only one who I am going to discuss this issue with is Vladimir Krsljanin -- I'm not going to discuss it with you or anybody else, because doing so would be not only a waste of time, but it would also be unfair to Mr. Krsljanin if I were to speak about him behind his back. Is that clear enough for you?
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Friday August 08, 2003 at 2:03 am
Dear Andy Wilcoxson,Since you ask, I have to say that you may never know whether enough is enough. But you may well think so, and allright, yes: I do!
For now! The "clarification" required (by several) was partly achieved I believe through the publication of the full correspondance between yourself and mr. Krsljanin (by the kind efforts of Zorica P of Germany and Sergi Lazarov of South Africa, both of whom may be new participants on this "trial" discussion site).
If I miss anything still, then that would be some hint of (your)intentions? As it were these may now emerge from mr. Varkevisser, I suppose. The intentions may be of interest to a number of people, - you have seen sure signs of that from Nikole, Bentley and others (and it is possible, that many more follow the discussion, yet without taking an active part.
How can we know? Is it e.g. correct, that "ICDSM has been (or will have to be) divided into two subsections" (August 07, 2003 at 1:41 pm)?
That just may be a good idea, - however it does not sound like that to me! Others may be of a different opinion, but all would agree with the need to get maximum results with a minimum of effort.
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Friday August 08, 2003 at 4:44 am
Godfred Louis-Jensen,Since you have contact with both myself and with Mr. Krsljanin I will see to it that you are kept abrest of our communications, so don't worry you won't miss anything.
My intentions are simple. All I want is for Mr. Krsljanin to answer the questions that I asked him.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Friday August 08, 2003 at 5:03 am
Audrey Budding has a doctorate in history. In her first day of testimony she should have enlightened us but instead, like her demeanor, she was drab and uninformed on the subject of Serbian history on which she should have shed some light. She devoted some forty pages to show that present day Serbs reincarnated Ilija Garasanin’s 1844 Nacertanije as a cause of the present conflict in Yugoslavia. She denies that nation building in the Balkans was not a 19th century phenomenon such as the 1861 unification of Italy and 1871 unification of Germany. She claims that in the “Naccertanje” Garasanin lays out the plans for a Greater Serbia that Milosevic attempted to complete at the end of the 20th century. She dismisses Serbian struggle to free itself from Ottoman oppression. Her claim is that Serb nationalism was unique and in no way similar to nineteenth century European nationalism.Great Power nationalism was different in that it is an expression of Empire building ‘Rule Britannia”, “Drang nach Osten” , “a place in the sun”, “revanche” and “Pan Slavism” while subject people nationalism was a reaction against this hegemony. In the nineteenth century the Great Powers dominated the world, carved up Africa and ruled by Congress, today they call it the WTO and the weapons are the IMF, World Bank, NATO and the Security Council. “Same shit different wrapping”.
The role of a historian is to bring forth the “the fullness of the knowledge” where ideas are constantly challenged by other ideas so that clear conclusions emerge. This process is an attempt to arrive at some objective truth, even though that might be very difficult.
Objectivity of our conclusions depends on the sources we use, what we include and what we exclude and what we emphasize and what we deemphasize. The words we choose to present our thesis must appeal to the audience. In Audrey Bidding’s case her thesis had to appeal to the NATO nations.
In her forty or so page dissertation on Serbian Nationalism Budding is on a fishing expedition and chose to fish for her evidence in one part of the ocean knowing full well what fish she wants to catch. Miss Budding went home and cooked the fish and served it up using the recipe ordered by her NATO masters. In the recipe she excluded the Ottoman rule or five hundred years of Serbian history and the Serbian people’s struggle to liberate their lands. This Budding called WINNING territory and adding more Slavs to her population. She chooses not to use the words “adding more liberated Serbs” to her population. This I call hard core academic prostitution. No matter how hard she shifted in her chair one can tell that she was not having any pleasure.
As someone has already mentioned Mr. May was at his most contemptible. Mr. May oozing with concern for Miss Budding asks her “feeling all right Dr. Budding” while he barks at Milosevic, accuses him of arguing with the witness when in fact Milosevic was a perfect gentleman with the diminutive Dr. Budding. I think Milosevic felt sorry for her as she was drowning in, “I am not an export in this or that” but I am using this material to show its connection to you.
Milosevic asked many questions and some very simple and important ones, which Mr. May did not understand. Milosevic asks Budding about the demography of the lands where the Serbs lived. Specifically he said “Did you see 16th and 17th century Austrian and German maps of the Balkans showing the territory where the Serbs lived. This was in the context of the discussion of Serbian expansion. May barked at him telling him that this was irrelevant. Milosevic also asked Budding if she was selective in her evidence to prove her thesis that the “Nacrtanje” was a plan for Serbian hegemony over the other Balkan people. Budding had a problem with the word hegemony and asked for clarification. Mr. May jumps in, yells at Milosevic tells him that it is irrelevant if she was selective in the historians she used. It is for us to decide what goes on here, May tells Milosevic, to which Milosevic responds that he is used to a trial by the clock.
Budding also totally ignored the great power rivalry over the Balkans. It is here that she shows her ignorance of Balkan history. She excuses herself and states that her expertise is the twentieth century. How is it possible to understand anything about this region if one ignores the fact that Britain supported the Turks for centuries and as a result contributed to the enslavement of the Balkan people? How is it possible to understand Serbian nationalism without looking at the German-British, Russian-Austrian, Russian- British and Italian-Austrian rivalries in the Balkans? How is it possible to understand the aspirations of the Balkan people without looking at The Eastern Question and the reasons for the demise of the Turkish Empire.
Budding attributes the demise of the Ottoman to internal weakness and ignores the rebellions in the Balkans and the defeats of the Turks at Vienna, Second Battle of Mohacs and the defeats by Catherine the Great’s expansion in Southern Russia. Budding, than had the audacity to say that she looked at the whole period prior to the first Yugoslavia as concisely as possible. I would say it was very concise since she ignored 500 years of history.
Mr. May forced Milosevic to move into the 20th century where Budding was presenting history by omission. She claimed that the South Slavs did not know each other; therefore they had no desire to live together even though they were living together in Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Major conversions of Serbs south of Split to Konavle south of Dubrovnik had taken place after the Great Schism. People in Konavle still celebrate their Saints Day while the Catholics in Western Herzegovina still have Saints but do not celebrate this Orthodox practice.
Budding’s greatest attempt at deception came in the use of statistics to minimize the Croatian atrocities against their Serb neighbors in WWII and justifies her figures by saying that the figures were incomplete. She did not agree with the Holocaust figures from Jerusalem and claims that the figures were incomplete and yet she chose a nice round number of 300, 000 killed in Jasenovac. In fact she ignores the Ustase regime as marginal and is silent on the Genocide against the Serbs.
Most historian tend to use the past as the building blocks to explain the present and in doing that they use sources that agree and disagree with their thesis. Budding chose not to have a dialogue between the past and the present. This is how I see it even if my brain is a bit dulled by the heavy smoke hanging over Kamloops.
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada - Friday August 08, 2003 at 7:28 am
Waltera while back I posted links to some of the courses Budding teaches. A perusal of any Syllabus used in her classes will illuminate her prejudices.
One also needs to keep in mind that all of these 'outside experts' are paid their 'usual and customary fees' in preparing and testifying at the ICTY hearings.
May and the OTP are simply trying to curry favour with Harvard in the hopes of possibly landing a cushy teaching job there should funding for the ICTY ever run out.
AP V
NY
NY - Friday August 08, 2003 at 10:15 am
Harvard is being used because the ICTY is being pushed by American parties. Otherwise, we would be seeing more 'experts' from English, French, and German seats of learning. I am sure that someone at Heidelberg or Oxford, for instance, could have provided a better analysis of destroyed Islamic and Catholic heritage of Bosnia, than a LIBRARIAN at Harvard. OTP seems not to think so.
P M
USA - Friday August 08, 2003 at 11:21 am
Mr. Wilcoxson! Referring to Mr. Louis-Jensen you claim: "My intentions are simple. All I want is for Mr. Krsljanin to answer the questions that I asked him." But you did not simply aks questions out of some kind of serious concern. Well, when I look at what you wrote it does not look like simples concerns at all, but an aggressive, outragous attack. You wrote in you "open letter": "Mr. Krsljanin, you can continue to betray Milosevic at your own peril. When I went to Belgrade I saw how devoted some people are to him. I have never seen people so devoted to one man. Woe be unto the man who pretends to be Milosevic's friend only so that he can stab him in the back. Signed, Andy Wilcoxson" What do you expect after that? That he is going to justify himself because of your attempt to spit on him? I can tell you what I think after that. You are evil. How can you dare to claim to support Slobos struggle and spit on his closest associates at the same time?! Or do you dare to doubt that Mr. Krsljanin is Mr. Milosevics foreign policy adviser and one of the leading figures at Sloboda?
Zorica P
Germany - Friday August 08, 2003 at 12:56 pm
‘The Peacemaker’Yesterday evening the BBC broadcast ‘The Peacemaker’. This is a film in which Bosnian Serbs are depicted as terrorists plotting to explode a nuclear bomb at the UN Headquarters building in New York.
This latest BBC episode, in a constant drip feed of calumny against Serbs, is unforgivable given the suffering imposed upon them by Clinton and Blair. Other biased episodes in a mixture of so-called factual programmes and faction being: ‘24’ in which Serb terrorists attempt to murder the US President: The first episode of ‘Spooks’ in which Serb terrorists attack Britain: Mostar Bridge: The Death of Yugoslavia: Moral Combat: Valley of the Dead: The fall of Milosevic and its trailer. The ‘impartial BBC’ journalist, Jackie Rowland even gave ‘evidence’ for the prosecution on matters at the Istok prison, which Nato bombed on several occasions, after a single brief visit following the first attack?
‘The Peacemaker’ was produced in 1997 two years after US bombers attacked the Bosnian Serbs causing thousands of civilian casualties and two years before Anglo/US bombers attacked Serbia and its sovereign province of Kosovo causing thousands more innocent civilian casualties.
The trigger for Clinton’s bombing of the Bosnian Serbs is summed up below:
Few events have been such political turning points in this war as the three highly publicized and gruesome massacres of civilians in Sarajevo (Vase Miskina Street breadline in May '92, and the Markale marketplace in February ' 94 and August '95). Their political consequences have been overwhelming: introduction of the total economic embargo on Serbia/Montenegro; total derailment of the Geneva peace process, and official introduction of NATO military involvement in the area; and, massive use of force against Serbian military and civilian targets, respectively.
All avialable evidence by now shows that these were staged mass murders, carried out by the Muslim government against its own people, with at least tacit approval of some Western powers.
Similarly the trigger for the bombing of Serbia was the Racak hoax massacre.
Four years after the illegitimate bombing of Bosnian Serbs and two years after the illegitimate bombing of Serbia by Anglo/US forces the World Trade Center, a complex of several buildings in New York, was destroyed: And along with it the lives of some 3,000 civilians.
As a first reaction one would have been forgiven for believing that this atrocity was carried out by vengeful Serbs. But no this atrocity was carried out by Muslim terrorists who also committed atrocities in Bosnia and Kosovo against the Serbs: Aided and abetted by Clinton and Blair.
The atrocities in Bosnia and Kosovo, including the subsequent bombings by Clinton and Blair, must rank amongst the most wicked and treacherous acts in history. And history will eventually record it so.
Post Scriptum:I trust that the evidence, referred to in the first URL above, of US Colonel Hackworth, Belgian Colonel Segers, US Lt. Colonel Srey, US General Boyd, British General Rose and others will be entered in the court records and eventually considered by Judge May and Company.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Friday August 08, 2003 at 1:21 pm
Moderator,Could you please check the WHOIS data for "Zorica P's" I.P. address and tell us if "Zorica P" has a German I.P. address, and not something else like a Belgrade I.P. address.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Friday August 08, 2003 at 2:45 pm
Andy -- this is really tiresome. Do you know I can't figure out who all these people are. If Zorica got your goat that's for you to deal with. You have done a lot of good work as far as I can see, but again, I don't want to analyse whether you are 10 per cent more believable than Mr B C or D. I want to know whether my money will go to support Milosevic if and when I send it. I have been in contact with somebody in Germany who answered an email I sent using Dan B's list of ways to send money. Now, I am asking myself who is who and all I hear is this nastiness between you. The support of Milosevic's defence is injured because of these arguments. That's why we'd like to hear from Milosevic himself. Again, I don't have time nor the means to study.
Nikole J
Canada - Friday August 08, 2003 at 3:39 pm
Peter,Did you send a copy of your post to the BBC. If so, have you had any response?
M Donne
Canada - Friday August 08, 2003 at 4:38 pm
M DonneNo: but as I have said before I don't own these facts. Anyone is free to use them as they please.
My personal experience of sending letters is that it is a waste of time.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Friday August 08, 2003 at 5:14 pm
Peter,It wouldn't be such a waste of time if your letters could be published. You write really well and get your points across very clearly and succinctly -- have you ever tried to write letters to the editors of the national dailies in Britain?
Anna P
California - Friday August 08, 2003 at 7:03 pm
AnnaYes. And to the BBC, ITV, Anglican Bishops, MP's and other civic dignitaries.
All to no avail.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Friday August 08, 2003 at 7:33 pm
How can we blame Clinton for ordering to erase all trace of Serbian self respect and self defence from terrorist aggression when he was getting his brain sucked at the time of making his mind about it , poor thing he must feel devastated for what he has done .
Milan Prika
Rep. of Panama - Friday August 08, 2003 at 8:19 pm
Milan,
You will be interested to know the affair with this modern version of Ester broke the very same morning president Clinton had to meet with Arrafat for an important historical meeting. It went ignored by the world media, Ester's sacrifice for her nation was the news!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Friday August 08, 2003 at 8:23 pm
On the subject of letters: one letter is little but many, masses of them are effective.
G C
Shangri-La - Friday August 08, 2003 at 9:35 pm
Zorica,Regardless of Krsljanin's feelings for Wilcoxson he still has to answer the questions. Refusing to answer only makes him look guilty.
If the ICDSM is not being obedient to Milosevic's demands then the whole thing is a joke.
By refusing to answer Wilcoxson's questions Krsljanin is leaving Wilcoxson's accusations unopposed, and such unopposed accusations as Wilcoxson is making damage credibility of the ICDSM.
Krsljanin's refusal to answer suggests that he can't answer. Surely, if Milosevic didn’t fire clark it would behoove Krsljanin to just say so.
Allow me to play devil's advocate, lets say for the sake of argument that Milosevic really did fire Clark, what could krsljanin say then? He couldn’t say anything. Would he say that milosevic fired Clark but the ICDSM decided to keep him anyway? or would he lie in front of the public and say that Milosevic didn’t fire clark? If Krsljanin lied and Milosevic found out then Milosevic might decide to fire Krsljanin himself. If milosevic really fired Clark then Krsljanin can’t do anything except for keep his mouth shut which is exatly what he has done so far.
It looks to me like Krsljanin might be trapped.
Sergi Lazarov
Johannesburg
South Africa - Friday August 08, 2003 at 11:02 pm
mahertks
ap v
ny
ny - Saturday August 09, 2003 at 1:36 am
The "joint criminal enterprise" is the point of no return for this trial. It is bad enough to fabricate such a joint criminal enterprise on Milosevic's acquaintances, but judging by this Audrey Budding thing it isn't even important if Milosevic knew any of the other participants, because now Garasanin is dragged on the stage too. What is going on? Budding may know a thing or two about the 19th century Serb nationalism, but what does that have to do with Milosevic? The better Budding knows her stuff, the guiltier Milosevic becomes? Or the better Milosevic knows his stuff, the guiltier he becomes? Do they actually want to see if Milosevic speaks up for 19th Century Serb nationalism in his cross-examination, in which case he might be suspected of being one? In which case the prosecution is trying to make Milosevic incriminate himself in his capacity as a cross-examiner. Or does the prosecution want to show that there is some hereditary flaw in the Serb genetic pool which makes them inherently nationalistic? After reading Kuhner's article, one has to wonder what that would make of the Croats. This is getting really embarrassing.Or perhaps May just doesn't get it. If "irrelevant" is something that doesn't prove or disprove the defendant's guilt, then the whole Budding testimony was irrelevant. Perhaps May just wants to get across to Milosevic that logic is not going to do him any good. Perhaps May wants to see himself as running a re-education camp designed for Milosevic. When Milosevic questions the witness's objectivity - which is very relevant -, May says his questions are irrelevant. Perhaps May should try the Chinese water torture next, if this doesn't work.
J W
Canada - Saturday August 09, 2003 at 6:24 am
Carla's down fall?
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Saturday August 09, 2003 at 11:33 am
You Cannot Be Serious Zoran
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Saturday August 09, 2003 at 3:15 pm
Peter in every society there are Zoran’s and Lord Mosley’s. The bottom feeders have ascended the podium in Belgrade. My uncle used to call them “OLOS” “BARABE”. I call them people without a spine.On another note Canada has been hit with a trade embargo on softwood lumber and beef by our American partner claiming unfair subsidies in softwood and Japanese refusal to purchase American beef if US imports beef from Canada. When the economy slides into the tank wars and embargoes are corrective economic measures used in America against both friend and foe.
Most of you know forest fires are raging out of control in the vicinity of Kamloops. A comment by a lady to the crisis line spells the moral fiber of Western Civilization. She was irate when she was told that every attempt is being made to stop the progress of the fires. She insisted that all the effort should be directed to save Sun Peaks as that is where the MORE EXPENSIVE homes are located.
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada - Saturday August 09, 2003 at 4:25 pm
As Mr Krsljanin said: "The cause of President Milosevic is a great one. And everyone who wants to sound progressive will, sooner or later, support it." But even those who don't want to sound progressive will have to support to it sooner or later. Justice is one of the cardinal virtues, according to the Catholic teaching. Besides, the tribunal is at cross ends with its own mission. It is making a dogma of discrimination based on ethnicity, which it was set up to counter.This trial is a deep embarrassment even for those who do not want to sound progressive, socialist, Serb or pro-Milosevic. Everyone will oppose it sooner or later, given enough information. In fact, the Milosevic trial is perhaps the defining moment of our information age. We are not given enough information, so the triumph of "enlightenment" over "darkness" goes unchallenged.
Too bad the Croats have monopolized the Catholic viewpoint in this discussion. One wouldn't be surprised if some future pope would bewail the sins of the Catholic church in Yugoslavia, only when it is too late.
J W
Canada - Saturday August 09, 2003 at 4:45 pm
...You can't be serious Zoran.... What else can you expect from a country that's run by a bunch of Bonobo monkeys , who overcome their fear by offering their rear end .
Milan Prika
Rep. of Panama - Saturday August 09, 2003 at 8:48 pm
Milan Prika,Among the few facts that I've learned about the Bonobo chimpanzees is, that these are close to being genetically identical to humans, - and do not live in the wild in Serbia (or Panama for that matter). While close to becoming extinct the Bonobo - which are not "monkeys", Milan - are hardly found anywhere in "bunches" either!
According to one professor Philip J. Regal the physiological similarities between the Bonobo and the human being include "a slender, graceful physical makeup and small teeth."
While such similarities may show that Bonobos are "merely a more primitive version of humanity," (1) may I ask you to kindly not judge them too harshly by comparison?
Or these days even apes aren't entitled to a fair "trial"?
http://www.mndaily.com/daily/1997/05/15/news/bonobo/
(The Serbian offer of a 1000 troops for Iraq finally made me feel strangely pleased, even a bit proud with Denmark's contribution to the Empire's war and the ensuing occupation of the oil-rich Arab country: The Danish Prime Minister send just a freshwater sub for the Persian Gulf, a couple of snowploughs for Iamnotsurewhere and less than 400 warriors - fewer in number I believe than the total World population of Bonobo chimpanzees).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Saturday August 09, 2003 at 8:48 pm
Milan Prika,Among the few facts that I've learned about the Bonobo chimpanzees is, that these are close to being genetically identical to humans, - and do not live in the wild in Serbia (or Panama for that matter). While close to becoming extinct the Bonobo - which are not "monkeys", Milan - are hardly found anywhere in "bunches" either!
According to one professor Philip J. Regal the physiological similarities between the Bonobo and the human being include "a slender, graceful physical makeup and small teeth."
While such similarities may show that Bonobos are "merely a more primitive version of humanity," (1) may I ask you to kindly not judge them too harshly by comparison?
Or these days even apes aren't entitled to a fair "trial"?
http://www.mndaily.com/daily/1997/05/15/news/bonobo/
(The Serbian offer of a 1000 troops for Iraq finally made me feel strangely pleased, even a bit proud with Denmark's contribution to the Empire's war and the ensuing occupation of the oil-rich Arab country: The Danish Prime Minister send just a freshwater sub for the Persian Gulf, a couple of snowploughs for Iamnotsurewhere and less than 400 warriors - fewer in number I believe than the total World population of Bonobo chimpanzees).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Saturday August 09, 2003 at 9:35 pm
You are right about the Bonobos , I kindly ask them to excuse me for calling them monkeys , which doesn't exclude them of that unique behavior mentioned before , behavior that does exist in many places , luckily so far here we don't have that problem , at least not that evident .
Milan Prika
Rep. of Panama - Saturday August 09, 2003 at 10:24 pm
"I guess Ramsey Clark is back!", Dan wrote (on Friday August 01, 2003 at 12:09 am). Would that still be mere guesswork?Anyway Nicole: What is "Dan B's list of ways to send money", -other than the INSTRUCTIONS FOR DONATION MONEY TRANSFERS signed by mr. Vladimir Krsljanin of the SLOBODA/Freedom Association?
Anna P: I wonder what makes Peter Taylor, who seems to dread the effects of the "drip, drip, drip" from the other side, could be so certain that his letters are all "to no avail", - and that sending them is "a waste of time"? I would agree with you, that well written "letters" are inherently of great value. In my experience even simpler letters can have considerable (if probably partly unforeseen!) effects. We should not allow ourselves to be discouraged - writing letters is a challenging way of collecting your thoughts in any case!
And that's very much, what this "trial discussion" is all about, isn't it? I certainly believe, that less than wise (or malicious) letters may be very harmful, yet no one should be satisfied with merely "being obedient to Milosevic's demands" (as Sergi Lazarov is probably coming close to suggesting on Friday August 08, 2003 at 9:35 pm).
It is quite obvious as Mr. Milosevic at one point was stating, that "the only advantage that I do have (as a prisoner in court) is that I speak the truth." Others must be "spreading the word."
That's what we do, isn't it? We are encouraged by M Donne's observation (on Monday August 04, 2003 at 11:26 pm), that "when asked why there has been little to no coverage of what was billed as the 'Trial of the Century', people tend to respond that: "I was wondering about that". It's my experience too, that "in the back of many minds there are mounting thoughts."
Drip, drip, drip...
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Saturday August 09, 2003 at 10:24 pm
"I guess Ramsey Clark is back!", Dan wrote (on Friday August 01, 2003 at 12:09 am). Would that still be mere guesswork?Anyway Nicole: What is "Dan B's list of ways to send money", -other than the INSTRUCTIONS FOR DONATION MONEY TRANSFERS signed by mr. Vladimir Krsljanin of the SLOBODA/Freedom Association?
Anna P: I wonder what makes Peter Taylor, who seems to dread the effects of the "drip, drip, drip" from the other side, could be so certain that his letters are all "to no avail", - and that sending them is "a waste of time"? I would agree with you, that well written "letters" are inherently of great value. In my experience even simpler letters can have considerable (if probably partly unforeseen!) effects. We should not allow ourselves to be discouraged - writing letters is a challenging way of collecting your thoughts in any case!
And that's very much, what this "trial discussion" is all about, isn't it? I certainly believe, that less than wise (or malicious) letters may be very harmful, yet no one should be satisfied with merely "being obedient to Milosevic's demands" (as Sergi Lazarov is probably coming close to suggesting on Friday August 08, 2003 at 9:35 pm).
It is quite obvious as Mr. Milosevic at one point was stating, that "the only advantage that I do have (as a prisoner in court) is that I speak the truth." Others must be "spreading the word."
That's what we do, isn't it? We are encouraged by M Donne's observation (on Monday August 04, 2003 at 11:26 pm), that "when asked why there has been little to no coverage of what was billed as the 'Trial of the Century', people tend to respond that: "I was wondering about that". It's my experience too, that "in the back of many minds there are mounting thoughts."
Drip, drip, drip...
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 3:16 am
Dear mr. Wilcoxson,I doubt, that I (used to) have any closer "contact with yourself and Mr. Krsljanin" than anybody (might have)? Anyway: Thank you, but No: I am not necessarily particularly interested in being "kept abrest of your communications" with Mr. Krsljanin. I do not need to care for his answer(s) to the questions that you have asked him. Why would I?
I'd much prefer that the "trial discussion panel", the participants as "a whole" that is be informed on this site of what is relevant, you know: All that is relevant - and nothing but the relevant.
It is of prime importance for most of us I believe, that we can rest assured that any support for mr. Milosevic is taken care of by dedicated and competent people. In a situation where the main person is actually forced to concentrate full time on his defence, and under difficult circumstances, I would hate to be heard as complaining about wasting time; yet it must be clear to all, that a lot of discussion participants (incl. myself) have but limited time at their disposal for this (I think that Nicole very clearly expressed a positive, yet "no nonsense" attitude, which must be respected).
A lot of participants have "already" made impressive contributions, (which has cost time and money). There are signs that more people follow the dicussion, and may contribute in future. Hence I was saddened, but also disturbed about your "response" to Zorica P's questions (Friday August 08, 2003 at 1:21 pm). You do not seem to fully understand, or you are unable to respect that since a series of "trial discussion" participants have voiced their ligitimate concern with apparent confusion and a possible or de facto split in the ICDSM it is necessary to reestablish confidence and some sort of new "order".
Zorica P's question of whether you doubt that "Mr. Krsljanin is Mr. Milosevics foreign policy adviser and one of the leading figures at Sloboda," could be answered simply with a "Yes" or (preferably of course!) a "No" - but the answer is obviously relevant no matter whether the question originated from a "German" or a "Belgrade" I.P. address (it's another matter altogether that it would be preferable (in my opinion) if all participants were known by full name rather than by acro- or synonyms...).
That "order" should emerge naturally from the defense, and it seems very obvious that somehow "Belgrade" must provide the cornerstone, rather than The Hague, Washington or whatever. It has been my impression, that things have been working well like that til now - notwithsanding the stress and strain. So why shift the "Defense Center" to somewhere else, instead of merely complementing what is already there.
At your suggestion (to mr. Bentley) I send mr. Varkevisser a request for clarification (OPEN LETTER on Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 4:43 pm). Mr. Varkevisser, who had this important meeting with mr. Milosevic medio July may be having a holiday now of course, - what do I know? But since "you guys" created this situation (which cannot reasonably be ascribed to ordinary discussion participants like myself), I suggest that we have the answer within a week - or not expect to have any answer at all!
Alternatively we have to look for other ways of "clarification", - even if it would mean having to bother the President with what may, for all that I know, be but a minor squabble.
I would not even know how to go about that. Well, - thank you once again for your efforts, mr. Wilcoxson...
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 4:18 am
Well, Milan Prika,Concerning this "unique behavior" of the Bonobos please let me add this little piece of info that I found in said article of professor Philip J. Regal from the University's Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior:
He is seemingly seriously suggesting, that "BECAUSE of the similarities between apes and humans, it is important the animals are saved from extinction (?)"
If only the professor wrote: "IN SPITE OF of the similarities between humans and Bonobos, it is important the animals/humans are saved from extinction."
Either way I would not know exactly what this piece of anglophonia means, really...
http://www.mndaily.com/daily/1997/05/15/news/bonobo/
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 6:59 am
Diplomats attending mrs. Carla del Pontes 10 minutes private Security Council briefing, released Friday afternoon, said the message was that "she was pretty irreplaceable"."Because I'm irreplaceable..."
Well, - reportedly she didn't use that word. And after the briefing del Ponte told Kofi Annan, the U.N. General Secretary, that "she was willing to continue" as Head of the socalled "Yugoslav tribunal" (ICTY) in any case.
NICE try, if I MAY say so, CARLA. A piece of sharp practice...
Meanwhile on Friday in the town of Tikrit in Iraq, the ancestral home of President Saddam Hussein, U.S. occupation forces were being attacked by the resistance movement. As Carla was doing her level best to convince the 15 members of the Security Council, four American soldiers were wounded in a rocket-propelled grenade attack at the 4th Infantry Division headquarters, U.S. military officials said. Also Friday, U.S. forces shot dead two Iraqi men they believed were illegally trading arms in a Tikrit market (2).
Hey, - "illegal arms trade"? Bang, - you are DEAD!
U.S. civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer on Saturday was admitting, that "Iraq is not as safe as it must be." And this Sunday morning an explosion in Tikrit, believed to have been caused by an "improvised explosive device", (maybe a part of Saddams nuclear strategy?), injured 2 (two) U.S. soldiers this Sunday morning (3).
Now, - why doesn't Kofi establish an "International Criminal Court for Tikrit and Environs, the Ancestral Home of President Saddam Hussein" (ICTEAAHPSH), headed by Carla, - and starting straight away with the U.S. Coalition's latest murder of two Iraqi men, that "they believed were illegally trading arms in a Tikrit market"?
I'm sure del Ponte would become irreplaceable for the next 50-100 years. Eventually they will carry her around just to occasionally show up in the doorway to Court Room 000, whence she'll automatically be repeating:
"My name is Ponte! del Ponte! I want Control of Cases..."
(1) http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030809_408.html
(2) http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/10/sprj.irq.attack/index.html
(3) http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/09/sprj.irq.main/index.html
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 10:11 am
vis a vie Carla...........me thinks that someone (Kofi ? ) simply wants to give a crony a cushy job as head of the Rawanda Hearing.The row about having two people doing Carla's job is more than likely a battle over patronage.
AP V
NY
NY - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 10:37 am
Dear Godfred . To save animals from extinction because of similarities , paints me the teory that we don't share a common ancester with apes instead , we haven't finished descending from them , and this particular concept explains why some politicians are so prone to some "unique behavior" . On the other hand we have to save ALL animals (including tuna) from extinction just because we have no right to decide who can stay and who has to go , and animals are the ones who do deserve by God's given right's to an ICCT (obviously no Carla of course) and with these comments I promese to leave my Bonobo cousins in peace and may the good old Lord spares for them their place in this world , and stop evolving because if they don't some day in the near future they can also be subject to have some "ordnance" droped on
Milan Prika
Rep. of Panama - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 11:19 am
I wish to endorse Godred's post above.We all have a stake in this trial as it is about justice not just for Mr Milosevic but for the rest of us too. This fall out and the silence following it shakes my confidence in the people who are supposed to be unified in their call for justice. I might accept a diplomatic silence if donations were not being asked for and we didnt all have a stake in this. In fact that nobody wants to talk about what the problem is makes me worry that it is of a very serious nature. And now we see above that Sergi Lazarov at least has begun speculating.
Its interesting that the subject of letters to the media and their use came up here. Is there any more use writing letters to Mr Varkevisser than there is trying to send letters to the mainstream press? I hope so.
Until we know I dont think that either part of the ICDSM has the right to ask us for money in the name of Slobodan Milosevic
Alf Bentley
UK - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 2:05 pm
GodfredFor someone who has been remarkably finicky in demanding others be precise in their statements you often appear to be loose in some of your own.
I do not recall expressing “dread” at the “drip, drip, drip” of Serbophobic propaganda nor do recall expressing the fact that I am on anyone’s side in this discussion except in so far as they support the pillars of Justice: Truth and Impartiality. Neither did I seek to discourage letter writing as evidenced by my post of Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 11.31 am in which I positively encouraged a flood of letters to the BBC regarding the post by Pythagoras dated Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 10.19 am which reveals evidence of Bosnian Muslim atrocities committed on Bosnian Serbs.
Forgive me if I am missing something but in ‘posting my letters here’ I believe they may be read by anyone world wide with access to the Internet: and that includes the BBC. And this without the intervention to which snail-mail is subjected: by hopeful apprentice media hacks employed to filter them out, screwing them into office ballistic missiles or sculpting them into a paper planes while picking their noses’ (male) or painting their toe nails (female - mostly) and scoffing bacon sarnies. Then with a chortle consigning my 50p-worths into overflowing trashcans in the servile hope that in relieving the burden of conscience for their masters, by enabling them not to receive what they do not want to receive, they may hasten their promotion to junior hacks.
Let me whack the ball back into your half of the ICTY court. As someone with a penchant for telling others what to do, you ought not to be surprised at the following advice: Let me appoint you ‘Secretary to The Letter Writing Group of the Jurist discussion on the Trial of Milosevic’. The title is very grand but the pay is not good: in fact it’s zero and there are no expenses for ink, stationery and postage.
In this post - no pun intended - why don’t you organise all those who share your belief in the effectiveness of snail-mail to bombard the BBC and other media such as ITV and the British (Murdoch, Black …?) newspapers with the contents of the letters you have suggested. I say bombard because I agree with Gogol’s comment that only hundreds - if not thousands - of letters are likely to be effective.
As far as my contributions here are concerned anyone may mail them by quoting them, by rewriting the contents to suit or even by signing them verbatim as their own. The posts requested were Thursday July 03, 2003 at 6.45 pm and Friday August 08, 2003 at 12:56 pm.
Please keep me informed as to any replies your group receives. In so far as the BBC is concerned I shall judge for myself what effect your letters have had by watching - during the next few months - BBC titles such as: ‘Nasser Oric the bloody butcher of Sarajevo: Nato Generals reveal Bosnian Muslims murdered there own civilians to blame the Serbs: Blair’s British Muslim friends tied to atrocities on Bosnian Serbs: Blair’s forces trained KLA Islamic terrorists in Albania: The Mujahedin in Kosovo: Thaci Butchers Kosovars. KLA condemned by Kosovar KDI: KLA massacres Serbs at Klecka, Glodjane and Orahovac: Blair’s cluster-bomb massacres in Nis and other Serbian towns: Belgrade’s Bridges: Flying bombs into public buildings is a war crime Mr Blair: Blair attempts to murder Milosevic. Nato pushes for Greater Albania: The joint Criminal Enterprise in Kosovo, Macedonia and Southern Serbia. Newsflash: Jackie Rowland sacked for biased reporting.’
“In my dreams” I whisper to myself sarcastically.
Post Scriptum: Here are two addresses. You may discover the addresses of the BBC Chairman , the Director General and other media seniors from the Internet:
Richard Sambrook, Director, BBC News, BBC, Broadcasting House, London. W1A 1AA.
Mark Byford, Director, World Service and Global News, BBC, Broadcasting House, London. W1A 1AA.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 5:04 pm
Thanks, Peter, for permission to reprint your words. Because you put things so well, I might just do that and, if I do, I'll let you know via this site.
Anna P
California - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 7:35 pm
Why doesn't the BBC broadcast the trial? Why don't newspapers report on it? One word: embarrassment. The infrastructure is there. The finances are there. The minute the trial would give the enlightened people something to be proud of, it would get wall-to-wall coverage. It doesn't. This silence speaks volumes. We don't have to fight for the truth. The silence is the truth.On the other hand, we have to put up with self-appointed high priests and priestesses of truth, who are there to interpret to us the oracular pronouncements made by the tribunal. However, these self-appointed high priests and priestesses write to people who follow the trial anyway, so what's the use?
A few months ago, the bulletin from the Ministry of Truth, called the IWPR, went to great lenghts to explain to us how it works. It made a spectacular concession by calling the trial boring, longwinded and what not. But it said that at the end of the day, the truth will emerge. This is truly comforting. We aren't anywhere near the defence stage yet, and already we hear from the Ministry of Truth that the truth is emerging. Who knows, the IWPR might be partial.
The IWPR is only playing a sleight-of-hand trick. It is true that trials are often boring and longwinded. It is also true that in many cases, the truth will emerge regardless of how sloppily the trial is performed. This gives the IWPR the excuse to conclude that the more boring and confusing the trial is, the more we get to the truth. As if a trial would be a mistrial, if it made any sense.
The fact is that we wouldn't need any "reporting" at all, if the trial were not such an embarrassment as to be kept in the shadows. The trial has descended to the underworld of covert operations, and the well-connected publications like the IWPR are there to provide the cover story. Do they think that their target audience, who have followed the trial anyway, don't realize what is going on?
J W
Canada - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 8:08 pm
Given the dreadful material IWPR has to use.........one must admit their paid writers are doing a decent job of putting their message across.....you got to hand it to them, they are able to weave a story out of nothing.One the other hand......
Vera, Andy, et. al. have a much easier time of it. For Vera & Andy can write articles with quotations, detailed facts, and actualy bits of ICTY transcripts.
All Vera and Andy have to do is report on what actually went on at the ICTY hearings.
So when we beat up on those IWPR hacks, lets not be tooooo harsh on them, they are doing the best they can with the shabby material the ICTY gives 'em.
AP V
NY
NY - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 9:20 pm
Something to think about . http://www.davidcke.net/tellthetruth/coverups/bronfmanbush.html
Milan Prika
Rep. of Panama - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 9:56 pm
Louis-Jensen demands that others answer his questions about the conflicts in the ICDSM. He says he only wants clarity. You should watch what you demand, Louie. You may get it.
In regard to the ICDSM, it is already clear. Varkevesser and Israel published their third text on Ramsey Clark on June 14, 2003.
In that text they stated that Ramsey Clark had been removed as co-Chair of the ICDSM by Milosevic. Israel and Varkevesser are or were top leaders of the ICDSM. If they were lying, wouldn't Mr. Milosevic have been outraged? Wouldn't he have demanded they retract and if they refused, have ordered them removed and instructed Vladimir Krsljanin to publish a denial? At least a statement that Clark was NOT removed. But there was no such statement on Jurist, not on Sloboda website. In his reply to Wilcoxson from a few days ago, we saw how aggressively Vladimir Krsljanin attacked opponents of Mr. Clark, calling them gangsters and saying they will be expelled from ICDSM.
If Israel and Varkevesser were lying when they said Mr. Milosevic removed Clark, wouldn't Krsljanin have informed us that they were SUPER gangsters? He has been silent because, obviously, Mr. Milosevic DID remove Clark and Krsljanin has been afraid to publish a direct lie, lest Milosevic lose all patience.
Anyway, Krsljanin waited too long: two months have passed. Since there was no denial, we can say with certainty that Mr. Milosevic removed Clark. Vladimir Krsljanin and his associates have decided to put Clark back, defying Milosevic, relying perhaps on the difficulty Milosevic has to make public statements.
Wilcoxson says that Vladimir Krsljanin wishes to turn the ICDSM into a mouthpiece for Ramsey Clark - into the ICDRC - International Committee to Defend Ramsey Clark.
Israel and Varkevesser say Clark is a supporter of Islamic extremism. Is this true?
As quoted all over the Internet, and also in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May 31, 1999 edition, Ramsey Clark told a meeting: "Islam is the best chance the poor of the planet have for any hope of decency in their lives. It is the one revolutionary force that cares about humanity."
That sounds more like Alijah Izetbegovic than Slobodan Milosevic. Shall Izetbegovic also be made a Co-Chairman of ICDSM? Why not Sheikh Rahman, for whom Ramsey Clark went to Egypt and campaigned - lending his prestige directly to the notorious terrorist outfit, Gama'a al Islamya, holding joint press conferences with their spokesman.
Regarding the consequences of Clark's support for the most extreme Islamism, Israel and Varkevesser have referred to an interview that Clark gave with CNN. For some reason they have not published it, but I found it. It was on Nov. 23, 2001, not Nov. 19, as they wrote. Here is what Ramsey Clark had to say in that interview about the Bosnian Serbs:
"The immediate preceding prosecutor, Richard Goldstone, who is a very distinguished South African jurist on the Supreme Court there now -- he was a fighter against apartheid -- in a book University of Yale Press published just last year said what's not understood is that even if Milosevic may have approved the criminal conduct of Karadzic and Wadik (ph) [sic! Mladic], did not make him guilty of a war crime nor did the fact that he supplied weapons or even troops to the Bosnian Serb army."
When Clark made this statement he was a co-Chairman of the Committee to SUPPORT Milosevic. Maybe he thought he was head of the Committee to ATTACK Milosevic.
"Even if Milosevic may have approved the criminal conduct of Karadzic..."
It is true that Clark hides behind Goldstone in this attack on the Bosnian Serbs. However he praises Goldstone to the utmost and does not disagree with him. So he is telling the world that he agrees with Goldstone, while still permitting himself plausible denial: "I didn't say that. It was Goldstone."
If Clark and his group of weird sectarians, the IAC, take control of the ICDSM, this could only worsen the great divide in the Serbian community, which is over Bosnia.
Vladimir K. has now put it in writing: anyone who criticizes Ramsey Clark is a gangster and should be expelled from ICDSM. Not anyone who attacks Milosevic, not even anyone who attacks Vladimir Krsljanin. RAMSEY CLARK is the precious one. So we have clarity here as well. The accusation is true. Krsljanin is trying to put Clark in a position where this man, a pro-terrorist who attacks the Bosnian Serbs, would be the media face of Slobodan Milosevic. What is this, if not an attempt to further demonize and even to further divide the Serbs?
John Marat
USA - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 10:03 pm
Test
John Marat
USA - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 10:09 pm
None of the four hyperlinks in the text above worked. So here is the text again with plain URLs...
Louis-Jensen demands that others answer his questions about the conflicts in the ICDSM. He says he only wants clarity. You should watch what you demand, Louie. You may get it.
In regard to the ICDSM, it is already clear. Varkevesser and Israel published their third text on Ramsey Clark on June 14, 2003.
"Ramsey Clark's IAC Accuses us of Slander, but they get the facts wrong..." http://emperors-clothes.com/ramsey/ramsey3.htm
In that text they stated that Ramsey Clark had been removed as co-Chair of the ICDSM by Milosevic. Israel and Varkevesser are or were top leaders of the ICDSM. If they were lying, wouldn't Mr. Milosevic have been outraged? Wouldn't he have demanded they retract and if they refused, have ordered them removed and instructed Vladimir Krsljanin to publish a denial? At least a statement that Clark was NOT removed. But there was no such statement on Jurist, not on Sloboda website. In his reply to Wilcoxson from a few days ago, we saw how aggressively Vladimir Krsljanin attacked opponents of Mr. Clark, calling them gangsters and saying they will be expelled from ICDSM.
"Krsljanin Answers Wilcoxson" http://wilcoxson.pochta.ru/vlada-response.htm
If Israel and Varkevesser were lying when they said Mr. Milosevic removed Clark, wouldn't Krsljanin have informed us that they were SUPER gangsters? He has been silent because, obviously, Mr. Milosevic DID remove Clark and Krsljanin has been afraid to publish a direct lie, lest Milosevic lose all patience.
Anyway, Krsljanin waited too long: two months have passed. Since there was no denial, we can say with certainty that Mr. Milosevic removed Clark. Vladimir Krsljanin and his associates have decided to put Clark back, defying Milosevic, relying perhaps on the difficulty Milosevic has to make public statements.
Wilcoxson says that Vladimir Krsljanin wishes to turn the ICDSM into a mouthpiece for Ramsey Clark - into the ICDRC - International Committee to Defend Ramsey Clark.
http://wilcoxson.pochta.ru/wilcoxson-2.htm "Second Open Letter to Krsljanin"
Israel and Varkevesser say Clark is a supporter of Islamic extremism. Is this true?
As quoted all over the Internet, and also in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May 31, 1999 edition, Ramsey Clark told a meeting: "Islam is the best chance the poor of the planet have for any hope of decency in their lives. It is the one revolutionary force that cares about humanity."
That sounds more like Alijah Izetbegovic than Slobodan Milosevic. Shall Izetbegovic also be made a Co-Chairman of ICDSM? Why not Sheikh Rahman, for whom Ramsey Clark went to Egypt and campaigned - lending his prestige directly to the notorious terrorist outfit, Gama'a al Islamya, holding joint press conferences with their spokesman.
"Clark Pleads for Jailed Gama'a Leader" http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/415/eg6.htm
Regarding the consequences of Clark's support for the most extreme Islamism, Israel and Varkevesser have referred to an interview that Clark gave with CNN. For some reason they have not published it, but I found it. It was on Nov. 23, 2001, not Nov. 19, as they wrote. Here is what Ramsey Clark had to say in that interview about the Bosnian Serbs:
"The immediate preceding prosecutor, Richard Goldstone, who is a very distinguished South African jurist on the Supreme Court there now -- he was a fighter against apartheid -- in a book University of Yale Press published just last year said what's not understood is that even if Milosevic may have approved the criminal conduct of Karadzic and Wadik (ph) [sic! Mladic], did not make him guilty of a war crime nor did the fact that he supplied weapons or even troops to the Bosnian Serb army."
When Clark made this statement he was a co-Chairman of the Committee to SUPPORT Milosevic. Maybe he thought he was head of the Committee to ATTACK Milosevic.
"Even if Milosevic may have approved the criminal conduct of Karadzic..."
It is true that Clark hides behind Goldstone in this attack on the Bosnian Serbs. However he praises Goldstone to the utmost and does not disagree with him. So he is telling the world that he agrees with Goldstone, while still permitting himself plausible denial: "I didn't say that. It was Goldstone."
If Clark and his group of weird sectarians, the IAC, take control of the ICDSM, this could only worsen the great divide in the Serbian community, which is over Bosnia.
Vladimir K. has now put it in writing: anyone who criticizes Ramsey Clark is a gangster and should be expelled from ICDSM. Not anyone who attacks Milosevic, not even anyone who attacks Vladimir Krsljanin. RAMSEY CLARK is the precious one. So we have clarity here as well. The accusation is true. Krsljanin is trying to put Clark in a position where this man, a pro-terrorist who attacks the Bosnian Serbs, would be the media face of Slobodan Milosevic. What is this, if not an attempt to further demonize and even to further divide the Serbs?
John Marat
USA - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 11:17 pm
Mr. Krsljanin could clear all this up by answering if Milosevic asked for CLark to be removed.
Dan B
Canada - Sunday August 10, 2003 at 11:59 pm
Dan B. wrote: "Mr. Krsljanin could clear all this up by answering if Milosevic asked for Clark to be removed.
Actually at THIS point if Krsjlanin for the first time made the claim that Milosevic did not remove Clark, it would "clear up" nothing. As noted in my earlier post, by remaining silent for two months in response to the statements by Israel and Varkevesser that Clark was removed at the start of June, Krsljanin has already confirmed that Clark was removed. Obviously, if Milosevic never removed Clark, Krsljanin, who is Clark's fierce supporter, would have spoken up weeks ago. That's Krsljanin's problem: if he denies the removal at this late date, he is obviously lying. If he doesn't deny it, the Mr. Wilcoxson's question rings in the air: did you and your associates put Clark back in in defiance of Milosevic?
If he had moral courage he would say: Yes Milosevic removed him. But he was wrtong to do so and we will not accept it.
But Krsljanin does not appear to have the courage to make this obviously true statement. So instead he threatens to expel all the "gangsters" who dare to attack Ramsey Clark. Hmmmmmm. Since Milosevic removed Clark, does that mean Krsljanin will expel Milosevic too?
John Marat
USA