 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
- Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 5:16 am
JaredYou wrote: "PS, the ICDSM website, which I edit, has never discussed the Arab-Israeli issue."
I'm pleased about that, but maybe you could employ a similar editorial policy here as well when it comes to the same issue. Alternatively, maybe Francisco and you could start up a new discussion group on the Israel v Palestine issue.
I don't know about the rest of the contributors and readers of this particular forum but it seems to me that most of us are here regarding the current Milosevic trial and related issues.
As for your right to defend the truth about the Jews and the Arabs, you are most welcome to do that in the context of this discussion as long as it has something to do with the ICTY, ex YU or the Milosevic trial or similar. Otherwise, you might try another discussion group which might be more relevant and to the point.
PS I already have problems downloading due to the length of the page and I certainly don't need any further assistance by means of long winded, off topic posts. I don't want to sound gruff but I'm sure you'll appreciate my point.
David
Australia - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 5:42 am
AnaIf the CIA can't get results with it's drug laundered money from banks such as Nugan Hand etc, Soros steps in, and it's all just another "business" venture which keeps the US govt "clean". If the American people won't finance the CIA's dirty work by way of appropriation bills, the big wigs get the money in a more "appropriate" way... by financing "democracy, freedom and humanitarianism" through so called "free market" operations. Now that's something the people will support, as we've seen in Latin America, SE Asia, YU, Afghanistan, Iraq and dozens of other places world wide. :-(
David
Australia - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 5:57 am
Sic! The "silly sniping" from the IAC (or "Ramsey Clark's minions"?) tend to reinforce my suspicion as to why this former U.S. Attorney General is being "rubbished so bitterly" by Jared Israel et al.: Even if including also "the rest of the world" the U.S. may be too small to support both of them (and their henchmen)!I disagree however with the IAC suggestion, that no one should give "The Emperor's Clothes" any support: Firstly I would suggest, that this is none of IAC's business! Secondly I have realized that while mr. Israel may be neither a "conspiracy theorist", "Serbian nationalist" or "clairvoyant", he is certainly an egomaniac in need of some form of support.
With regard to mr. Clark I happily remember, that when in Copenhagen for a seminar prior to the Anglo-Saxon war on Iraq (unhappily supported by the Danish Gvt., who send a little submarine to Iraqi waters) he was being asked by a member of the audience how come, that he ever accepted the appointment as U.S. Attorney General?
Ramsey Clark smilingly promised, that "it would never happen again" (and I am quite confident with that).
Now, - can we go on to something else "to do with the ICTY, ex YU or the Milosevic trial or similar" as David is suggesting?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 6:28 am
PythagorasRe: "Document linking Milosevic to Srebrenica"
That's not a document! It's an unsigned, plain sheet of paper with typewritten text. How many copies would you like me to do for you? In fact, would you like one issued by Milosevic himself ordering the Srebrenica and Racak masacres? No problem, just let me know how many copies you'd like.
I can also supply you with Blair's and Clinton's orders to bomb ONLY the infrastructure in YU and to make sure lots of civilians are killed to demoralise the Serb population.
What a joke the media and the journalists are who peddle reports of such "smoking gun" evidence and rubbish. What a joke the prosecution is releasing crap like that. Why... maybe even Nice might have written it himself to bolster his failing case.
No doubt Mr May will need to consider it as authentic as a sheet of unsigned paper confessing his paedophiliac proclivities. What a sham and disgrace!
David
Australia - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 7:53 am
THERE WAS NO MASSACRE OF UNARMED CIVILIAN VILLAGERS AT RACAKPythagoras Crotoniatis is right I suppose in crediting Francisco Gil-White for stressing a particular main point, namely that:
If the incident at Racak on 15 January , 1999 (during which 45 “Kosovo-Albanians” may or may not have been killed) had in reality involved a genuine massacre (or “summary execution” of unarmed civilians), then the principal forensic findings of the autopsy team would hardly have shown the actual “lack of short-range wounds”.
Forensic experts determined the “gunshot injuries” to be the cause of death in all cases. While their number varied between one and twenty, most of the 40 bodies investigated had multiple shots, - which Gil-White considers “unnecessary in a summary execution”. Multiple longer-range injuries (if I may call them so?) as well as the actual paths of “an astonishing number of bullets” however is to be expected in combat. Gil-White contends that since the forensic evidence is consistent with a military firefight and since none of the (other) evidence is consistent with an execution then ”the only reasonable conclusion is that there was no massacre at Racak”.
Who would not agree with Gil-White?
“It was a hoax”, he says; and as the Racak incident is among the key issues at the “trial” against Milosevic, it logically follows that this hoax must be pretty much all the prosecution’s got!
It was obviously “necessary”, as “nobody attempts a hoax when they have real evidence to show”.
Or have an acceptable reason for waging war of attack, we might add: As far as “Kosovo” is concerned the alleged "massacre" at Racak is the one and only charge for murder dated prior to the start of NATO’s air attack on the FRY on 24 March, 1999, - for which this hoax was to serve as an excuse.
While the facts argue against the ICTY’s assumption, that villagers from Racak were “removed to a nearby hill, where they were summarily shot and killed”, it also effectively contradicts the statements of Ambassador William Walker, the American former head of the OSCE´s Kosovo Verification mission, who widely reported that on the following day he “saw...many shot at extremely close range”.
In his cross-examination of this all-important, if vague witness for the prosecution mr. Milosevic successfully made Ambassador Walker reveal, that there is no substance whatever in the hasty reports that the victims “died where they were lying”.
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 8:34 am
The very few people posting anti-Semitic trash on this list have been unable to defeat the arguments put forward, mainly by Prof. Gil-White, secondarily by me and others. Hence their policy, exemplified by their fan, Mr. Louis Jensen, who has now twice posted personal attacks, one directed at Francisco Gil-White and one at me. Comically, each attack post is followed by his pious admonition that everyone focus on the Milosevic trial.
I can't read the mind of Louis-Jensen - he's a name on an discussion list. But I know why some people in academia are upset about Professor Gil-White. It is a terrific victory for the Serbs that a sceintist of his distinction, who studies the structures of ethnic conflict, has joined the fight for the truth about Yugoslavia. He is having an impact on other academics. For those unfamiliar with his work, I recommend his article on the murder of Dokmanovic, who was "guilty" of *being a Serb*, at The Hague, his refutation of the lies about Milosevic's famous 1989 speech at Kosovo Polje, and his piece on Alija Izetbegovic, the US man in Bosnia, for starters.
All Gil-White's writings on Yugoslavia are published on Emperor's Clothes. To find them in one group, go to the main page of his websitewhich also describes his fascinating research.
Jared Israel
USA - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 8:57 am
Dear David,
Your request that I not discuss issues concerning the Arab-Israeli dispute and anti-Semitism are all well and good, but I have discussed them *in response* to statements by others. So, if you want to keep the discussion focused on the trial, which is a fine idea, you need to direct your remarks to those who raise these issues *to which I and others have responded.* That's fair, isn't it?
The need to attack anti-Semitism is *very* relevant to the Serbs, as President Milosevic is aware. If Serbs were won to anti-Semitism, then the attempt to demonize them as fascists would be undefeatable; hence the effort to push anti-Semitism on Serbs by the US-led Empire aided by some supposed friends of the Serbs. That is why President Milosevic *supports* Nico and my effort to distinguish him from those who mix anti-Imperialist phrases with Jew-bashing.
Jared Israel
USA - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 9:00 am
To: Webmaster. Sir, Is there a way to ensure the continuous availability of this web? For the last five days I was unable to post and the Forum remained frozen. I would like to plead with you to somehow disable or eliminate the “ fatal error” feature and allow us to access the Forum without interruption. Sincerely
D. Jovanovic
USA - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 9:12 am
It appears Godfred Louis-Jensens remarks about Jared Israel's ego are correct.Dont worry Jared, you and Gil-White are undefeated, unbeatable, infalable.
Please desist from marketing your product on this page. All you have succeeded in doing here is alienating people tired of listening to mainstream propoganda. They now tire of your spin and constant PR work for EC.
Could somebody tell us whats going on at the Hague. There was a guy there this morning who looked like Douglas Hurd testifying against Milosevic - somebody from the UN. What are the prosecution trying to prove by using him?
N Stamford
Euroland - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 9:34 am
To: Webmaster. Sir, Is there a way to ensure the continuous availability of this web? For the last five days I was unable to post and the Forum remained frozen. I would like to plead with you to somehow disable or eliminate the “ fatal error” feature and allow us to access the Forum without interruption. Sincerely
D. Jovanovic
USA - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 10:16 am
Re relevance of posts to the Milosevic trial -- it seems to have been longer than usual since we've heard from Vera.Dakic Ana, many cared very deeply in 1999 and continue to care; and, I for one, support your right to describe your thoughts and experience in the clearest terms possible.
M Donne
Canada - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 11:25 am
N. Stamford,The Douglas Hurd look-alike was Michael Williams. He was the UN information officer in Bosnia in 1994.
The point of his testimony was apparently to bad mouth the Bosnian Serbs.
The "evidence" he gave against Milosevic was somewhere between nonexsistant and vague. Mr. Williams doubted the veracity of the embargo that Yugoslavia put on Repbulika Srpska, but he didn't have any concrete evidence to back-up his claims. He says that some helicopters were seen flying back and forth, but he didn't have any proof of what was on the helicopters.
He did, however, confirm that Milosevic's position from the beginning was that the war in Bosnia should be ended, and that Milosevic tried to use his influence to bring about peace, with the Contact Group plan, the Vance-Owen plan, Dayton, etc...
P.S.: I should like to add that personal attacks on Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White's personalities are not productive. Jared and Francisco are at the forefront of the struggle to defend Milosevic and the Serbian people.
I agree that this page should be exclusively devoted to the Milosevic "trial," but when an attack is made against a member of this discussion they will respond with a counter-attack, and a vicious circle is created, and that vicuous circle consumes the discussion, because everybody involved with the trading of attacks wants to have the last word.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 11:34 am
THERE WAS NO MASSACRE AT RACAK (2)Commenting appreaciatively on the learned Professor Gil-Whites thesis on the lack of "close-range firing in Racak", Pythagoras Crotoniatis (on Tuesday June 17, 2003 at 4:40 pm) was suggesting that "Milosevic...appears to have been unaware of it, as judged by his dwelling on less clear-cut points". I would doubt that it was really so:
As Gil-White has pointed out the forensic experts when examining the victims alledgedly from Racak were noticing any signs of "contact or close-range firing" (which one would indeed expect from a summary execution, as says Gil-White), - but found only 1 (one) "probable close-range discharge" (out of a total number of 2-300 gunshots wounds). The autopsies performed or monitored by the Finnish team of experts under the mandate of the European Union produced no signs of close-range firing at all!
While this fact argues against ICTY´s assumption that villagers from Racak were "removed to a nearby hill, where they were shot and killed", it also effectively contradicts the statement of Ambassador William Walker, that he "saw...many shot at extremely close range", - and mr. Milosevic was grilling Ambassador Walker on this point during his cros-examination (11-12 June, 2002).
Although not a lawyer nor a medic (or as claivoyant as many Americans appear to be) Ambassador Walker immediately communicated to the entire world, that what he had seen at the nearby hill was indeed (the result of) a "massacre". Thus it is also worth noting that when examined as a witness the Ambassador stuck to his layman's view, meakly insisting that on the 16 January, 1999 he had been "looking at villagers, who had been taken away and turned up dead the following morning".
Walker characteristically did not repeat that the victims were "shot at extremely close range"!
In his cross-examination of this all-important witness for the prosecution mr. Milosevic successfully made Walker reveal, that there is no substance whatever in his hasty report that the victims "died where they were lying".
How could we, the general public, trust the visual observations of a man who was not even able to see the KLA people present at the time that he examined the bodies?
Although identification of the victims was the first on the list of duties for the investigators even the Finnish team of forensic experts "could not confirm that the victims (or "persons known by name" - gl-j) were from Racak". Their manner of death remained undetermined by them as well, and still is towards the end of the prosecution's overtly lenghty yet unconvincing case (there seem to be no reason at all for us to believe that this crucial incident in fact took place as described in the "Indictment" by the Prosecutor of the ICTY).
The truth about the Racak incident may not come out until mr. Milosevic brings witnesses for the defense. Until such time (on 12 February, 2004?) I suggest that we as members of the public should seek the answers to questions we reasonably have, - not least as responsible citizens in NATO member countries participating in or in any way supporting the illegal armed attack on the FRY over Kosovo.
Question no. 1 for the head of any NATO state would be this: Why would mr. Milosevic order the murder (and/or deportation) of his own citizens?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 11:48 am
In case Ambassador Walkers performance as a witness in the Hague on 11-12 June last year was analysed on this page, (maybe by Vera Martinovic?) then I´d be most obliged for your directing me towards the relevant postings or other sources.
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 2:22 pm
Anti-Semitism debate This isn't well known, but when Gary Kasparov lost to the computer Deep Blue, it was in part because Kasparov wasn't given access to Deep Blue's playing history -- so Kasparov couldn't study style and strategy. With their research on Israel, the Emperor's-Clothes people seem to be providing a tool to those with an interest in the Yugoslavia debate: how have gone _other_ games with some of the same players? Anything EC can document about how "media battles" are waged by these people, seems to me relevant to readers of this list. Instances of engineered ethnic conflict and control of the left opposition seem relevant (iff they can be documented). It is a service to this community, for EC to shed light on the nature of this particular weapon. No? -marc
Marc
PA / USA - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 3:37 pm
Perhaps more important than William Walker's testimony was KLA Racak commander Shukri Buja and Nesret Shabani on June 5, 6 2002.
They admitted some exceptions were made by the KLA to enlist old men in their ranks. This being consistant with the finding of old men among the victims found in the gulley.Further some of the identified corpses names appeared in the KLA lists as well. But the whole thing is more subtle than that, the KLA was in the town, had a bunker defensive system build between the slope of the hill as natural defense and the town as civilian defense. In order for the VJA to take the base and attack the bunkers they had to take Racak and its flanks giving fuel to the story the VJA was conducting warfar against defenseless villages and hamlets.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 5:38 pm
Arthur Reznick, Robert Hessen and Neil Stamford, it is usually considered polite to READ some of the posts on a Forum before you start a diatribe against other posters.Maybe it would make you look more intelligent if you were to first determine what on earth you are talking about.
Allow me to clarify a point. I am not Jewish but your vitriol has convinced me that all 3 of you are anti-semites. Why else would you be so rude to other posters, when you obviously do not have the foggiest notion what they were replying to?
Godfred Louis-Jensen, Gogol Charlemagne, and David, you are all fond of telling others what they may and may not post. May I suggest you practice what you preach?
I have an interesting suggestion. If you don't like the topic, and don't want to talk about it, don't respond.
If you choose to ignore this simple remedy and respond, don't expect to have the final say.
For all 6 of you, it would really help a great deal if you would stick to providing documentation of your assertions. The staff of EC has done so over and over. It tends to make their arguments carry a great deal more weight than any, any of you could make.
May I also suggest you start a fan club for Ramsey Clark, somewhere OFF this Forum? If you can't understand the evidence Jared Israel has documented against him, you might also want to return to grade school. I would put RC in the nearly the same category as William Walker.
Personally, I have found the posts by each of you to be somewhat like what I would expect from a spoiled child who is angry because he wants to be the center of attention. Reread your posts and you may see what I mean.
Rebecka Justice
Portland
OR - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 6:04 pm
Rebecka JusticeYour suggestion that we all take a breath and Read each other's posts is well taken.
Thank you
Aurthur Reznick
Chicago, IL
USA - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 6:33 pm
Redbecka
Following your own advise I will not respond to your posting.
What kind of a forum is one in which it is suggested not to respond to postings?
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 6:54 pm
As to the concern for Vera, have any of the rest of you besides D. Jovanovic, and myself had difficulty with the Forum this last week? Everytime I tried to log on I received an error message with only changes in the line number. Maybe this was Vera's problem. Sure hope she returns soon.Thank you Arthur. I have been a fan of EC for a few years now and am especially impressed with their determination to learn the truth and provide documentation.
I was pretty stupid before the attack on Serbia/Kosovo and believed everthing spewed by the mainstream media. EC, Srpska Mreza and a few others showed me the truth. (Precisely because they provided documentation.) I don't take kindly to their veracity being questioned with absolutely no proof.
As far as Israel is concerned, I have been reading everything I could get my hands on about the ENTIRE history of the Jewish people for many years. I have yet to see a fallacy in any of Jared Israel's remarks regarding the subject.
Thank you for your calm and polite remark. I will try that option sometime when I am a bit less incensed.. ;)
Rebecka Justice
Portland
OR - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 7:00 pm
And please Rebecka, your calling names, or is it a compliment, fits into what part of your argument?
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 7:37 pm
Gogol, after reading your last two "Non" responses to me, I really have to question how far you got in school or if you were a victim of the American School system?Funny you should take me to task for name calling. One more suggestion:If you don't like being called a spoiled child don't act like one.
Hint:Ever hear a spoiled brat say, "I'm not going to talk to you anymore", and continue ranting? sort of like "I'm not going to respond to your posts....." :)
Spoiled brats are also usually quite sure that what is right for them is NOT right for others. Ring any bells?
Sure wish we could get back to Milosevic. At least he isn't an anti-semite.
Rebecka Justice
Portland
OR - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 8:16 pm
Please suit yourself:
Arthur Reznick, Robert Hessen and Neil Stamford, it is usually considered polite to READ some of the posts on a Forum before you start a diatribe against other posters.
Maybe it would make you look more intelligent if you were to first determine what on earth you are talking about.
Allow me to clarify a point. I am not Jewish but your vitriol has convinced me that all 3 of you are anti-semites. Why else would you be so rude to other posters, when you obviously do not have the foggiest notion what they were replying to?
Godfred Louis-Jensen, Gogol Charlemagne, and David, you are all fond of telling others what they may and may not post. May I suggest you practice what you preach?
I have an interesting suggestion. If you don't like the topic, and don't want to talk about it, don't respond.
If you choose to ignore this simple remedy and respond, don't expect to have the final say.
For all 6 of you, it would really help a great deal if you would stick to providing documentation of your assertions. The staff of EC has done so over and over. It tends to make their arguments carry a great deal more weight than any, any of you could make.
May I also suggest you start a fan club for Ramsey Clark, somewhere OFF this Forum? If you can't understand the evidence Jared Israel has documented against him, you might also want to return to grade school. I would put RC in the nearly the same category as William Walker.
Personally, I have found the posts by each of you to be somewhat like what I would expect from a spoiled child who is angry because he wants to be the center of attention. Reread your posts and you may see what I mean.
Rebecka Justice Portland OR
and this :
Sure wish we could get back to Milosevic. At least he isn't an anti-semite.
Fallen in the trap. Haven't you?
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 8:51 pm
gogolthe villagers of racak didn't 'enlist' in the KLA.......it can be inferred from KLA Racak commander Shukri Buja and Nesret Shabani testimony at the Milosevic hearings that the villagers were gangpressed
AP V
NY
NY - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 9:17 pm
Where are we going with this discussion? Many original contributors to this forum disappeared. Jari, Pera, Ivan, Kathrin, Moderator, etc. Where is Vera?New ones are applauding to unmeasured and chauvinistic statements (M Donne) - the whole point of this forum is a battle against chauvinism that was produced by mainstream media - and even “old posters” do not realize that (Anna).
We are going into debate that does not belong to this forum.
Could we please get back on track.
Pero Peric
Canada - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 11:36 pm
I'm only a reader on this forum, and during last week I've got almost no INFORMATION from here, mostly quarrels...I support Pero: please be more tolerant and get back to the "trial".
Vera, where are you?!.
:o(
Pasha Ponomarenko
Australia - Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 11:50 pm
*VIDOVDAN IN NEW YORK International Action Center calls to the meeting "A Day of Solidarity in NYC with the European Demonstration at The Hague" (Address: 39 West 14th St, #206 - between 5th and 6th Ave; Info phone: 212 633 6646) under slogans "Arrest the NATO war criminals! Freedom for Solobodan Milosevic", with participation of P. Chin, S. Flounders, B. Lituchy, N. Tesich, M. Raickovich and J. Yuskadis. Yugoslav film "Wounded Country" will be also shown.If I am correct, this is Clark's organization??
Dan B
Canada - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 12:53 am
Yes, I have been unable to access the forum for the whole week, due to the Moderator forgetting to keep the page suitably short for low speeds (it can tolerate 2-3 days max). Hope this would not happen too often.The current witness is a Briton, one Michael Williams, former adviser and spokesperson to Jasushi Akashi, the then Head of the UN Mission to Yugoslavia ("then" being the time of the civil war in Bosnia). He is to continue today.
Andy, your report on Lilic testimony at your site is quite good. May I add some minor details? The fact is that Lilic used to be a member and a high official of the SPS (Milosevic's Socialist Party of Serbia), but there was a political disagreement between the two of them and, after the NATO bombing and before the presidential elections in 2000, Lilic first resigned from all offices within the Party (it was sometime in August 2000). After the 5 October "revolution", when Milosevic was ousted, Lilic spoke openly against him, stating in the interview to the weekly NIN that Milosevic should resign from being the Party President in order to "save the Party". Then, Lilic formed his own, tiny political party of vague socialist inclinations (SSDP - Serbian Social Democratic Party), which took part in general elections in December 2000. Of course, it did not win any seats.
So, from being an ally Lilic gradually became a political opponent to Milosevic. That was probably the only rationale that the Prosecution had when summoning him to the witness stand - they hoped Lilic would pour his bitterness, spiced up with some useful semi-truths and outright lies, on the head of his now helpless political foe. This didn't happen. Lilic proved to be a much better human material than the Prosecution believed him to be. He knew the distinction between political disagreements and war crimes, between political and criminal responsibility. Throughout his testimony he kept disagreeing with Milosevic on their old outstanding political issues, such as an excessive influence of the SPS coalition partner, JUL (the Party of Milosevic's wife, the Yugoslav Left). Milosevic kept disagreeing with Lilic on these same issues. But, what's that got to do with the colour of daisies, or with the Indictment?
There was another apple of discord: Lilic could not forget how his efforts to negotiate a stop to the NATO bombing, through meetings with former German Chancellor Kohl and former Austrian Prime Minister Vranicki (and Lilic was sent to meet these people by no other than Milosevic, as his special envoy), had been cruelly replaced by another peace effort, that of Chernomyrdin-Ahtisaari, which finally brought about the agreement that was poured into the UN Resolution 1244. But, this is how things are in politics: you win some and lose some and one must not regard his abandoned semi-official negotiations as his own precious children. This was the only weakness that Lilic demonstrated during his testimony: he just couldn't stop praising his political baby as some kind of his own infant prodigy, which was not duly nursed by Milosevic (who was, in the meantime, forced to recognize the legitimacy of another political baby of other stronger players, namely the Russians). Again, where is the relevance of all this to the Indictment?
On all other issues, Lilic was indeed a witness to the Defence rather than to the Prosecution, by simply confirming the facts that Milosevic had put to him. But, he also carefully corrected the wildest constructions put by Nice, leaving the Prosecution with virtually nothing.
Ask yourselves: what possible benefits could Lilic have for testifying like he did? None; on the contrary, he could have only problems with our current DOS leaders. Ask yourselves the same about Radomir Markovic. The answer is the same.
By testifying like he did, Lilic escaped the danger of behaving like those "brilliant" DOS politicians, who removed Milosevic as their political opponent by gladly using the ICTY as a blunt tool to accomplish that. They didn't stop to think that this tool is way too blunt for such a minor goal and that the damage to the whole country could be enormous. Instead of behaving like a nearsighted fool, Lilic showed the loyalty not to his former Party chief and latter political enemy, but to his people, to his country and to the truth. Read the transcripts.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 1:01 am
Hi, As a genuinely neutral observer of the Palestinian-Israeli discussion, my humble request to the supporters of either side is: approach the issue as you would deal with a doubtful looking soup served in a seedy restaurant-it is wisest not to stir it. For what its worth, here are my two pennyworth's thoughts on the issue. Struggling against impossible odds, Jews from all over the world came together and built a country that is the envy of all its neighbours. Its citizens transformed a desert into a man made oasis. It set up democratic institutions and delivered a quality of life to its people which nearby countries with infinitely greater financial resources were too lazy to develop. However, in the process, it also performed acts that are indefensible---making conditions for Palestinians so intolerable that it induces pure hatred for everything Jewish. I dont understand what is stopping Israel from withdrawing to its 1967 borders. Militarily and economically it is impregnable. Morally too, it would become unimpeachable in the eyes of the world. Anybody opposing the existence of Israel would immediately lose legitimacy. Why is Israel allowing itself to be held hostage by settlers whose only claim to the land is the Bible?
Seshadri Raghavan
India - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 6:34 am
Collating the (documented!) fact, that there was "a (near) lack of short-range wounds" in consequence of the incident at Racak on 15 January, 1999, with the (documented!) statement by the notorious superpower agent, Ambassador William Walker, who on 16 January, 1999 (thought that he) "saw...many shot at extremely close range" may not exceed capabilities that one would expect from "a spoiled child".Yet such collation should provide some genuine food for thought - even for an "incensed" Rebecka Justice.
Has it?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 6:36 am
Williams(NATO) is gone in a hurry to catch his plane . . .many questions unanswered. Now US Ambassador (NATO) to Croatia performing prosecutor Nice (NATO) performing.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 6:39 am
thks vera
AP V
NY
NY - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 6:42 am
Would Rebeka 'Justice' like to point out what kind of anti semetic statement I have made?Exactly - so dont make up outrageous allegations about people just because their opinions dont tally with yours. Thats exactly what the mainstream media are doing with Milosevic.
'I was pretty stupid before the attack on Serbia/Kosovo and believed everthing spewed by the mainstream media.'
Yes and you are pretty stupid now in believing everything put out by the 'alternative' media with their own agenda. Some of us know the world is a little more complicated.
Thank you for your report from the Hague Vera.
Neil Stamford
Euroland - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 6:44 am
Ambassador seems to be of the normal brew coming out of the State Department not quite the Foreign Office level and certainly beyond comparison with the Quai d'Orsay.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 7:00 am
Pero,The point of this forum is to express our opinion and by doing so try point out illegalities in the Hague proceedings. It has nothing to do with believing if Milosevic is guilty or not. It has to do with people questioning Hague tribunal as a court that legitimize second hand testimonies and allegations. We are truing to get facts using legal system. What your little ego does not comprehend is that here, in this forum, as well as anywhere in the world, we do NOT have to like each other and we have right to say it. Here, I'll say it, I don’t like you for whatever reason. However, here is the twist: the fact that I don't like you should have nothing with neutrality of the law.
You call me a chauvinist because I posted article about WW2 war crimes and in that article, it was said that crimes were committed by Croats and Bosnian Muslims. Are you saying that that is not true? Were they Martians? What is politically correct fraise one should use? In addition, let me tell you on more thing. Arkan committed crimes in Bosnia. I personally know family that barley survived. Arkan is Serb and therefore Serbs committed crimes in Bosnia. As a Serb, I think we should be saying this because it will help us as a nation to clean up our own garbage like Arkan. I am yet to see or hear a single Croatian or Bosnian Muslim to do the same.
As for posts about Jasenovas, get used to it I shall keep on posting them. Reason for it is that I am bitter about new Jasenovac monument that states "To Jews and others" 700000 Serbs are others. 56000 from Kozara are others. Please explain meaning of politically correct to the survivors of JAdovno, Jasenovas, Sumarinci, Nova Gradiska, Gospic and so on (Pera Bora mother is survivor of Jasenovac). And you have gut to name me chauvinistic. Proud to be.
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 7:45 am
Peter Galbraith is testifying at the Milosevic trial.It is no surprise that a waste of skin like Galbraith agrees with everything Mr. Nice says.
Mr. Galbraith is a criminal. As the U.S. Ambassador to Croatia he played a key roll in facilitating illegal Iranian Arms trafficking via Croatia to the Bosnian Muslims.
It is no surprise that a criminal of this sort has a desire to point fingers at others.
Peter Galbraith is a worthless whore. He bears a great deal of personal responsibility for prolonging the bloodshed in Bosnia and Croatia.
Galbraith's actions weren't in service of the United States. His actions in fact served to needlessly endanger American SFOR soldiers. So he is not only a whore, but he is a traitor, a criminal, and a whore.
To see how large Galbraith's roll in these criminal affairs was see:
www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm
and
Milosevic will rip this guy to pieces in cross-examination. Unfortunately, I won't be able to watch the "trial" for the next 10 days, so I would ask others here to watch the "trial" and post summaries of it here.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 8:42 am
Hvala, Vera!
Pasha Ponomarenko
Australia - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 8:44 am
Dear Vera Martinovic,I too wish to express my sincere appreaciation of your contributions to this list, - including the addition of "minor details" to Andy Wilcoxson's report on mr. Lilic's testimony (which did somehow clarify to those of us who will not necessarily read this particular part of the transcripts, that "it's got to do with the Indictment" that Lilic showed loyalty to his people, to his country and to the truth".
May I remind you of my posting dated Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 11:48 (concerning a possible analysis of Ambassador Walker's performance as a witness in the Hague on 11-12 June last year)?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 10:47 am
Vera,Thanks for the background information on the feud between Lilic and Milosevic. I gathered that there had been some manner of political dispute between the two of them, but I didn't know much about it and so I didn't feel competent to say very much about the topic.
I think that this information you've added helps to bolster the credibility of Lilic's testimony. We can now clearly see that Lilic wasn't just saying things because of some desire to be nice to Milosevic.
I would like to second the appreciation expressed to you by Pasha Ponomarenko, and Godfred Louis-Jensen. In my opinion you are the most valueable contributor to this list.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 11:30 am
Vera, I sure am glad you are back. Not being able to be on-line much, your posts are the next best thing to watching the Trial. I wish I could copy and paste them fro reading off-line but they won't paste? Also thank you for explaining why sometimes I can't get this forum.Andy, I would love to read your site. Would you put up the URL? Is it possible to copy and paste from your site? It would just be for my own reading.
This is a request I made some time ago but am hoping soemone has a solution. I have all the transcripts (available)but have a very hard time reading them in that form. Is there any way to take out all the line numbers, redacts, etc.? Or is there a web site in English that has done so?
Thanks for any help.
Rebecka Justice
Portland
OR - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 11:42 am
Whats going on here? Maybe its summer sun getting everyone irritated with each other.Igor (if you are still there). To continue about the media. Of the three new newspapers on market all of them are against the government. There is Balkan the best, Kurir and Arena. A few days ago Kurir had headline Cedo Jovanovic agent of State Security. For some reason Cedo did not take them to court.
To continue our argument about Studio B. You asked something like how come they are free to continue if they are resisting. Well they were free until Popovic engineered removal of Studio B director a few days ago. Let us see how the news changes. Last thing we need is Studio B as well as BK and Pink.
There is something else to mention local TV channels. The second in command of Arkans party has his own channel Palma Plus that covers central Serbia and some cable operators. He isnt the only one with local channals.
Im not sure about Lilic. Since when did any politician think of his country, his people and the truth? Lilic wanted to come across well so that voters would remember him when they vote next time. Of course he is one of the most honest witnesses so far but let us not praise him too much. DOS dont need him but if they did you can be sure he would have told a different story as Bane Ivkovic has started to do since changing sides.
s Radovanovic
S - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 11:46 am
Dakic Ana, It has been pretty obvious on here for sometime that several posters believe that THEIR heros are off limits for discussion. Sheik Abdel Rahman (The Muslim Scholar????) is a good example. One poster went so far as to put the blind Sheik in the same boat as Milosevic??? Andy, I just went to your links. Had a problem with the second one (My slow computer again?) but kept trying and finally got it. Gotta go read. Thank you.
Rebecka Justice
Portland
OR - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 1:24 pm
Rebecka Justice,
I'm surprised you have a problem copying and pasting. You could try highlighting (selecting) the text you want to copy, then press CTR key and the C key at the same time. That will copy. To paste, go to microsoft word and paste. To paste you can type CTR key and V at the same time. IF you cannot paste into microsoft word, try pasting into the notepad or simple text program.As an alternative, I'm sure you can save the whole discussion as a text file and then open in Microsoft word and delete what you don't want to keep.
Sorry for taking up room here -- I'm still burning from not being able to access the forum because it was too full last week.
Nikole J
Canada - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 2:13 pm
AnnaI really did not understand why you use all “weaponry ” to attack me personally in your post. I did not post anything in an attempt to insult anybody. I was asking in my post from Monday, 26 May 2003 to restrain from chauvinistic statements
Why?
First:
I found this forum and many posters very objective and their posts interesting, since I was one of the posters from almost beginning I wanted it to stay as it was not to sway into non-tolerable discussions.
Second:
Unfortunately I have no family survivors from Kerestinec, Jasenovac, Jadovno and Galge, to teach them politically correct language as you suggested.
Remaining family members never mentioned, as I can remember that any of the criminal acts during WWII and during last war were committed by Croats and Muslims. The things were always called by their name: “Ustase, Domobrani, Crna Legija, Macekovci, Handzar Divizija, and in recent war, HDZ, MUP, HOS, HVO, Paragini, Ustase” Third
The other part of the answer you can find in the trial transcripts of cross-examination from Monday, 26 May 2003. And I’ll post a sufficient part here:Start Quote:
Mr. de la Brosse
A. Well, I don't want to take up a position with respect to the bases
19 and foundations of that alone, but what I would like to say in quoting the
20 excerpt, you yourself in your speech used terminology which could be
21 qualified as being terminology used by the media wishing to present in a
22 pejorative way and stigmatising one specific community. In this
23 particular case it was the Albanians of Kosovo and by the same token the
24 Croatian community as well.
Mr. Milosevic
25 Q. All right. I thoughts we cleared that up. No mention is made of
Page 21218
1 the either of the Croatian or Albanian community anywhere but what I was
2 talking about was Albanian terrorists and extremists, extremists in
3 Croatia who committed crimes, who had already committed crimes at the time
4 against Serbs in Croatia. So why do you equate extremists all the time
5 and the nationalities that those extremists belong to? Terrorism knows no
6 national ethnic boundaries. A killer is a killer, regardless of the
7 ethnic group or nation he belongs to. So why do you keep saying that
8 we're stigmatising a national community, an ethnic community because
9 certain terrorists are by virtue of their ethnicity, something that they
10 are intrinsically. You won't be able to find that anywhere. Find me an
11 example, if you can, where I or anybody speaks about Croats or Albanians
12 as criminals? On the contrary, we're just talking about extremists. Is
13 that quite clear or not from what you were able to read?
End Quote.
Pero Peric
Canada - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 3:08 pm
Is there any interest, information, forecasts, opinions, or other participation venues regarding tomorrow's demonstrations in support of Milosevic?
M Donne
Canada - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 3:13 pm
I am sorry, I did not want to attack you personally, but I grew up in the multinational society of Yugoslavia. As a matter of fact for the longest time my father and my family were declaring as Yugoslavs, but my origin is Serbian. In the name of politically correctness and multinational Yugoslavia we have lost our Serbian identity.Things are not always called by their name. That is the reality. It did not matter to “Albanian Extremists” when they tortured and killed family of three, Serbs just weeks ago (just because they were Serbs). While we are trying to be politically correct, the “extremists” are taking over. I want nothing more than utopia you are offering. Unfortunately we have already gone trough separation of guilt after WW2 where Tito said that all is evened out because all crimes were committed by traitors and German (not nazi) collaborators. I am sorry, but I do want a collective guilt from Croatians and Bosnian Muslims. I feel guilty for any crime committed by Serbian forces and I would like nothing more but to see them in court in Serbia and in jail for a looong time. I want that collective guilt from Croatians because - I hope - they will finally accept that genocide has been committed against Serbs. As it is, we have AGAIN to ask and fight for a simple thing - recognition. And if in that process I have to cross a line and be as you call it “chauvinistic” so be it!
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 4:14 pm
Rebecka,The URL for my website is:
www.slobodan-milosevic.org
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 4:31 pm
In response to M. Donne's request for a show of interest in tomorrow's demonstrations in support of Milosevic, kindly let me to reproduce a posting that I send today to the Danish daily "Information", - albeit in Danish:"Stillet overfor en befolkning, der jævnt hen er mere "arbejdsom" end egentlig tænksom, er det ikke mærkeligt, at "udenrigsminister" Per Stig Møller afviser at blive kikket i kortene med hensyn til "vores" illegale og komplet idiotiske deltagelse i angelsaksernes oliekrig og besættelsen af Irak.
Danskere, som trods dagens travle gøremål finder et par minutter til at undre sig, bør betænke, at det gik på samme skæve vis sidste gang, - da "vi" i 1999 deltog i den ligeledes illegale og idiotiske krig mod Serbien. Det er næppe mange, der har overskud til andet end at "kigge TV", og jeg har derfor (erhvervet mig) fornøjelsen af at underrette de undrende om, at Jugoslaviens tidligere præsident, Slobodan Milosevic, som står tiltalt i Haag for de angivelige forhold, som tjente som NATO´s undskyldning for angrebskrigen, har vundet sin sag, - endnu før anklagemyndighedens mr. Nice er blevet færdig med sin nu mere end halvandet år lange "underbygning" af anklagen (the Indictment). Sandheden om denne krig kommer først frem, når Milosevic får mulighed for at bringe sine egne vidner, - og det bliver formentlig tidligst til februar 1994. Så bliver Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (S), Niels Helveg Petersen (R) og Hans Hækkerup S), som dengang var hovedansvarlige for vores idiotiske krigsdeltagelse, grillet med tilbagevirkende kraft, - ganske som det til sin tid vil gå for Anders Fogh Rasmussen (V), Per Stig Møller (K) og krigsopvigleren Pia Peberspray (DF)."
With the above posting I draw a critical comparison between the illegal participation of Denmark in the armed agressions against Iraq and Serbia respectively, - while voicing my opinion that mr. Milosevic has in fact won in the Hague even before mr. Nice has completed the prosecutions case.
"The truth about this war (of attack against Serbia) may not emerge until mr. Milosevic is able to bring his own witnesses for the defense, - (when the then Danish Gvt. will be held responsible for our idiotic acts, as will in due time also the current Gvt. with regard to the war against Iraq".
While thus remind you of the fact, that there is also an active world outside the English-speaking Empire, I wish to send my best wishes to the demonstrators in the Hague as well as to mr. Milosevic.
(Anyone able to read the Danish may look for the original posting at: www.information.dk (debat).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 5:11 pm
Jog tala ekki Dansk.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 5:14 pm
The truth speaks with American accent
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 5:16 pm
Try again:
The truth speaks with American accent
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 6:22 pm
GOGOL'S LINK or THE NEWS IN BRIEF:Galbraith (who was U.S. ambassador in Zagreb from 1993-98) said he believed Milosevic was behind the rebel Croatian Serbs rejection of an international peace plan in January 1995, which...helped to usher in Croatia's "Operation Storm" in August 1995, which prompted some 200,000 Serbs to flee their homes in Krajina...
Or even briefer:
Milosevic...prompted...Serbs to flee...
Q.E.D.?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 8:56 pm
Rebecka,You might not be able to do Copy & Paste if you are using Netscape Navigator 4.7 or older. I have the same problem, and the solution is to use Microsoft Explorer instead (this works).
You may also try the latest version of Navigator (I've not checked this one).
Good luck!
Pasha Ponomarenko
Australia- Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 9:59 pm
To Godfred (re the analysis of William Walker's testimony): No, I haven't done it, because I've only discovered this forum in August 2002, and he testified on 11/12 June 2002. But, I've checked the ARCHIVE of June 1-30, 2002 and found what some of the participants wrote about Walker and Racak (Andre Huzsvai on 3 and 12 June; Neka Mira on 5 June; Dennis Revell on 15 June; Peter Taylor on 20 June).To Rebecka: I also do not know how to copy individual posts from this forum, for reading off-line, but you could do it in a crude way like I do - copy the whole current page. This is how to proceed: while on-line, click on Edit and then on Select All, and the whole text on the page will be highlighted. Then click on File, then on Save As…, then select where you would like to copy the page, then click on Save. That way, you will have one folder plus one file saved; when reading it, double-click on the file to open.
I cannot help you with changing that silly format of transcripts, though.
Dr Michael Williams, former spokesman to Akashi (or a man in charge for information and propaganda, as Milosevic rightfully dubbed him) finished his "testimony" today and no matter how much I tried, I could not remember a single thing relevant to Milosevic that this man had to say. His most distinctive contribution seems to be his "expert" opinion that the Bosnian Serbs were so overwhelmingly superior that they must've been the sole warring party, fighting presumably a one-sided war. He seemed convinced that the Serbian side was the only culprit for the war events in Bosnia. According to him, the balance of strength was extremely unequal, for the Serbs were so much better armed than the Muslims, who were brutally attacked within the encircled UN safe enclaves. Enter Milosevic, who was, unlike the Bosnian Serbs, "a disciplined and powerful person", "a serious, objective and reasonable collocutor", who helped the UN in mediating the peace plan, by being present at 18-hour meetings between the Bosnian Serb leaders and the UN officials, where difficult and often unsuccessful persuasion had been used. Did I miss anything? Ah, yes: this was all said during the examination-in chief. I had to pinch myself to remember that's actually a witness for the Prosecution.
When Milosevic started to cross-examine Dr Williams, the man even admitted that the Bosnian Muslims, after all, did participate in a 'two-sided conflict", or to be more precise - "I do not deny it" that the other side was involved in military activities as well. Concerning the up-to-date and powerful French weaponry that the Muslim side possessed in Sarajevo, despite the UN sanctions, the witness regretfully admitted that he's unable to help as to its provenance, because apparently that had been procured "12 months before I arrived in Yugoslavia".
But, what particularly enraged me with this man was a construction that he used at least twice when giving some of his generalized opinions: "I have been watching many wars, and…" Somehow, that sounded a bit sick, like when a slimy old pervert explains his exploits. The man likes to watch. Ugh!
Since this witness was so obviously ill informed and irrelevant, Milosevic proceeded to use him as a medium to introduce numerous UNPROFOR documents, such as military observers' reports, confirming that the Muslim side seriously breached ceasefire. The famous book by the General Sir Michael Rose 'Mission In Bosnia' was also introduced, from which Milosevic amply quoted and which strongly condemned the dishonest actions of Bosnian Muslims and the shameful role of the US, NATO and the media. Milosevic even came up with a report made by the witness himself, which confirmed an official investigation had been launched against some Washington Post journalists who wrote a slightly critical article on the role of the US, UN and NATO in Bosnia.
It was indeed pathetic when this civilian tried to question military conclusions of General Rose, or to dismiss him by "explaining" that the General personally had some misunderstandings with journalists and therefore wrote about them in the negative, accusing them of biased reporting, while, in the opinion of this witness, the media "did a good job", were very objective and provided high-quality reporting. This was really too much.
Other gem from this war watcher appeared when he agreed with Milosevic that it was extremely difficult for the latter to persuade Bosnian Serbs to anything, and added that "it happened that way all the time; the Bosnian Serbs were very reluctant in accepting anything that was contrary to their interests" (??!). He also tried to equate the gravity of the breaches of ceasefire, arguing that 2 anti-aircraft 20-mm guns of the Serbs, which were not even used, but were just found in their protective sheaths within the Gorazde safe zone was as grave or even worse than the Muslim attack elsewhere resulting in 4 deaths; Milosevic even quoted from the UN Colonel's report, naming the latter incident as the "aggression against the Serb Army". The learned doctor did not dispute this being a serious breach, "but this was not in the UN protected zone".
From what I've heard of the UNPROFOR documents quoted by Milosevic and tendered into evidence, probably all the relevant war events were duly documented somewhere by some conscientious UN official, but the documents are lost in that vast paperwork jungle and need to be sorted out and presented by each relevant issue. Until this is done, the UN officials such as Dr Williams can generalize with impunity and play at testifying. Even his own press statements, and not to mention the reports of Akashi to the Secretary-General, contradicted him.
This "witness" obviously failed to win approval even from Kay; instead he earned a sarcastic remark. When amicus curiae questioned Dr Williams, the line of questioning was to simply put together the facts depicting Serbia and Milosevic as a "political power within the region, without any doubt", and therefore consulted and asked for help and mediation by the UN. All that was left for the witness was to confirm each fact, one by one, by a short "yes". The witness tried to break that trap by emphasizing that "Gorazde was just 30 km from the border with Serbia; therefore he [Milosevic] was well informed". Kay said that "informed" is the key word and that information has to be prepared and provided by somebody, presumably by Dr Karadzic; it is essential that one is well informed and by someone as unbiased as yourself. Naughty Kay!
Yes, these grey, impersonal officials like Dr Williams are not very palatable people. But, they come across as slightly silly, which gives them a touch of humanity. However, the next witness is a type of official really beyond contempt. Peter Galbraith, former US Ambassador to Croatia, started to testify today and it was like a lizard spoke.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia- Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 10:10 pm
Nikole J, and Pasha, I can copy and paste most anything but somehow when I try it with this site, nothing happens. There are a couple of others that I have the same problem with. I had no problem at all with Andy's links earlier. Very interesting links...Andy, thank you for the link to your site. Will go read it as soon as I finish here. I was really impressed with your first link that I copied earlier. Maybe you could send a copy of it to the Hague>
I have read that same information in different forms, all over the Internet. That was the best example so far. The evidence is pretty darn convincing that the Muslim forces shelled their own people at Markdale. Then we have the Snipers and suicide units.
As to Galbraith, I would like to lay some money on Milosevic making Galbraith look like the liar he is. Trouble is, I don't gamble, even on a sure thing.
Rebecka Justice
Portland
OR- Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 10:51 pm
I hope this won't start another tiff, but during my exile, I was able to read some posts and noticed someone was berating the Jews because Madeleine Albright is one???It seems to me as disingenuous to claim Madeleine Albright is 'indicitive' of ALL Jews as it would be to claim that Sheik Abdel Rahman is 'indicitive' of ALL Muslims. Of course there are those who would consider the latter as a compliment...
At any rate, none of the Jewish people mentioned are very accurate examples of the race in general. Madeleine Albright least of all. Especially when you remember how hard she tried to pretend she wasn't Jewish. As my Granny used to say, "There are rotten apples in every barrel."
Very telling is the fact that she hates the Serbs almost as much as she hates the Jews. Maybe the same.
Rebecka Justice
Portland
OR- Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 10:54 pm
Andy, Just found your site. Looks like I will be reading for awhile. :) Thanks again.
Rebecka Justice
Portland
OR- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 12:35 am
Paris writer and publicist Komnen Becirovic: "For the Hague judges, all the evil deeds committed are attributable to the Serbs and their leaders, as if Tudjman never cleansed Kraina of Serbs, or Izetbegovic never cleansed Sarajevo, Bihac, Tuzla, Mostar. With the attitude of hiding the Muslim and Croat atrocities on Serbs, the Hague tribunal is participating in crimes against humanity, thus against the very law it pretends to uphold. The Hague court can judge the Serbs, but "It" will be judged by history. Sadly, the history is made of spent present.I thought this quote is so true. It summerizes the tribunal, its aims and eventually its future.
Dan B
Canada- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 1:14 am
RJI had the same problem and was advised to use Microsoft Explorer, and copy/paste works fine. When I use Netscape, the copy/paste doesn't work.
J J.
USA,Wis- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 2:42 am
Regarding Mr. Galbraith's claim that no atrocities were commited by the Croats in ethnic cleansing Operation Storm in Krajina in 1995.THE TORONTO SUN Monday, November 2, 1998 p. 30-31
THE KRAJINA COLLAPSE: SORRY DAY FOR CANADA
Canuck peacekeepers were routed, captured … and protected no one
If the Medak Pocket incident of 1993 (described in yesterday's excerpt) was one of the prouder moments of Canada's peacekeeping stint in the Balkans, the collapse in the Krajina was embarrassing to the point of shameful for our army.
Canadian soldiers witnessed terrible things as Serbs fell to a massive Croatian attack. Yet, despite fortress-like bunkers, the 2nd battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment folded under the pressure and Canadians found themselves "guests" (i.e. prisoners) of the Croats.
Virtually nothing of the Van Doos' failure to even attempt to protect civilians was reported in the Canadian media. Understandably, the department of national defence did nothing to advertise our army's collapse.
This unknown story is told in a new book, Tested Mettle, by Scott Taylor and Brian Nolan and published by Esprit de Corpse Books. Their previous book, Tarnished Brass, was the surprise bestseller of 1996. This is the second of three excerpts.
By SCOTT TAYLOR and BRIAN NOLAN
It had been a blistering hot summer along the Dalmatian Coast, and Maj. Alain Rochette's soldiers had toiled without respite in the relentless heat. Rochette was the muscular, youthful officer in command of Charlie Company 2R22eR.
They, along with the rest of Lt.-Col. Jacques Morneau's battle group, had replaced a Royal Canadian Regiment contingent in mid-April. The 750-strong Van Doos unit had inherited a formidable task manning a 70-km stretch of the Krajina zone of separation. In turn, Rochette's Charlie Company alone had been tasked with manning 38 km of "frontage" defined by seven isolated observation posts.
For months, the Croats had been building up for a major push into the disputed sector, but United Nations intelligence had confidently predicted there would be no offensive launched until "after the summer tourist season."
With that time frame in mind, Morneau had set his men to work "bunkering in."
Upon arrival, his Van Doos had been dismayed at the primitive conditions in which their RCR predecessors had lived and worked. While the observation posts were functional, they were by no means comfortable. Morneau and his men set about with zeal to change that.
The Van Doos commander made it his mission to protect his soldiers by not risking their lives needlessly. He and his officers felt that moving troops back and forth from their far-flung, three-man posts was inefficient and called for an undue amount of risky transit.
To correct this, Morneau had designed a nine-man, section-sized "citadel" mini-fort. Logistically, the construction of a string of complex structures would have been beyond the limited resources of a single battle group. However, with helpful administrative support from their commander, fellow Van Doos Gen. Alain Forand, Morneau was able to obtain over 90% of UN Sector South's defensive stores.
Each of the "citadels" required between 30,000 and 60,000 sandbags along with a number of portable trailers. Like the old Fortress Louisbourg, the corners of the fort protruded to give the defenders an interlocking field of fire. Each section's M113 ACP had a walled "garage" that formed the front door of the complex and allowed the 50-calibre machine-gun turret to be used effectively in an all-round defence.
The observation tower itself had safe internal access to protect the occupant from being exposed during shift rotations. Morneau recognized that "Van Doos don't like spiders and scorpions," so creature comforts for the citadels were an integral part of the design. Weight rooms, refrigerators, television and VCRs, electric generators, chemical toilets, independent water supply and even barbecues were all standard items of kit for the 2R22eR OPs.
The massive construction project launched by Morneau did not go unnoticed. When U.S. intelligence satellites began detecting the series of large white obstacles in the Krajina zone of separation, it caused concern at the Pentagon.
It had long been an open secret that the U.S. was sharing its intelligence data with the Croatian high command, but Morneau's citadels forced the issue into the open: By "coincidence," the Croats, who possessed no space surveillance capability, somehow shared the same concerns as the U.S. authority over the massive bunkers.
Morneau had to explain himself to NDHQ in Ottawa, which in turn placated the Pentagon with the assurance that these giant observation posts were intended for "self-protection" only. Morneau had even boasted that his citadels could withstand direct artillery hits.
On the afternoon of Aug. 3, Maj. Rochette hoped that his commanding officer's assessment was correct. Word had just been passed down to the UN peacekeepers to expect the Croat offensive to begin later that evening.
Morneau, along with nearly 25% of his battle group, was away on leave as a result of the previous UN intelligence reports. Even Canadian intelligence operatives had been trying for months, albeit with only limited success, to monitor the Croatian buildup. No action was considered imminent. As a consequence, the UN and the Serbs were taken by complete surprise by the sudden Croat attack.
At first light on Aug. 4. A massive artillery bombardment began all along the Krajina frontier. The Croatian guns pounded the Serb positions relentlessly with heavy artillery and mortars.
Of the seven "citadel" posts under his command, Maj. Rochette had two sited well forward in the zone of separation overlooking the Croatian front-lines. Shortly after the bombardment began, Croatian soldiers approached these two observation posts to "recommend" that the peacekeepers "vacate" the bunkers. It was suggested that the Van Doos proceed into the nearby Croatian town of Zadar to wait out the offensive.
German mercenaries
The Canadians radioed back to Maj. Rochette with this news and asked for directions. It was also noted and passed on to Rochette's headquarters that these "Croatians" were, in fact, well-armed German mercenaries.
During the radio exchanges between Rochette and his outposts, the major's intentions became moot. Additional "Croats" had quietly surrounded the citadels and then forced their way inside.
Back at Charlie Company headquarters, they were puzzled and alarmed when one of the beleaguered detachment sergeants suddenly went off the air. They had no way of knowing that a "Croat" soldier had just placed a primed hand grenade against the NCO's head. The next message Rochette received was that his two units were en route to Zadar under Croat escort.
At the remaining Charlie Company observation posts, months of back-breaking physical labour were proving Morneau correct. Despite enduring a heavy Croat bombardment, the citadels easily withstood the shell splinters. One fortified bunker even sustained a direct hit from a 120-mm mortar round and emerged unscathed.
When Croatian forces threatened to seize a third observation post, Sierra-Charlie 43, Maj. Rochette dispatched his meagre tactical reserve to reinforce the tiny garrison. The rapid reaction force took some artillery fire en route, but the arrival of these 17 soldiers in four APCs was enough to cause the Croat force to withdraw.
Later that day, when the same scene was played out at Sierra-Charlie 50, Rochette sent out his last mobile detachment from Recce Platoon. One of their APCs lost a track to an artillery shell and the disabled vehicle had to be abandoned.
With the Recce Platoon reinforcements at SC50, the commander, Lieut. Michel Godin, put on a show of force. The Van Doos cocked their M-72 rocket launchers and traversed their 50-calibre machine guns onto the Croat forces. Godin requested and recived a low-level "demonstration pass" from two French air force jets. It served to stabilize the situation temporarily.
Back at SC43, the Croats had returned in force and managed to quietly infiltrate the citadel bunker. With guns at their heads, the Van Doos, including Rochette's reserve force, headed into captivity in Zadar. Up on Sierra-Charlie 57, Cpl. J.R.D. Pacquin was in command of a five-man section. They had been shelled sporadically and had witnessed the Croats "neutralize" a nearby Serbian defensive position.
When a Croatian captain approached SC57 and ordered the Canadians out, Cpl. Pacquin refused to move. The Croat officer then primed and threw a grenade. Fortunately for the Van Doos, the explosive bounced off a sandbag and landed among several Croat attackers. The blast wounded two of the Croats, but the remainder pressed inside and overpowered Pacquin's garrison.
By first light, on Aug. 5, the situation looked grim for Rochette's Charlie Company. Over two-thirds of his command were in Croatian captivity and all his observation posts had been overpowered. His remaining 40 personnel at company headquarters were directly in the path of the main Croat axis of advance.
At dawn the Croatian armoured columns and infantry had begun crossing the zone of separation and heading into the Serbian sector. Their attack was completely uncontested.
Throughout the previous day and all through the night, immediately following the first Croat shells, the Serbians, soldiers and civilians, had simply fled the Krajina in a mass exodus. Nearly 225,000 people had packed up whatever they could carry and headed toward the dubious safety of Bosnia.
Rochette did not know what sort of reaction to expect from the advancing Croats, and did not fully believe the Serbs had left without at least a demonstration of defiance.
With so few combat soldiers left, the Charlie Company HQ was a sitting duck, and Rochette had no delusions about defending his position. Throughout the night, his clerks and cooks had been hastily trained to drive APCs and other assorted vehicles contained in the compound.
It was Rochette's intention to man his perimeter with every able-bodied soldier as a show of force to the Croats. If they decided to force the issue, Rochette would mount up his vehicles and depart the camp, destroying whatever he could not drive away.
Thankfully, the Croatian juggernaut rolled past the Canadian camp without incident and pressed on into the interior of the Krajina. They were anxious to catch up to the rear-guard of the retreating Serb columns.
On Aug. 6, the following day, Lt.-Col. Morneau arrived back in Croatia after cutting short his leave period. Following a hasty briefing, he set out for the Croatian headquarters in Zagreb to negotiate the release of his troops. All the Van Doos were allowed to return to the main Canadian camp in Rastevac the next morning.
The experience of being overrun and held captive temporarily had eroded the morale of 2R22eR, but the next few weeks were to prove far more traumatic for the Van Doos peacekeepers.
Immediately behind the front-line Croatian combat troops and German mercenaries, a large number of hard-line extremists had pushed into the Krajina.
Any Serb who had failed to evacuate their property were systematically "cleansed" by roving death squads. Every abandoned animal was slaughtered and any Serb household was ransacked and torched.
Many of these atrocities were carried out within the Canadian Sector, but as the peacekeepers were soon informed by the Croat authorities, the UN no longer had any formal authority in the region.
War crimes
Under the previous agreement, the UN protection force had been tasked with patrolling a zone of separation. It no longer existed. Technically, the Canadian force was now a powerless guest of the Croatian government.
The Van Doos were not allowed to conduct patrols without the approval of the Croat military. Locked down in their camp, the Canadians were all well aware of the war crimes being committed all around them, but were impotent to prevent or even record them.
Following the offensive, Morneau had been conducting a reconnaissance of an abandoned Serb village when an elderly farmer attracted his attention. The old Serb was terrified having been left behind and in fear of his life from the Croat invaders.
As the Canadian commander talked to the farmed, a Croat military squad arrived and demanded that the Serb be placed in their custody. Morneau inquired as to their intentions and the Croats assured him all refugees were being taken to a camp in Zadar.
Convinced of their sincerity, Morneau turned over the trembling old man to the Croat soldiers. Morneau had not gone two blocks when he heard two shots ring out.
Racing back, he discovered the bullet-riddled body of the old man. The Croat troops stood nonchalantly near the corpse.
Furious beyond coherent thought, Marneau shouted that he would report the murder to the police. The Croats laughed and held up their metal badges. "We are the police."
Krajina was a huge victory for Croatia, a massive defeat for the Serbs, and a sorry day for the Canadian soldiers who were routed, captured and protected no one. Quite different from the Medak Pocket heroics of two years earlier.
Igor Jaramaz
Canada- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 2:58 am
Dear, oh dear, Jo Crow, you walked right into it. I fail to understand your almost vitriolic response to what from my point of view was intended to be friendly advice in being cautious as to sources you cite. You went on later to say that you hadn't really checked out the tbr site, which took me all of two minutes to do, so your response to my advice is even less comprehensible. Of course, it led on, not surprisingly, to the EC folk accusing you of anti-semitism and of being a holocaust denier. Now I'm almost 100% certain that neither Gil-White nor Mr. Israel were referring to me in using those terms, because I haven't insisted on going full-throttle blindly citing a fascist-loving nutty site like tbr. Further you misrepresent my words in saying that I say all that such a site says must be wrong. On the contrary, I gave you further advice as to a course of action to take in case you think there's something to a story from such a rubbish site (ie: do a "Google" on some of the words in the story). I did not, as you stated, "throw the baby out with the bath water". Well, I say I'm almost 100% certain about not being referred to myself by said people as anti-semitic (anti-Jewish is really what they mean), or a holocaust denier, but the post by Gil-White which mentions me, anti-semitism and racists all in the same paragraph has me wondering. A casual "passer by" to this forum could well conclude from that paragraph that that is precisely what Gil-White means. Also I have to take into account that Gil-White is an expert in the written media, allegedly, so that also makes me wonder. I'm not a professor, you see, Jo, so I'd much rather be accused of being mistaken than racist; whether or not such accusation of being mistaken is itself mistaken.It strikes me that one thing you have in common with Gil-White is the tendency to answer a post you made up in your head, rather than what was actually written.
I think it was Gogol who accused one of the EC pair of sailing close to race or religious intolerance wrt the Arabs. As a matter of fact, whichever of them (I really can't be arsed to check back which one it was) was almost as close to intolerance of the Jews as Arabs, if relying on unflattering stereotype is akin to racism, as I believe it is widely recognised to be so. Citing those Jews who support the Palestinians as the anti-semitic type, and therefore, presumably, the "self-hating type" is stereotyping laid bare. Man, verging on Fox TV prime material.
Really, Gil-White, I thought you were a grown-up man. You don't have to lie in order to give the overall impression of the twisted version of history that you and Mr. Israel want to convey. You just don't have to tell the whole truth. To informed people, what you leave out speaks as loudly as what you present. Giving one side and not the other is the precise opposite of balance, and this can be done without knowingly telling a single lie. What you miss out is just what Zionist utterances (often to purely Jewish audiences, as you accuse Palestinian leadership of addressing unsavoury comments to purely Arab audiences), and Zionist actions over the history of the conflict.
These utterances and actions are vitally important in the inevitable effects they had on Arab and Palestinian perceptions of Zionism and demographic changes in favour of Jews. And their fear of them. Here's my take on the undoubted anti-semitism of the Mufti and others, an earlier post of mine in this forum:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/boards/milosevic/issue_milo_discussmay04-0603.php (Monday May 05, 2003 at 12:51 pm)
I suspect your trouble is that you refuse to countenance explanations of the evolution of anti-semitism according to differing situations and experiences. In fact, I wouldn't now be too surprised if you were tempted to accuse those who tried to form an understanding of such things of being themselves anti-semites. A taboo subject: anti-semitism is unacceptable per se (agreed), and therefore so are any attempts to account for it, whatever the circumstances (NOT agreed).
As the post more than intimates, if any group of people could be expected to develop mistaken anti-semitic sentiments (as, indeed, they always are mistaken, or, granted, worse), it is the Palestinians - not just Muslims but Christians and others as well. This is, in my view, terribly mistaken on the part of those Palestinians who have fallen into this much loved by Zionists trap: "Come into my parlour, said the spider to the fly, all the better to steal your land". I have long held the view, not having formed my opinions on this issue from Time Magazine, or the American media at all for that matter, nor having formed them over a period of "months rather than years", as EC tries to tell us that it did, but over decades, and not, unlike EC, by having stumbled on this century old problem as if by accident (Jenin); arguably the most intransigent and dangerous problem of the last half century, that Adolph Hitler and the NAZIs were the worst things that happened to the Palestinians:
Firstly the Zionists, who definitely collaborated with the NAZIs, have milked the Shoah to death. Now, I hesitated severely in writing a sentence like that. "Milking" such an inexpressible horror, such an incomprehensible horror to death? A discomforting feeling to write such a sentence. But you know what I mean. Even if you choose to pretend that you don't know what I mean (again), I believe that most people will, and so I have to take that as a reduction in that discomfort, as well as the fact that, as well as the Mufti, it was the Zionists who collaborated with the NAZIs, and not me. Milked so much that I have even seen those who had the temerity to point out that others also suffered in WW II, and in much larger numbers, be accused of demeaning the Shoah, and therefore of being anti-semitic.
Secondly comes Truman and the UN. Truman, who isn't interested in the Arabs, because they don't and can't make campaign contributions. Both of them, and pretty much the rest of the World for that matter, overcome with most unaccustomed, though perfectly understandable huge sympathy for the Jews. Thanks to ... thanks to ... ? Thanks to Adolph Hitler and the NAZI's: the best poster boys the Zionists could ever wish to have. As the post I made reference to earlier says, also a wonderful opportunity for the west to continue passing on its anti-semitism, its "Jewish Question", onto the Arabs. Part of the ongoing process of doing so for a large part of the last century. Rather stunningly successfully too. Hell, as that post says, who gives a shit, just another rock in the colonised (aka Third) World, eh?
So I'm not going to take time to dispute the facts (stretching over 100 years), or even your facts, as you modestly express them, but I certainly do take issue with EC's and your wild interpretations of them. As one example, I take issue that the wishes of some Palestinians to see the end of the state of Israel is the same as genocide, including your throwaway line along the lines that "everybody" knows Hamas to be genocidal. I have no truc with Hamas, their Charter is on the whole a load of fundamentalist religious hogwash on a par with fundamentalist Judaism (please don't kill me, Hamas, or Mossad for that matter). You and EC seem to be well on the way to Humpty-Dumpty land yourselves, as you there wittily accuse others. To be fair, I am also in severe disagreement with the UN definition of genocide. I sincerely believe that the systematic rounding up of people or other methods, based on ethnicity, with the view to physical "liquidation" deserves a word all of its own. You are aware, of course, as most here will be, that such "liquidation" is not, on its own, the UN definition, which is limp-wristed by comparison. This is to such an extent that I believe it demeans and even defaces the meaning of genocide that most people have rightfully firmly planted in their heads: the said physical "liquidation". Just when, I ask, did such a wish on the part of some Palestinians, not applying or relating to Jews in the rest of the World, as apparently in Hitler's case, become genocide? The day after the western colonialist dominated creation of the state of Israel, or was it the day after that? A month after that? When? The day before perhaps, or the month before? So that anyone merely voicing prior objections and threatening violence against the creation of the state of Israel, on already inhabited land, is guilty of genocide? Hell, may be the old WW II allies should just have rounded up all those genocidal Palestinians and had them shot prior to the creation of the state of Israel, and saved a lot of trouble in the long-run, you know, like in the recent movie, where the guy is wanted for a future crime? Of course, shooting, as the Germans found out is very inefficient, they'd have probably found themselves having to resort to trucks in the woods or had to re-issue BASF a Marshall Plan licence to begin production of Zyklon B again. (BASF Ad: "We don't make the shower stalls, we don't make the re-sealable openings, we don't make the flushing systems, we don't make the ovens, we make the Zyklon B. We make it all work").
By extension, if Eretz Israel turns out to be a reality, any large scale resistance against the advances of the state of Israel towards the Nile or the Euphrates resulting in Jewish deaths would also be genocide? I don't think so, Francisco "Humpty Dumpty" Gil-White.
The articles at EC seem to imply that the problems more or less poofed out of thin air around 1921, that the actions and utterances of Zionism hadn't been a serious and valid concern for the indigenous Palestinians since the previous century. That the "father of modern Zionism", Herzl, hadn't declared that he created a Zionist state in Basle, Switzerland, of all places. Not to mention all the other colonialist, racist: fascist utterings of many other prominent Zionists over that earlier period.
That's what you did: not tell the whole truth, of course, without (I assume) telling any lies. You also asked people to disprove the facts that you presented. As far as I remember, no one challenged your facts, well, certainly not I. I challenged the fact that you only gave half of the story, and cynically so, the half that "proves" your desired destination: the overall twisted impression that you wish people to be left with.
By the way, these issues are of some importance to Yugoslavian issues. We, for the most part here, are already talking to the "converted", or the "never-needed-to-be-converted". Some of the folks at EC are intimately involved with ICDSM, and the EC web-site itself claims to "pierce the fog of lies", initially restricting itself to covering Yugoslav issues. A few things arise from this:
1. The fact that it's difficult to get the more balanced view across concerning the recent history of Yugoslavia, the demonisation of the Serbs, and Milosevic; basically the problems of getting such a view more widely promulgated has been lamented here by various posters. Web-sites like EC, whilst certainly not having the coverage of CNN, Fox, or even Time Magazine (apparently Gil-White got his prior "standard" Israel-Pal views from Time, and "the like" - GUFFAW - non-American readers are more likely to understand this guffaw than Americans), certainly do have much wider coverage than this and other forums on the issue, and EC in particular is undoubtedly world famous. It is certainly, or may be now I mean "was certainly" an effective tool as could be to present this greater balance to a wider audience than Jurist and the like reaches. I seriously lament myself this "was certainly" part. As a letter published at EC from another dissapointed EC reader indicates, that site will be taken much less seriously now by a large number of former "fans", not all anti-Jewish, if, indeed, any of them are. Of course, EC can maintain that that loss, and more importantly future loss by instant dismissal, will be made up by new support from barking Zionists and formerly unsympathetic (to Milosevic and the Serbs) Orthodox Jewry. On balance that'll be a loss, gains in the US and Israel, huge losses in the rest of the World.
So I guess that shows where EC's priorities lie vis-a-vis their concern for Milosevic, the Serbs and their demonised reputations compared with EC's concern to expose their "recent" "revelations" on the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Gil-White and Mr. Israel have expressed outrage at statements made by some, or at least what they infer from those statements. I'm pretty sure that I am outraged more, not to say surprised, by the uncharacteristic ranting quality of some of their recent posts here, as well as the appeal to Serbs not to be taken in by anti-semites, by which I suspect they mean someone who believes that the Sun doesn't shine from the direction of Sharon's most unpleasant posterior.
2. Well, I think it's enough that the ICTY tries to gag Milosevic at every turn. Andy says if Milosevic has nothing to say about Israel-Pal, then we shouldn't here either. Firstly, I would say that Milosevic has had and has enough on his plate without involving himself in this imbroglio. Secondly, it is also very unlikely in the case that his sympathy is with the Palestinans that he would ever be persuaded to comment on the Israeli-Pal issue, especially were he still under the "protection" of ICDSM and EC. Hypothetically it would be most interesting to see just what the reaction of ICDSM, but EC in particular, would be, if, in part analogy between the demographic changes over the last century in KosovO and the even more startling demographic changes in Palestine, he expressed that he was more in sympathy with the Palestinians. Milosevic says quite rightly that he is not interested in the support of anti-semites. Good for him, I couldn't agree more with that position. This is not the same as he saying that he is interested in the support of Zionists.
3. Jared Israel is correct in cautioning the Serbs about possible ulterior motives of those who lend their support (or appear to). He was talking about anti-semites, with a somewhat veiled implication that reference was possible being made to at least one, if not more personalities here. I assume, pending further information, that that category was not intended to include me. It might sound somewhat like blowing my own trumpet, but I was at least modestly successful with a similar caution concerning the howling jackals at FreeRepublic apparently pro-Yugoslav and Milosevic position. At least, it appears I was able to convince the esteemed (and much missed) Jari Nousainen, so that's good enough for me. It is with much regret that I'm now also inclined to caution that a wary eye should also be kept on EC.
It's amazing that neither Jared Israel and Gil-White addressed the main points of my post. These were: 1. Why, if they "changed their minds" over Palestine/Israel, was there a dearth of material on this subject at EC prior to Jenin? Surely from the "standard lefty" point of view (sorry, economy of words forces to me to use such an imprecise expression), the more than cozy US-Israel relationship stands as an outstanding beacon of Western colonialist oppression and subjugation, one of the worst aspects of Empire. And isn't it the evils of Empire that EC constantly warns against? So, before the scales fell from EC's eyes, where was this material? 2. I merely suggested to readers that they compare and contrast, from the point of view of balance, EC articles on Yugoslavia (and other matters) with those on Israel-Palestine, and then make their own minds up. Well, I guess there wasn't much for EC to say about this last point, except perhaps to agree with the suggestion. If EC has answered these points directly, or at least point 1, then the diversion away from Yugoslav issues not liked by some here would hardly have been necessary.
It appears to me as though the EC leopard has shown its spots. Emperor's Clothes has no clothes. There's a sentence I would have bet good money on never constructing. ;-)
I would think that EC can now remove its appeal for funds from its web-site. They can just apply to AIPAC, or even Mossad, if they haven't already. I'm sure they'll see you right.
Dennis Revell
USA- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 3:53 am
DennisYou were right on several accounts. Things i've learned...
1. In my excitement over finding - finally - a possible "smoking gun" concerning media manipulation, I ignored the messenger. As stated prior, I hadn't a clue what TBR stood for. For all i know, was just another underground website trying to reveal the "truth". I still don't see all that much holocaust revisioinism on the site - which is how i missed it - but if the sites name is dedicated to Barnes.... well, duh. Then, what I had thought I was a defense of Barne's right to free speech - isn't that what we're supposed to do? - turned ugly and out of control.
2. One should never think out loud on this forum. Don't know if you ever said this, but this is the most important "truth" i've learned here. If you're thinking about asking rhetorical questions to reach a deeper understanding of the truth, well don't.
3. yeah, I walked right into it, and my response to your post was hysterical. In fact, the more I've come to think of it, you might be absolutely correct about your "conspiracy theory" on why use TBR to release the memos. Who knows.
4. You're a pretty good writer. Wish I had your poetic sense
5. Getting the truth told about Milosevic and Yugoslavia won't happen through the press, or through books or lectures or protests or our rantings here. (Don't get me wrong. I love this forum and think it's great for all of us here to keep up to date on the trial.) Film might work. But mostly, the truth will get told when this Matrix collapses under the weight of its own insanity (including economic malfeasance), or if there's a major rift and open conflict among the great poweres.
6. I mourn the loss of EC as a trusted resource. What a terrible shame.
josef crow
New York
NY- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 6:01 am
The ambassador looks familiar, he has a familiar hair style, I think just the moustache is missing.
He is also explaining the responsibility of Yugoslavia for not giving in to the threat of force and becoming responsible for war.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 6:10 am
Aha, reference being made in a prosecution document suggesting President Clinton was told by Itzebegovic to allow chetniks enter Zrebrenica to kill 5-7000 Muslims to create the necessary international reaction to military intervention in Yugoslavia. Both Nice (NATO) and the ambassador (NATO) denies the document having any value. Judge May (NATO) rejects exhibiting the document. The document reports the names of the people present in the meeting!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 6:12 am
The embassador denies Operation Storm was ethnic cleansing! because the people had already fled, therefor they could not be terrorized, and the slackers were killed!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 6:20 am
UN resolution 713 (arms embargo) was not supported by the Clinton boys, and the ambassador told Dujman the US will not interfere with the delivery of weapons to Bosnia, via Zagreb from Iran.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 6:54 am
Judge May (NATO) attitude towards cross examinations is that they take time, time from, one can assume, from examining other witness.
After hearing the performance of the American ambassador to Croatia the USA should be proud of being the in finest tradition of barbarism old European tradition well alive in the New World.
But this individual of Judge May (NATO) is so forgiven to the Americans, so forgiven!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 8:18 am
So according to Williams and Galbraith, Milosevic was responsible for the Croatian attack and ethnic cleansing of Krajina! Why? Because although the Krajina Serbs signed(!) an agreement for autonomy discussions, Milosevic did not make a "public" announcement of his own personal agreement on the discussions, so Tudjman was forced to immediately launch an attack on Krajina and ethnically cleanse Croatia of Serbs.Williams and Galbraith, objective as they tried to pretend they are, have only revealed the logic and strategy involved in blaming Milosevic for everything.
Personally, on such logic, I think he could also be responsible for the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. Why? Because if he'd done something to stop them we'd all be living in a better world. And if he wasn't around at the time, well... That too is his own fault.
I not how quick May is in coming to the rescue of his Anglo-American colleagues. Any tricky questions are quickly dismissed as irrelevant and merely the witnesses' opinion, opinions which seem to be quite in order when the other side asks for them.
As for the Clinton-Izetbegovic discussion being branded by May as preposterous... Now that outburst by May is in itself preposterous! One wonders on what basis he makes such an outrageous outburst? Because there's no DNA evidence? Or is he just earning his keep?
David
Australia- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 8:32 am
Josef Crow,I believe, that there IS a major rift between "the great powers", - "we" (the public) being the one!
Dennis Revell,
In fact Hans Christian Andersen, the Danish author of "The Emperor´s New Clothes", originally put that sentence in the mouth of the unspoiled child. In the Danish it reads: "Men han har jo ikke noget på!"
(Something like: "But he´s got nothing on (him, or even: his mind)!).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 8:34 am
One wonders on what basis Williams performed his job if he was so unfamiliar with the UN military observers and their reports, including Michael Rose's. Yet he seemed to be quite familiar with journalists' reports which he felt were quite "objective"! He still works for Tony Blair, doesn't he? Can you help here Peter Taylor?Galbraith was decimated by Tapuskovic's questions and presented facts. No wonder May was so ultra keen to limit Tapuskovic's time. More important we hear the ramblings of some illiterate dfective who claims he was shot a dozen times at 2-3 metre range but still managed to survive. No problems about time there!
Wouldn't want to get the facts in the way of a nice story, would we, Mr May?
David
Australia- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 8:34 am
One wonders on what basis Williams performed his job if he was so unfamiliar with the UN military observers and their reports, including Michael Rose's. Yet he seemed to be quite familiar with journalists' reports which he felt were quite "objective"! He still works for Tony Blair, doesn't he? Can you help here Peter Taylor?Galbraith was decimated by Tapuskovic's questions and presented facts. No wonder May was so ultra keen to limit Tapuskovic's time. More important we hear the ramblings of some illiterate defective who claims he was shot by a machine gun a dozen times at 2-3 metre range but still managed to survive. No problems about time there!
Wouldn't want to get the facts in the way of a nice story, would we, Mr May?
David
Australia- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 9:05 am
Can anyone clarify the Document with the Clinton-Izetbegovic reference?Reference
Dan B
Canaad- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 9:25 am
Document introduced in the bundle by the prosecution. It has a number but judge May (NATO) refused to be exhibited. Prosecutor Nice (NATO) said when asked about the validity of the document, which by the way had the names of the people present at the meeting where the allegations were made, lieu and date, Nice said, he was bound to distribute any document reaching the prosecution regardless of its validity. So, we will never know.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 9:35 am
Milosevic's assertion about Izetbegovic, Clinton and the 5,000 casualties has been documented elsewhere.From the United Nations report "The Fall of Srebrenica" of 15 November 1999:
C. Proposals to exchange Srebrenica and Zepa for Serb-held territory around Sarajevo
114. Following the Serb withdrawals from Mount Bjelasnica and Mount Igman, President Izetbegovic resumed his place in the peace negotiations at Geneva and, later, aboard the United Kingdom warship HMS Invincible. The package finalized aboard the Invincible called for the establishment of a union of three republics: one with a Bosniac majority, one with a Croat majority, one with a Serb majority. The Bosniac-majority republic would have covered 30 per cent of the land area of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including Srebrenica and Zepa. (See the map at the end of this chapter.) The Bosnian Serb leaders were in favour of the plan in principle, but were opposed to the arrangements for Srebrenica and Zepa, which, for strategic reasons, they wanted to be in the Serb-majority republic. They proposed an exchange of territories with the Bosniac leadership, under which Srebrenica and Zepa would be ceded to the Serb-majority republic, in return for which certain Serb-controlled territories around Sarajevo would be included in the Bosniac-majority republic.
115. Representatives of the Bosniac community gathered in Sarajevo on 28 and 29 September to vote on the peace package. A delegation of Bosniacs from Srebrenica was transported to Sarajevo by UNPROFOR helicopter to participate in the debate. Prior to the meeting, the delegation met in private with President Izetbegovic, who told them that there were Serb proposals to exchange Srebrenica and Zepa for territories around Sarajevo. The delegation opposed the idea, and the subject was not discussed further. Some surviving members of the Srebrenica delegation have stated that President Izetbegovic also told them he had learned that a NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina was possible, but could only occur if the Serbs were to break into Srebrenica, killing at least 5,000 of its people. President Izetbegovic has flatly denied making such a statement. Following this private meeting, the Bosniac Assembly met in full session, voting not to accept the Invincible package as it stood, and calling for further talks and the return of all territories taken by force.
116. Following the decision by the Bosniacs not to accept the Invincible package as presented, peace talks were reconvened, even as fighting continued on the ground. Over the coming months, a modified version of the Invincible package was developed under the auspices of the European Union. Under the European Union Action Plan, as it was called, the Bosniac-majority republic was to include 33.5 per cent of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Again the maps included Srebrenica and Zepa in the territory to be administered as part of the Bosniac-majority republic, and again the Serbs proposed exchanges of territory. Bosniac leaders met with Serb leaders in Sarajevo and elsewhere to discuss arrangements under which Srebrenica and Zepa might be ceded to the Serb-majority republic, but, as far as the United Nations is aware, no agreement was reached on the subject. The peace initiative within which context these deliberations took place eventually collapsed in January 1994.
Robert Hessen
Seattle
Washington- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 12:07 pm
Dennis, Possibly you could make a bit more sense if you were to set the quotes apart, then ANSWER them. As it is, I gave up reading your exceptionally long diatribe less than halfway through. Except for EC, it was never clear who you were upset with.At any rate, both you and Joe Crow could learn a bit from the following. Especially, keeping in mind your, long, OFF topic disussions, you may find the last paragraph in this post to be quite pertinent.>
Neil
Monday June 23, 2003 at 1:10 pm Note to Mr Jared Israel:<
>Why only now did you notice Clark's dodgy past? You didnt seem to have trouble working with him before. Does everyone who does not stick to your line have to be rubbished so bitterly?<
Neil Stamford Euroland
You have never learned that something you believed in was not true???? I used to believe the presidents were great men. Boy, did I lear how wrong I was. I notice here that you have nothing to say in defense of Clark. (I can understand that) It just kind of irks me to see someone revert to insults when they have clearly lost an argument.>
>Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 9:12 am It appears Godfred Louis-Jensens remarks about Jared Israel's ego are correct. Dont worry Jared, you and Gil-White are undefeated, unbeatable, infalable. >
Again it appears you LOST an argument and are reverting to childish insults.>
>Please desist from marketing your product on this page. All you have succeeded in doing here is alienating people tired of listening to mainstream propoganda. They now tire of your spin and constant PR work for EC.>
N Stamford Euroland<
How very 'ego'tistic of you to believe you can answer for the rest of the Posters on this forum?>
Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 6:42 am
>Would Rebeka 'Justice' like to point out what kind of anti semetic statement I have made?<
The word 'propaganda' kind of put a clincher on my suspicion when taken in context of the discussion being referred to. For the rest, go back and read your own posts<
(Me being quoted by you) 'I was pretty stupid before the attack on Serbia/Kosovo and believed everthing spewed by the mainstream media.>
> (You again)Yes and you are pretty stupid now in believing everything put out by the 'alternative' media with their own agenda. Some of us know the world is a little more complicated>
So in other words, the MAINSTREAM Media gets the final say??? Regardless of whether or not their 'stories' can be disproven???
Since you have NO answer to the Posts by Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White, you stooped to name calling and insults, then cried 'foul' when I treated you to a little of the same.
Maybe you should consider removing that oversized beam from your own eye before you chatter on about supposed slivers in the eyes of others.>
Rebecka Justice
Portland
OR- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 12:28 pm
Igor Jaramaz, Your post was pretty enlightening to me, because I had read or heard nothing on Bosnia until shortly before NATO started bombing Kosovo/Belgrade. In all I have read on Bosnia since, there was no mention of Peacekeeping by Canadians. Kind of came as a breath of fresh air.Kind of neat to know our Northern neighbors took a little longer to reach the depths of depravity we are so accustomed to in this country. More of your media kept their integrity regarding Kosovo also.>
As to the message of your post, it would be impossible to express the range of emotions it brought up, especially after reading the fate of the old man, and the 'so what' attitude of the Croats.>
Since EVERYTHING I have read on Krajina says it was a massacre of the Serbs, (From 250,000 to 450,000 depending on the source) isn't the wrong guy being charged with it? In other words, what does the 'Prosecution' come up with as charges against Milosevic???>
Rebecka Justice
Portland
OR- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 1:40 pm
What the 'Prosecution' does eventually come up with as charges against Milosevic - other than stated in the Indictment(s) of course - is a very good question indeed, Rebecka Justice - particularly from an American professing to have "read or heard nothing on Bosnia (Croatia? The Balkans? Or Europe?) until shortly before NATO started bombing Kosovo/Belgrade."Sic!
I can assure you however that not even ICTY's mr. Nice would ever dream of claiming, that there was "a massacre of 250,000 to 450,000 Serbs from Krajina." (As if "deportation" did not suffice).
BTW may I kindly remind you of my (very brief!) question (dated June 25, 2003 at 6:34 am)?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 1:45 pm
Really Miss Justice you are so pathetic its almost embarassing. I half think that you are going to start crying because somebody attacked your precious EC - give us a break. Where is your critical eye? It should apply equally to all media.You should know that accusing somebody of anti-semetism is a serious charge and you must substanciate it. If you cant then either you are stupid which is bad or a liar which is worse. Go on give me my anti semetic quote or shut up.
No the mainstream media doesnt get the final say. What is so important about the final say anyway? (what you really mean is that EC should always get the final say) Were you not the one to talk about how childish others are being? Engage your brain before opening your mouth. EC or anybody else DO NOT have the monopoly on truth. Live with the fact.
My apologies to other posters for this but I will not have the charge of being an anti semite levelled in my direction because I dont agree with everything that EC produces?!! So yes Miss Justice I think the majority does support my view in this.
Thanks for the information Gogol, Andy. Keep it coming.
N Stamford
Euroland- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 2:39 pm
Godfred, I find it difficult to determine exactly what point you are attempting to convey in the 'question'?Perhaps you could go back and reread that post and clarify it? In the meantime, not knowing what side you are on in that particular debate, allow me to inform you that I have stated MY belief that William Walker was full of crap, several times on this forum.
>>What the 'Prosecution' does eventually come up with as charges against Milosevic - other than stated in the Indictment(s) of course - is a very good question indeed, Rebecka Justice - particularly from an American professing to have "read or heard nothing on Bosnia (Croatia? The Balkans? Or Europe?) until shortly before NATO started bombing Kosovo/Belgrade." <
You really don't have to work very hard at being insulting do you? I have been very honest on this forum, and stated more than once that I am ashamed of my lack of interest in the Baltics prior to the NATO bombing of Kosovo/Belgrade, and stupidity in believing the Media, etal. What on earth you meant by the above statement is anybody's guess.>
N Stamford, Interesting that you should become so unglued when someone RETURNS some of your insults. You missed the point entirely. You are welcome to DEBATE anyone on this forum. You were NOT debating EC. You were using insults and name-calling as your ENTIRE argument.>
Please be so kind as to point out ONE piece of your diatribes against EC where you were actully making any valid point, OTHER THAN your insulting OBSERVATIONS.
>>Really Miss Justice you are so pathetic its almost embarassing. I half think that you are going to start crying because somebody attacked your precious EC - give us a break. Where is your critical eye? It should apply equally to all media. >
UH, Where are all of these insightful posts of yours where you explain the errors made by the staff of EC? I mean besides the name calling and insults which you have continued against me?
>>You should know that accusing somebody of anti-semetism is a serious charge and you must substanciate it. If you cant then either you are stupid which is bad or a liar which is worse. Go on give me my anti semetic quote or shut up.>
You need to read the CONTEXT. I repeat, "The word 'propaganda' kind of put a clincher on my suspicion when taken in context of the discussion being referred to. For the rest, go back and read your own posts".
>> Would Rebeka 'Justice' like..<
I meant to reply to this before and forgot. Since, by insinuation, you are inferring here that my last name is NOT Justice, (Rebeka 'Justice') may I suggest you call Portland information for the Phone number of same????? I promise, it has been my last name for about 40 years. I didn't change it just for you. :)>
>>So yes Miss Justice I think the majority does support my view in this.>
I think you are wrong. The serious posters on this forum are not into insults. Ordinarily I'm not either but considering the fact that we are now up to at least EIGHT(8) posters who feel that insults and name-calling is a proper form of debate I had hoped 'sauce of the goose' would work. Apparently not. :(
Finally, if you don't like the medicine, get rid of the disease. In other words, stop the insults if you don't want them returned. Incidentally, I would be just as angry with you on this account even if you were insulting posters I DISAGREE with. Nuff said?>
Rebecka Justice
Portland
OR- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 3:50 pm
Since the end of Bosnia's war, experts from the commission have exhumed the remains of 16 500 bodies from 273 mass graves.So, almost 10 years later using all the resources this is it??? Where are all 200000 thousand dead???
Dakic Ana
Serbia- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 3:55 pm
Dear Rebecka Justice,The devil is in the detail, they say.
However I do take your point that there is a need for clarification on that particular point. A preview may be as follows:
(In my opinion) mr. Milosevic has long since won this "trial" - the lead he got from crushing the ICTY Prosecution on the "Kosovo part" is easily sufficient to see him through!
On its own "Racak" did secure this lead, - and the centerpiece in mr. Milosevic's success is his clear demonstration of the utter lack of connexion between William Walkers statement on a "massacre of civilians" and the factual situation in and around the village on that crucial day of 15 January 1999, - as epitomized in the above quotations concerning the "short-range wounds".
To me in fact the rest might well be silence, - but nevertheless seem to serve as some kind of "soap opera" (particularly in the U.S., where too many people do not appear to know the first thing or even to really care).
This being so I do not at all (have to) "work at being insulting", - but I do admit, that as a European (like mr. Milosevic!) I am deeply disturbed by the actions of a pathetically ignorant and all too powerful U.S.
What struck me about your remark on not having "read or heard nothing on Bosnia" was, that it might as well have been uttered by your President...
Very disturbing indeed!
Kind regards
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Thursday June 26, 2003 at 11:43 pm
Dakic Ana, I had read in several places, less than a year ago, that only 2,000 some bodies were found in Bosnia and 2,000 some in Kosovo. The sources also said that ethnicity had not been determined on most of those bodies. One site had even given the count by countries who had found the bodies. I will try to find it again.I find it hard to believe that DNA tests could not have been done and wondered if maybe it was, and they didn't want to spill the beans that there were a great many SERBS among the bodies?>
Godfred, Not to be making excuses but I brought up 7 children, working 2 jobs almost all my life. I didn't pay any attention to ANY news for a long time. Had I not been bed ridden with Pneumonia just before and during Kosovo, I may not have learned of it either.
I am not proud of the fact that I didn't pay attention during Bosnia. I have posted my feelings as to EVERY single President this country has had. I regret that I believed in them for so long but then we can't all KNOW EVERYHING. I am however, quite pleased to know that you have never made a mistake in that regard, or any other.>
And they say no one is perfect......
Rebecka Justice
Portland
OR - Wednesday June 25, 2003 at 5:11 pm
