MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

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

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 12:44 am
  Dana Priest, Washington Post reporter was on Booknotes this evening. Author of, “The Mission-- Waging War, Keeping Peace.” When I turned it on she was saying something about Albanian thugs running Kosovo. She told of a Serbian “town drunk” who was well liked by KFOR and was trying to get his house back when an Albanian family of squatters took it over. He was well liked because he was brave and dared to walk the streets even though his friend had been murdered a few weeks before.Hearing the story of the family with three children made me sympathetic to them but then I believe many Albanians once the bombing stopped left Albania and moved into Serb property. I also believe they never had papers for the Serbs to burn. Over 99% of the bombing was done by Americans says Ms. Priest. This, of course, was done under Nato. Did anyone see this and if so what did you think? I missed most of it and was wondering if I missed much and if the book is worth reading.

  Trivial: Speaking of Greeks,“My Big Fat Greek Wedding” the best and funniest movie I have seen in a long time. I loved the entire cast.

  “Chicago” is second best. I loved the entire cast.

  We may not always agree with Jari but in my opinion he has been responsible in keeping this forum going in the right direction. He has undoubtedly put in hours of research.

  Prediction: Bushies will be out of the Whitehouse in 2004.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 1:10 am
  Did anyone see Tim Russert of NBC grilling Democrat Howard Dean, presidential hopeful? Russert acted as a shill for the Bushies. His accusations were fast and furious and at one point I thought he was going to punch Dean in the nose. Dean does not agree with the Bushies and the media that we have to bomb Iraq. I cannot bet on it but I think it turned Russert‘s hair from brownish grey to a dark brown.

  Speaking of dark brown hair the Dole vs. Clinton spot hit the airwaves tonight. I think Clinton won, but I am not sure, I was so captivated by how just awful Bob Dole looked that I could not concentrate on what he was saying. If his lips were not moving I would have sworn he was dead.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 2:29 am
  A very interesting article http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/20030102.php concerns the relationship between the United States and Israel and the American insistence on going to war against Iraq. It seems that protection of Great Power interests by proxy wars is now reversed and America will be fighting a proxy war for Israeli interest. The analysis is convincing. The following is also an attachment that is of interest to the contributors on this forum.

  'Friendly Relations Declaration'

  “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1970

  [...] Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such threats or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

  A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

  In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.

  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.”
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 2:39 am
  Stylianos was very funny.

  First of all, we must agree that Greece is a Nato country. If we agree that Nato was basically a defensive alliance, should it have remained aloof when Greece started complaining of the invasion/tension at its northern border?

  As to the Orwellian designation FYROM, the Macedonian Slavs were deprived of their nation state, making the FYROM a purely geographical plot of land. This allowed the Albanians to demand on "equal" right with the Macedonians, and the issue isn't still solved. I don't know what is so difficult for the subtle Greek mind to follow here, if they want to?

  And to give the honourable audience the full picture, I must say I have been pretty lenient with the Greeks. I said that Turkey took the northern part of Cyprus by force. What I forgot to mention was that Greece was going to annex Cyprus to Greece.

  And if we are allowed to go a little further back in history, I mentioned the expulsion of the Greeks (by Kemal Atatürk). Smyrna is the most famous example. What I forgot to mention that the Greeks were still having these delusions of the Byzantine greatness, and they were actully busy taking over the Anatolian peninsula. Kemal Atatürk had a better idea.

  As to Stylianos, who is very funny, I think Walter said something interesting about Milosevic and Macedonia. He said that Milosevic sided with Macedonia on the name dispute. That son of a bitch. He wasn't even as nostalgic for the Yugoslav greatness as the Greeks. If we are to extrapolate this little revelation to the whole Yugoslav breakup, one might conclude that Milosevic would have let the Serbs stay in Croatia as Croatian citizens, while his compatriot hotheads had some Greater Serbian plans. That would make him not guilty of the crimes committed by the petty Greater Serb politicians. Obviously that is not relevant to this discussion.

  Pythagoras can't let go of this Greater Bulgarian thinking. Pray tell me where have these delusions from? Why would Bulgaria start a war, supposing such a plan would start a war? You are only reading your sick mind to the Macedonian-Bulgarian relations. Of course Macedonians and Bulgarians must live in the same state, just the way the Cypriots were to live in the same state with the Greeks. I think nobody has more sympathy with the Greater Serbian ideology than the Greeks.

  And as anybody can see, the Greeks have to read the history the way they like it. Let us start this step by step. Where did Alexander the Great's mother come from? And as to the Macedonian claim on northern Greece, the recent diatribes are only meant to take the attention away from the fact that Slav kindgom, which had its capital in Ohrid (today: FYROM) conquered better part of what is now Greece after 900 A.D. Try reminding the Greeks of a few historical facts and they will accuse you of aggression.

  The Bulgarians got dragged to this debate almost inadvertently. Remember, they share the historical links with you. They are Orthodox Christians and they suffered from the Ottomans too.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 4:44 am
  For those who are not satisfied with the intellectuals like Stylianos might care to read something about the Greek "megale". This a piece I picked at random with a Google search. It is interesting in that it equates the Greek megale and the Serb nacertanije. It is interesting that it points to the parallels between the old megale and the currents conflicts in Cyprus and Macedonia (i.e. FYROM).

  The Greeks are desperate for some enemy so they can justify their drive for megale, and that is why they have the obsession with the Bulgarian expansion to Macedonia and from there to Greece. It matters of course little that the Greeks are lying. On the contrary, anyone who accuses them of lying is just another example of the prevailing animosity to the Greeks, which justifies a Greek pre-emptive strikes, as in the case of Macedonia.

  The Greeks are lying that Macedonia gave the world the impression that only they have the right to use the word Macedonia. The end-result is that now everybody undestands that only the Greeks have the right to decide on the proper use of that name. What should the Macedonians have called their state? Toyota? Obviously it would have been better for that state never to have existed, and that left the state to be allotted to Greece, Serbia or Bulgaria, just like in the good old days of the Balkan wars.

  The Greeks say that the Macedonians were causing "tensions" when in fact they were trampling on the country. That made sure the tensions would not be caused by the Macedonians, if they were destined to arise.

  So in order to expel this great bogeyman, the Great Bulgaria-Macedonia, the Greeks get allied with their friends the Serbs. And inadvertently or not, that gave the foes of the Serbs the reason to bomb them.

  As to the recent inept comment that I can't fathom the depths of history in the Balkans, I can only say you one thing, but I am not going to write it here, so you won't have another example of anti-Greek sentiments to justify your delusions. I am just reminded of the American talkshow host Bill Maher, who told the Serbs during the bombing that the rest of the world is having a Y2K problem, but the Serbs are having a Y1389 problem. What would that make of the Greeks? They have a Y300BChr. problem, or whenever it was that Alexander the Great lived.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 4:45 am
  This is the link I was referring to. There are many others: http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect14.htm .
  
  J N
  Finland

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 7:20 am
  

  Welcome to the surreal
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 9:08 am
  Jari, you are well advised to stick with what you are good at: Milosevic and legal matters. Nobody in this forum has shown any appreciation of the anti-Greek tirades that you initiated out of the blue. You are wasting time and prestige.
  
  Pythagoras C
  Greece

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 9:29 am
  
  The Emperor’s new clothes

  I’m sure we are all familiar with this parable that describes the little boy who exclaims to the watching crowd, cowed into believing the Emperor has been suited in fine raiment, the otherwise obvious fact that the Emperor is parading in his birthday suit.

  Indeed there is a famous Web Site by this name, frequently referred to here, which does sterling work exposing similar scams such as the portrayal of the ICTY as a court of justice while it fails to indict the Leaders of the erstwhile KLA for the reign of terror it visited upon Kosovo.

  Seeking justification for his ‘rush to war’ on Iraq Blair, his ministers and his media hacks often refer to Anglo/US forces and their successful ‘humanitarian’ intervention in Kosovo to “halt ethnic cleansing”.

  Well like the little boy in the parable this naïve person would like to point out the blindingly obvious fact that, four years on, there is still massive ethnic cleansing in Kosovo which is totally ignored by Mr Morality and his chums.

  Conclusion: Blair’s intervention in Kosovo was not a humanitarian act to halt ethnic cleansing. What it was about I leave others to determine: Oil, Restricting Russia’s sphere of influence, Keeping its Islamic proxy terror fighters happy, Deals with Albania: such as to take Britain’s undesirable asylum seekers, Pour encourager les autres, Divide and rule …

  Divide and rule: This last principle, employed by The Perfidious Albion successfully for centuries, has a parallel in the new area of Blair’s ‘moral’ conviction: Iraq. Blair makes much of the moral need for regime change in Iraq in order to establish “democracy”. Does anyone believe for an instant that Blair would be interested in regime change if the Monster Hussein were always to obey Blair’s bidding?

  Quid pro quo: Just look at the Middle East arbitrarily carved up by the west into manageable dictatorships that fawn on the western powers that keep them in power: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Yemen, Jordan. Blair makes no demand for democracy here. Nor does he propose an independent democratic state for the Kurds of Turkey and Iraq - perhaps he is heeding Milosevic’s words: “Be careful what you wish for”. And what is this democracy worth anyway when the Turkish parliament votes not to allow US troops to enter Iraq via their land - but still they march in.

  Of Britain’s so-called democracy: The fact is that for the past sixty years and more Britain has been ruled by a cabal made up of Tory and Labour party activists and their selected candidates. The only thing that changes is the leader. This is why less than one quarter of the British population now votes either Tory or Labour. This is why the BBC, owned by the government, is able to maintain the massive lies about Serbia and the problems in Kosovo.

  Has anyone else noticed how Blair cherry picks his UN Resolutions: 1244 he ignores with Chapter 6 sophistry? Also in my naivety I wonder about Blair’s ‘moral’ claim to be able to ignore “unreasonable” vetoes of a UN sanction for war on Iraq given that the ten temporary and small member states have been subjected to bribes threats and bullying.

  Blair declares that his “conscience is clear” as he prepares to kill and maim with his wicked cluster bombs thousands of Iraqis - three quarters of whom will be defenceless women and children as in Serbia. A war which at this stage is not necessary to achieve the objective of 1441. What does the naïve little boy say to us about the ‘Emperor’s new Conscience’?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 9:43 am
  Thank god there is finally some debate here (about the Greeks and Macedonians).

  It is difficult to know what diaspora think about Greek - Yugoslav - Macedonian relations but Greeks are still popular in Yugoslavia and Macedonians are also.

  Opinion of most of Serbs is that even if historically there is some jusrify for calling Macedonia Serbia, that we respect right of Macedonia to exist and to be called Macedonia. Most of us dont understand what is the problem that Greece has with Macedonia if Serbs can accept the name Macedonia as independent state then why cant Greeks?

  In Serbia during problematic war in last decade there was talk of Bulgarians wanting Macedonia also Albanians, just as there was talk that Hungary wanted Vojvodina. In fact in this time everybody wanted a piece of Yugoslavia if you believed these theory.

  My own view is that very little help has come from Greece government to Yugoslavia in last many years. We have a lot of nice words from different leaders in Greece but when it came to really helping Serbs, Greeks looked for their own interest like all countries. Even today aid to Yugoslavia from Greece is less than many countries of European Union like Hungary or even far away countries like China and Japan.

  As Jari makes point nobody has more sympathy with Greater Serbian ideology than Greeks is probably true but I am not Greater Serb ideologist. The Greeks put their interest first, there is nothing wrong with this but the problem with the Serbs is that they think about too much romantic historical links.
  
  Sasa Kapor
  Yugoslavia

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 9:48 am
  Ms. Kathryn Love,

  Yes I happen to see that segment on 60 minutes. What can I say. It is impossible for me to listen to the arguments when deep down I know that one man need Viagra, and the other something which suppresses it.

  Both were criminals. Clinton for using wars as his political protection against Monika affair and Dole for the plain avarice for money. No moral principles whatsoever.

  Compare them to Carter statement in the OP-ED pages of New York Times.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 11:00 am
  Stylianos Kerasiotis or Pythagoras C.,

  This is interesting, I am churious about a couple of things. Please note that I am not taking any sides in this debate, I'm neutral, but I am churious. I'm asking questions because I just want to know your thoughts.

  If the citizens of the FYROM aren't Macedonians then who are they decended from, what is their ethnicity?

  What could the FYROM gain from falsely claiming Macedonian heritage, and how could them doing that hurt Greece?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 12:33 pm
  
  Thanks to Gogol for this URL:

  Carpet bombing in Serbia: Kosovo being a province of Serbia

  What was all that guff given out by the mega moralist Blair, his ministers and media hacks such as Jamie Shea about no carpet-bombing in Serbia? Just precision-guided weapons on selected military targets!

  What do you think happens below when aircraft repeatedly release loads of 50 x 500lb unguided bombs from a height of thirty thousand feet?

  Let me assure you the people on the ground - that are still able - leave the area in rapid order: Ethnic cleansing indeed!

  War criminal, war monger Blair egged on Bush over Iraq as he did Clinton in Serbia:

  “The Clinton-Blair dog-and-pony show on the international stage clearly had the latter in the role of the militant, egging Clinton on in Kosovo and openly calling for the introduction of ground troops. Now, in Iraq, Blair is doing an encore: while the Bushies are tight-lipped about their future plans, British officials are openly saying that the Iraqis can expect more - and soon. And so Blair is allowed to take the lead once again: but there is, of course, a price to pay.” By Justin Raimondo.

  Source: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j021901.html

  As ministers line up to desert his government, millions protest in the streets, the British social fabric falls apart for lack of the billions spent on his wars: all the indications are that the British people have had enough of this demagogue: this self-styled paragon of moral virtue with the weird and macabre ‘moral’ conviction that dropping cluster bombs on people is an act of humanity.

  But in this so-called democracy we cannot get rid of him any more than the Iraqi people can get rid of the monster Hussein. A monster cemented in power by the west in order to deploy weapons of mass destruction - provided - against Iran.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 12:46 pm
  Thank you for the advice, Pythagoras, but you are wasting time and prestige giving it. You are not the first one to warn me I would be losing prestige. I don't know what prestige you are talking about, but somehow people mention it when they think I am losing it.

  Can you say where you have got this idea that Bulgaria would have conquered Macedonia, unless Greeks had terrorized the Macedonians? Or do you have some more refined definition of the concept Greater Bulgaria, something that cannot be demonstrated, something in the world of ideas? Is the Great Bulgaria slur really a delusion of yours, or are you just lying, which I think you are, because you are letting the matter rest so easily?

  Can I have an honest answer to this one? Or do you think it doesn't matter what kind of accusation the Greeks level at their neighbours, because they are the champs anyway? Do you think that people should trust the Greek claims at face value concerning the intentions of the neighbour states, even if those accusations are hostile acts toward the countries in question, especially when the Greeks have no shred of evidence to substantiate them?

  If that is too difficult, I can also ask easier ones: is Greece a member state of Nato? Do you think that gives any extra weight to the Greek foreign policy in the Balkans?

  What was Samaras's mistake, if you still stick to your guns and say it was Macedonians who acted foolishly? And does this supposed foolishness, if that is indeed what it was, justify the heavy-handed measures that the Greeks took?

  Don't you think the Macedonians know they have acted foolishly, though not for the reasons that you think? They let the Albanian refugees from Kosovo enter the country during the bombing, and the next thing we know, the Albanian guerrillas are terrorizing the Slavs in Macedonia. I don't think they need smart comments like yours to remind them they have acted foolishly.

  And as I said, the status of Macedonia is relevant to the Milosevic trial. If Milosevic said independent Macedonia is OK with the name it had adopted, what does that leave of the Greater Serbia ideology?

  If I were delusional, I would say that the Greeks wanted Milosevic out of the way, because he didn't subscribe to the Greater Serbia policy, which would have served the Greek foreign policy against this phantom Greater Bulgaria. I would also say that knowing how unpopular the Greater Serbia idea was they ascribed it to Milosevic exactly in order to get him out of the way. That would rhyme perfectly with what we are hearing now. But I also know that such a scheme would necessitate exceptional mental powers, which I am not sure the Greeks have, judging by how little progress they have made after the age of Alexander the Great.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 2:36 pm
  One other idea that came during Milosevic was idea of Balkan union, confederation or some such.

  Milosevic got some of these states politicians to tell lies to Serbian people through media to give idea that Serbia would join with Greece, Bulgaria and maybe other Balkans countries. The same lie repeated with supposed union with Belorus, Russia and so on. Politicians of these countrie that came here or gave statements to make Serbian people believe false propoganda for sake of Milosevic will not be forgotten.

  Same is true of criminal Hurd who on one side was telling the world that Serbian regime is bad and on the other making money from Serbian people taking shares through Westminster Bank in Serbian companies for cheap. In return Serb government got prestige.
  
  Sasa Kapor
  Yugoslavia

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 2:41 pm
  Having turned Kosovo into an ethnically cleansed extension of Greater Albania, the UN plans to turn the southern Serbian province over to Albanian terrorists and drug dealers, but not before organizing the liquidation of all Serbian assets still remaining.

  UN plans Kosovo asset sell-off

  While most portable assets of numerous state businesses; factories, shops, offices, and other private property were looted in the same manner as private residences in the aftermath of NATO's invasion, the UN has signalled that it will not be satisfied until every last piece of Serbian propety in Kosovo is stolen. This was already precedented by the UN's action, or inaction, in western Bosnia and Croatia where the greater part of Serbian property has been looted. Given the current state of chaos and lawlessness in Kosovo, it's doubtful that the UN can sell even unlooted and well-maintained property in Kosovo for more than 10% of its actual value, assuming of course such assets actually exist. Interestingly enough, that elusive entity called the "international community" which Anglo-American leaders keep mentioning, still expects the state of Serbia, and not the UN, much less the state of "KLA-Kosovo" to pay for the debts of those Kosovo companies the UN has allowed Albanians to loot or forcibly seize, and now intends to sell. Those
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CAN

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 3:03 pm
  Normally, I would refrain from posting more than a small excerpt from an article here, in addition to the link, but this one could well be removed before it receives the sort of scrutiny it deserves. Fortunately, it is very short.Note the admission in this article that Britain's scheme to set up refugee camps in Albania and Croatia is entirely it's own, although they would, as in the case of Iraq, prefer to have some sort of multinational window dressing, if only to conceal their malicious actions. Imagine the outcry in Britain if Germany, where the number of refugees is far greater, were to have undertaken this "project" alone? I find the references at the end of the article to Croatia's tourism industry somewhat curious, perhaps British ministers see their actions as granting refugees free holidays?

  Plans to send asylum seekers to Albania SCOTT RHODIE

  ASYLUM seekers landing on British shores will be sent to Albania, under government plans to curb the flow of illegal immigrants. Ministers are said to be planning to fly refugees to Albania - which will house them in specially built detention centres - while their applications are being processed.

  The Home Office is hoping to build the camps in Albania, which is the poorest nation in Europe, in conjunction with other European nations, but ministers are determined to go ahead with the project alone should they need to. The Home Office is hoping to build the camps in Albania, which is the poorest nation in Europe, in conjunction with other European nations, but ministers are determined to go ahead with the project alone should they need to.

  It was revealed last month that a record 110,000 refugees has claimed asylum in Britain within the last year. It is hoped that the thought of being flown to Albania will stem the flow of illegal immigrants. One unnamed Whitehall official was reported as saying: “We want to deter asylum seekers from coming to Britain and we would like to set up a processing centre in Albania to help achieve that. “We would prefer this to be an EU-wide scheme to which everybody contributes, but we are prepared to go it alone should we need to.”

  If agreement is reached to pilot ‘designated centres’ in Albania, other southern and eastern European countries will be approached. Plans are already being drawn up for processing plants in Croatia, which has struggled to restore its tourism industry after years of fighting that followed in the break-up of Yugoslavia.

  
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CAN

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 3:32 pm
  Now the UN's police are not only protecting terrorists, they're shooting each other!!!

  Two UN police die in shootout

  TWO United Nations police officers were killed in a shootout during an argument at their camp in Kosovo, a spokesman for the force said...."It is sad, tragic and a stupid way to end a dispute," Chappell said. He did not elaborate....
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CAN

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 3:36 pm
  Mr JN I hate to intervene again, but it seems to me that you have some axe to grind with the Greeks. No problem, you are not the only one. I do not know why you spread these slanders and you are so aggressive.I have some difficulty following your writings, you seem to jump from subject to subject and confuse facts with fiction.I am sure the majority of the members of the forum are here for other reasons, and not to witness a Greek-Finnish argument about….”Macedonia”, or Cyprus! I do not take your writings personally, and judging from the last two I am not sure I should even take them seriously.But, because some people here might think that the nonsence you write about Greece must be right, (you, being an authority of sorts), I have to put some things straight: First of all (and read carefully,so you understand) Greece was against the break-up of Yugoslavia.You can speculate for the rest of your life about the reasons: historical, strategic or whatever.But, that was the official position, and as it happens, also the Greek public’s opinion.So, do not mix facts with newspaper clippings, or some “expert’s” opinions. Greece did not object to the establishment of the FYROM as an independent state.The only objection was, and still is, this entity’s name.Again do not confuse the official position with the media presentation of the affair. I do not understand the point you are trying to make about Milosevic and the name issue. My understanding is , that some Greek politicians(wrongly in my opinion) expected that, given the friendly relations between Greece and Yugoslavia ,Milosevic would side with Greece on the name issue. Well, Milosevic had other priorities.So, where’s the problem. Then, you mention the support of Greece (or lack of) on the Kosovo issue.What you expected Greece to do, block the movement of NATO through Greece against the agreements signed with that organization?Veto the action NATO was about to take?Only fools who believe that NATO is a democratic institution where all members are equal, can entertain such illusions.Greece, as a country, did what was the most honourable thing to do:did not participate in the bombing, and publicly objected to it, collecting the wrath and slanders of the western media and politicians.That is something, that other countries (no names here) better positioned than Greece, without similar constrains failed to do, remained silent ,or were whisling indiferrently during the crime. Well , maybe that’s the wise thing to do, especially when you line-up for NATO membership. As for the Bulgarians, again I will have to ask you to read their official position concerning “Macedonians”, Macedonian language” and the break-up of Yugoslavia. The fact of the matter is that Bulgaria has occupied Greek territory and commited crimes in both World Wars.And I do not understand why you insult Pythagoras by telling him that he has sick mind.Just because someone has different opinion than you, is sick?I suspect you are deliberately avoiding answering to the facts he has presented.I do not see where he said that the Bulgarians will start awar. Now, Mr JN thinks that he will provoke me or anyone Greek in this forum by bringing up the Cyprus issue or go back to the Asia Minor in 1922, or even further back to the Byzantine Empire. I will save the readers the space and the scrolling of this page by being brief: Turkey did not “take” the northern part of Cyprus: they invaded it, ethnically cleansed it, and occupy it ever since.No country in the world has recognized this so-called Northern Cyprus Republic except Turkey itself. The Military Junta which ruled Greece at the time of the Turkish invasion gave the pretext by staging a coup against the legal government of the island. As for Greeks wanting to annex Cyprus:Cyprus was always a Greek island, it was occupied by Persians,Romans,Ottomans,British and again by Turks.“Enosis” (Union) with Greece was an aspiration of all the Greek Cypriots since the establishment of the Greek state.Ever since the Ottoman empire sold Cyprus to the British in the 18th century, the population repeatedly rose to rebellion, with this one demand. Now, as then, and despite the illegal immigration of Turks from Anatolia ,the Greek-Cypriots happen to form 80% of the population of the island.The governments of Greece at the time of these rebellions, had almost always opposed the idea of “uniting”, as happened in the case of the Cretan rebellions.So, Greece as a state, wanted to annexe nothing! For those interested: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cytoc.html That brings us to the other leap in history ,in which Mr JN wants to enlighten the forum about: Greece’s adventures in Anatolia.If Mr JN was not so selective in his reading of History, he would have mentioned that this part of Asia Minor was the home of Greeks for thousands of years.At the time of the 1922 “Disaster”as we Greeks call it, the Greek (not simply orthodox in religion) population of the area numbered more than two million.This, excluding the Constantinopole(now Istanbul) area.The fact that the Greek governments of the period failed to secure militarily and incorporate these areas to the Greek state is not disputed here. What followed, is the destruction of the 3000-old Hellenic presence in the area, the murder of thousands of people, the burning and plundering of the city of Smyrna and the ETHNIC CLEANSING of millions of Greeks from the area.All that Mr J calls gleefully as “expelling”, by Kemal Ataturk, obviously his hero. The “Megali Idea” or Great Ideal ( partial revival of the Byzantine Empire in the areas were Greek populations lived) was short-lived and was buried in 1922.It has no bearing in the present day policies of the Greek state. What all this has to do with “Macedonia”, or “Greater Serbia”,my not so subtle Greek mind, fails to grasp. Maybe he means that Greeks, like Serbs wanted simply to attack their neighbours and “annex” them to their relative “Great” country? From there, he jumps to the Byzantine Empire and the Slav Kingdom which conquered part of Greece. So?Who has denied that?Or, that before the Slavs, the Romans had conquered Greece? And finally, on to Alexander the Great and his mother who was what?….Albanian?Doesn’t her name tell you anything?Olympias?Epirus?Neoptolemus King of Molossians?No? Well, I think you can read what you like and understand what you like, but for anyone from the forum who wants to check these and other matters, a visit here will be most helpful, even if someone doesn’t agree with the Greek positions on these subjects, at least he/she can get a glimpse of what the Greek opinion is. http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr A note on the Greek-Serb friendship: The Serb members of the forum have testified on this, but I would like to add my opinion.Yes, there are the bonds of religion and shared experiences during the wars, and the -sometimes not wholly accurate- tales of always being allies, that bring the two PEOPLE together. But, as far as the NATO bombing is concern, the overwhelming factor that brought the Greeks to the streets to demonstrate against this attack, was the feeling that THE SERB PEOPLE WERE WRONGED AND DEMONIZED. On your later attack on mr Pythagoras, I believe he is capable of defending his positions, even though I see that you are totally incapable of arguing seriously on anything that goes against your fixations.The moronic rantings of the last part of your posting are beyond comprehension: THE GREEKS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MILOSEVIC BEING IN THE HAGUE???!!! I think you better go check yourself.
  
  Stylianos Kerasiotis
  Athens
  Greece

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 4:56 pm
  Here's some news for our resident admirer of Ataturk's "better idea". Can you believe the cruelty of the Albanian blockade of this loyal Macedonian citizen? Outrageous?

  Albania denies entrance to alleged rebel leader in Macedonia

  TIRANA, Albania - An alleged leader of an ethnic Albanian rebel group operating in neighboring Macedonia was denied entry into Albania, police said Monday. Gafur Adili, 44, a Swiss resident born in Macedonia, was returned to Switzerland by police upon his arrival Sunday night at Rinasi International Airport, Albanian police said in a statement. ...."Gafur Adili's refusal of entrance and stay in Albania is linked with activity that runs counter to Albania's policy ... against any activity aimed at provoking instability," the statement said....

  Setting aside the obvious duplicity of Albania's anti-instability "policy", it's interesting that "country" sees Gaful Aili, rightly, as a terrorist, while the government of Switzerland sees him as a "refugee". While the main sponsors of Albanian terrorism, much of which is connected directly to this neo-imperialist policy of financing and harbouring refugee terrorists and their sympathizers, are indeed members of the NATO pact, this issue cannot ignore the role played by some allegedly "neutral" countries as well.

  Anway, I wonder if there will some sort of denunciation here towards Albania for it's "blockade" of a Macedonian citizen? Something on the lines of an ethnically charged polemic which argues as discriminatory any action undertaken by states to defend themselves against instability from bordering nations.
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CAN

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 5:51 pm
  

  TRASNCRIPTS UP DATED TO MARCH 3, HERE
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 6:05 pm
  After all this fuss with Iraq,UN and "the coalition of willing"- which doesn't care too much about UN's opinion and recomendations - wouldn't it be the most logical thing that UN headquarters move out of New York (and USA)...into some place where...UN could feel more at home ? After all "the coalition of the same"-more or less - does't hide no more - they attacked Yugoslavia without UN resolution - I guess they want to prove: without UN resolution is better than with ???
  
  milan c.
  netherlands

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 6:45 pm
  Seems like Albania and Greece are not the only ones promoting a blockade of loyal Macedonian citizens. That other guarantor of Balkan stability, the United States is also involved, which must come as a rude awakening to all who admire the sort of intelligent American television commentary promoted by Bill Maher; Jerry Springer, and the rest.

  Macedonian family seeks refuge in the United States

  DANBURY, Conn. -- Lavdrim and Luljeta Ismaili say their American dream in Danbury may be turned upside down within days if they are deported to their native Macedonia, where they say they would be persecuted as Albanian Muslims...Lavdrim Ismaili, 34, left the country in March 1997, one month before a Macedonian court convicted him of subversive activity against the government and sentenced him to 21/2 years in prison. His wife and two daughters fled to the United States in November 1996....Lavdrim Ismaili grew up in Macedonia and was denied a high school education by the government. He had to travel to another country, Kosovo, to attend classes....He said the discrimination led him to join the Kosovo Youth League, a group opposed to the Yugoslavian government. Lavdrim said because the Macedonian police knew the group organized anti-government protests and made leaflets and signs, he was interrogated each time he went home...

  It's very sad that such a heart wrenching story should come out of the United States, especially when one considers that country's State Department has done so much to establish stability in Macedonia and the Balkans as a whole. Let's also not forget the US has done so much, as a promoter of human rights, to support the economy of Ataturk's faltering Asia Minor (invaluable as a base for aggression as in Ottoman times), and protect it from charges of genocide concerning some 2.5 million Christians. And while we're speaking of embargoes and such, the US has also allowed the Sultan's leftover, with Constantinople as booty and all, to carry out a blockade of Armenia for more than a decade.
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CAN

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 7:43 pm
  Another one for the Greeks:

  During the Kosovo/Serbia bombing, the organization calling themselves “Doctors Without Borders” acted as good samaritans by administering care to the sick and injured. The Greek doctor/doctors in this organization not only administered care to the Albanian sick and injured but went into Serbia proper and administered care to the Yugoslavian sick and injured. This great humanitarian organization of “Doctors Without Borders” said this was against their rules. No care for the Serbs. What let them bleed to death?

  After the horrendous bombing of a sovereign nation ceased, “Doctors Without Borders” were the recipients of a much coveted award... the Nobel.Guess what? The Greeks were denied any share of the prize because they had doctored the Serbs. I sent E Mails to object to this swindling act and received an answer to my complaint, they said that the Greeks broke the rules. I in turn sent them another E Mail stating the Greeks were the only ones who deserved the award as they were truly the humane doctors without borders. No response.

  The ones who shared the award, shame, shame on them and to the Greek doctors who gained more than their share of the money,a good clean conscience which allows you to sleep at night, God Bless and keep you.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 7:44 pm
  I think that it is understandable that the war and instability in the Balkans in the nineties could cause fear of strives for Greater-anything-movements, also this absurdity of restoring the homeland of Alexander the Great, or whatever it was about. I never quite understood all the fuzz about that either.

  But I totally fail to see the point in the name. To me it seemed like: 'Don't you dare call yourselves Makedonia, even though that is the name of your republic. We also have a Makedonia and the true and ancient one, the real homeland of Alexandros who was GREEK. Furthermore, we will call you Skopje until you come up with something else. ..OK you can be called Former Yugoslav Republic of Makedonia. But not even in Eurovision Song Contest can you be called Macedonia for short.'

  Who would suffer from Macedonia being called Macedonia? And speaking of names. Why don't we all oppose Great Britain and Northern Ireland calling themselves simply United Kingdom, what kind of a name is that? Sweden should then be called Konungariket, Germany be called Bundesrepublik and so on. Isn't Great Britain sufficient for short? Doesn't Northern Ireland know that they can consider themselves included?
  
  Ann-Marie Laios
  Sollentuna
  Sweden

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 7:54 pm
  THE BULGARIAN - MACEDONIAN CONTROVERSY

  In response to Jari's question:
  "Can you say where you have got this idea that Bulgaria would have conquered Macedonia, unless Greeks had terrorized the Macedonians? ",
  careful reading of my posts will demonstrate that I never implied anything of the kind. Besides, few FYRO Macedonians are likely to feel that they have been "terrorized" by Greeks. For terror they look Tetovo's and Kosovo's way.

  To give a better idea of how I view Bulgarian - Macedonian relationships (and to dispel hilarious speculations that I am "lying"), I reprint here the following passage from "Balkan Ghosts" (1993, hardcopy p. 59) by Robert Kaplan (who is generally sympathetic to "Macedonians"):

  "Do not tell me about Macedonia," the Bulgarian diplomat in Athens had raged. "There is no Macedonia. It is western Bulgaria. The language is 80 percent Bulgarian. But you don't understand; you have no grasp of our problems. ... Gotse Delchev was a Bulgarian, He was educated in Sofia. Bulgaria funded his guerrilla activities. He spoke a western Bulgarian dialect. How could he be something that does not exist?" The diplomat had handed me a copy of MacDermott's biography [of Delchev] - which another Bulgarian official has already given me- as well as a massive, blue-jacketed book containing nearly a thousand pages of small print, entitled Macedonia: Documents and Material and published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. I opened the book and read:
  "A survey of some of the key issues examined in this volume of documents about Macedonia convincingly shows that the Slav population in this region is Bulgarian. ... This is the historical truth, reflected in a multitude of documents. ... "

  Read more from the book and do an internet search for terms such as "Macedonia Bulgaria Delchev 1913" to learn plenty of information on the Macedonian-Bulgarian controversy. Whoever claims that Bulgaria has relinquished its claim (or never had one) over Macedonia/Western Bulgaria just because it is not about to invade it in 2003 has inadequate appreciation of depth of time in Balkan history (or simply ignores well known facts). Who knows, perhaps in 2033, perhaps after a possible secession of a "Tetovo Republic", Slav Macedonians of a rump economically non-viable "Macedonia" may decide that they need Bulgarian help. They may get it on the condition that they officially become "Western Bulgarians". They may even feel that, after all, both their roots and their future are Bulgarian. It will be their choice - no invasion necessary. Greece, by the way, has nothing to do with all these, as long as Bulgarians and/or "Macedonians" don't revive their 1913 or 1941 claims over the territory of Greek Macedonia.

  Quick answers to Jari's additional questions.
  - Samaras's main mistake was to insist on a name for FYROM that did not include the term "Macedonia" as a part. His arrogance and disobedience pissed off Prime Minister Mitsotakis, who fired him.
  - What gives extra weight to Greek foreign policy in the Balkans is not NATO membership but EU membership, sociopolitical stability and a prosperous economy, elements unfortunately lacking in every other Balkan country.
  - Several other points previously raised, but not addressed personally to me, were dealt with by Stylianos in a way that expresses my views too.
  
  Pythagoras C
  Greece

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 7:58 pm
  Nico:Lavdrim Ismailiis a frigin liar. Read the article and if you know anything about the laws of Yugoslavia prior to the NATO attack you will know why Lavdrim is a liar.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Monday March 10, 2003 at 8:07 pm
  Alexander the Great of Macedonia. One of a kind. The Greeks were right. Serbs agreed with them. Only one Macedonia, and only one Alexander the Great.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 1:54 am
  Re Katharyn's Doctor's Without Borders comments:

  http://www.aimpress.org/dyn/trae/archive/data/199911/91125-002-trae-ath.htm
  
  Anna Pullinger
  Californ-eye-eh

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 2:59 am
  First of all. Greece was against the breakup of Yugoslavia. So how could it OK the independence of Macedonia, given the right name?

  So here you have it. Bulgaria invaded Macedonia in 1913, so that is enough proof that Greece was right to vandalize Macedonia, so they shouldn't join Bulgaria. Please note carefully. This is depth of history in the Balkans: someone did something in 1913, so that means that they would do it again. Don't get the facts get in the way of a good story. In 1913 Macedonia didn't belong to anyone, because Turkey had relinquished it.

  If the country we are talking about were not Greece, one would call them criminals for telling such harmful lies. Instead they have the prestige.

  Can you liars give one shred of evidence that Bulgaria was going to conquer Macedonia, apart from your history books? The Bulgarians certainly didn't entertain any expansion after the breakup of Yugoslavia, but obviously that is not enough for the subtle minds like the Greeks who have to see something sinister in everything. If you disagree, so some statement or anything to support your lies - apart from the Greek ones.

  Well, Greece did the same thing as in 1913, didn't it? So I guess that proves that the Bulgarians would have done the same, if the Greeks hadn't done it first. Except the Megale idea was dead and buried in 1922: so much for the depth of history bullshit, provided the Greeks can save their asses.

  Besides, if someone had read the URL I gave about the megale, it would be obvious that I am not the only one seeing connections between the way the Greek mess up in Macedonia and their ill-fated conquest of the Anatolian peninsula, with the 3000-year history of the Hellenic culture, except for the fact that the Turks had to live somewhere too.

  This Greek bullshit about the Greater Bulgaria/Greater Serbia reminds one of the "evidence" about the Greater Serbia, which the prosecution is now producing in the Milosevic trial. Well, the Greeks have produced banknotes and flags to support their accusation of a Greater Macedonia, so it is only a question of time when the prosecution will place those Serbian songs to prove the Greater Serbia. Judging by the disaster (as it should be called) the Greeks produced with their Macedonia lies, that should be the direction the prosecution should be heading.

  Don't tell me I don't have enough appreciation for the depth of history in the Balkans. Outside the Balkans people like you would be locked up. And are you now telling us that anyone but the Greeks giving advice in the Macedonian question. Could one point to the fine mess you have made of the Balkans?

  As for the Greek-Serbian solidarity during the bombing, it is truly a pity the bombing didn't go on longer so they could enjoy each others support. In order to give some idiot like Stylianos something to misquote, I should say that it is a pity Nato didn't bomb Macedonia, so the Greeks would relish their historical links with the Macedonian Slavs. Greece has of course nothing to do with the bombing because Nato isn't a democratic nation, so it can go on with the bullshit about "instability in bordering nations", for which it is responsible itself, without Nato taking any notice. Besides, nobody has yet answered the question if Greece is a member of Nato. I am perplexed. Is it?

  As to the Alexander freak Stylianos, the Molossians were barbarians. There is no question about that, but the twist that the Greek "experts" give is highly significant. Or do you think that Greece were the original inhabitants of the Balkans, which the Albanians say of themselves. The Molossians were not Greeks, which would be more widely known, if the Greeks were not such experts at rewriting history (another parallel with the Milosevic trial). At the time of Alexander, Macedonia wasn't recognized as part of the "real" Greece. Now, taken together with the fact that the Hellenic culture was a mix of Greek and Oriental cultures, one could say that Alexander Hellenized the Greeks.

  The greatest claim that the Greeks have on Alexander is the fact that southern Macedonia is now part of Greece. For the most part of history, it hasn't been, so any historical claims on the whole of Macedonia based on the present situation shows what delusions the Greeks are having.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 4:00 am
  Come, come, now Mr JN, there is no need for calling us names! I see no point in continuing on this line.As I said in my earlier posting, you are not addressing the questions or points put forward.You go on about how bad and stupid the Greeks are,and for reasons you only know, refuse to even consider that your "knowledge" on these subjects might be inadequate. Again, there's nothing that me or anyone else can do about that. I had the impression(wrong as it turns out) that you were able to discuss in a meaningful and civilized manner.It seems that the only thing you are interested in is to saturate this forum with your long monologues. That is, so long as the participants go along and nobody contradicts you. The moment someone objects to some of your writings,the name calling starts and you take the "I know best" attitude.Well, it looks as if some of the forum members have realised that you are not the "expert" you like to present yourself as. Come to think of it, I start to believe that you may very well be an "agent provocateur" in this forum.I suspect that you are not a Finn either.
  
  Stylianos Kerasiotis
  Athens
  Greece

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 4:18 am
  

  I like to say in the long analysis of the Macedonian (FYROM) question presented here in that last few days, I did not see any reference to its geographical location, especially in relation to Bulgaria. A valley open to access from Bulgaria and linking to the road Skopje-Salonika, it is this link which open the appetite of Bulgaria when the fate of the Ottoman became clear.

  Just an opinion.

  In the trial there seems to be another hostile, or nearly so for the prosecutor. And the motion hearing yesterday PM what was all about it when no news about the rial have appeared in the medium press?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 4:20 am
  I can't stop making a fool of yourself. You are not the first one to suspect I am not the one who I say I am. At least try to be more original. I must say your attempt to win the general opinion on this "prestigious" discussion to your side is rather pitiful.

  The pattern is this: First lose the argument, then start blaming the others for bias, or whatever. You see, Stylianos, I think it is not OK for the Greeks to go on telling their lies about their neighbours. For you it may not be relevant, but in case you haven't noticed, there was a war in the Balkans, and many of us barbarians would like to look into the reasons. I am sure you would too (I hope I am not too generous here), provided the Greeks are not implicated in any way, even if their messing is hard for everyone not to notice.

  First of all, do you have anything more to substantiate the Greater Bulgarian slurs except your history about the Balkan wars? Or don't you think this is relevant for the Macedonian question? Don't you think the Macedonian question might somehow be relevant to the whole breakup of Yugoslavia? Could the breakup of Yugoslavia be relevant to the Milosevic trial? Could the Macedonian name question in particular be relevant, when Milosevic adopted a different line from the Greeks?

  Just a few thoughts before you retreat to your Olympian retirement. I'm sorry if I made you think too much.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 4:31 am
  Gogol, that valley is what Macedonia is. If you want to see a Bulgarian "appetite" in that, be my guest. Such a valley effect exerted its pull on the Greeks, that is for sure.

  No, the point is that Macedonian is another language variant of the Bulgarian. A Bulgarian can read Macedonian without any major problems. So the Greeks thought that since the people speak the same language, they must be in the same country. At least they might be, some day... However, if the´Greeks had looked a little further, they might have noticed that this argument didn't keep the Croats and the Serbs together.

  Another point is that there is not even a hint anywhere that the Bulgarians planned a takeover of Macedonia. We should have heard it by now. You can speculate on history and geography as much as you want. Join the Greeks. They are desperate for prestigious support.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 4:39 am
  

  I am not going to attempt to change the geography of the region. May peace unite the people of the Balkans despite their rich history. Bulgaria has her history, so do the Serbs, the modern Macedonia and so do the Greeks. As the French call it :

  Une salade Macedoine

  Let there be peace!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 5:16 am
  

  Froam an old book:

  Blocked in their territorial ambitions by the creation of an independent Albania, Serbia and Greece consorted to compensate themselves with Macedonian territory, which, in the prewar treaties and military accords, had been allotted to Bulgaria.

  Incidents and skimishes between their troops and those of Bulgaria began to take place even before the outbreak of the Second Balkan War.

  The Great Powers, moreover, had insured a widening of the conflict in the Balkans by agreeing to Romania's demand that, in compensation for its past neutrality, its border be "rectified" at Bulgaria's expense by the cession of the town of Silistria and its environs. As Bulgaria's isolation became more and more apparent, Romania's territorial demands on it increased.

  Made overconfident by their previous successes against the Turks, Bulgaria's political and military leaders launched a midnight attack, without any prior declaration of war, on June 29 against the Greek and Serbian forces in Macedonia. The attack soon gave way to successful counterattacks, and the Romanians thereupon occupied Silistria. Then the Turkish army, in disregard of the recently signed Treaty of London, seized the opportunity to march beyond the Enos-Midia line and retake Adrianople unopposed. Overwhelmed by military disasters, the Bulgarians sued for peace and a congress of all four members of the former Balkan League took place in the Romanian capital. Under the Peace of Bucharest, signed August 10, 1913, Serbia and Greece took the lion's share of Macedonia, including areas where g Bulgarians were the largest element in the population; Romania got not only Silistria but the South Dobruja, populated by a melange of nationalities among whom Romanians constituted but 3 percent, whereas Bulgarians constituted 48 percent.

  G. L. Weissman introduction to Trotsky's The Balkan Wars 1912-13
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

  Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 5:16 am
  

  
  
  G C
  USA

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 7:23 am
  The Second Balkan War in 1913 was about a huge stretch of land left by the Turks to be divided by the Balkan states. As that quote suggests, Bulgaria might have had the best claim on Macedonia, but I have never thought about it like that. That land was unallotted, and the fact that Serbia and Greece ultimately divided practically all of Macedonia as a result of the war in no way suggests that Bulgaria was originally breaching on Serbian and Greece rights. Certainly, in ethnic terms, the Bulgarian rights were at least just as strong as the Greek and the Bulgarian ones.

  Be that as it may, the Second Balkan War of 1913 should in no way be taken as a proof that Bulgaria is planning a takeover of Macedonia. The argument which we have heard above, suggesting that just because Bulgaria hasn't invaded Macedonia in 2003 doesn't indicate Bulgaria isn't contemplating such an invasion, is reminiscent of the arguments that we are all too familiar with: The fact that WMDs cannot be found in Iraq shows that Saddam is hiding them. The fact that mass graves can't be found in former Yugoslavia shows that the Serbs took the bodies somewhere else. It seems the Greeks have learned something from their great American mentors in Nato. Or vice versa.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 7:36 am
  

  Proving negatives is a new American (and British) science.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 8:00 am
  Can we return to discussion on the Milosevic trial everyone?
  
  Gerard Killoran
  UK

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 9:04 am
  Gerald I could not said it better myself. I am grateful to Greek people that stood with us and supported us during 1999. Long time ago I have learned not to associate people with government. However, I do think that Greece and FMRY shall solve their differences in their best interest. They do have more in common than they think. And I do believe that orthodox should stick together regardless if they are called Greeks, Macedonians or Martians.
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 10:23 am
  Gogol, Thanks for your historical intervention.It had a "cooling" effect in certain quarters.To make a point: I do not subscribe to the analyses of Trotsky, and others on the "left", on the Balkan conflicts and problems.However, I have no problem in discussing with you on THE ISSUES involved, without rejecting your positions or opinions.And most importantly, without racist remarks and slandering.I must say, that I read your postings with interest, they are always to the point.You better watch out though, because now, "you have sided with the Greeks" you are "marked".I am afraid that this applies to the other people who had something good to say about the Greeks.Sooner or later you are going to be reminded for "your treason". As I said in my earlier postings I do not want to follow on this line of argument.It is like talking to a wall,(a noisy one).Mr JN will call this losing the argument, well ok, I admit defeat! For those who really want to red about the Greek position and opinions in general go to the link in my earlier posting. Besides, people get impatient with veering off the subject of this forum (sorry Gerald). --------------------------------- For what is worth, and in responce to the postings of Anna and Kathryn, a piece from the Greek daily ”Eleftherotypia” from the issue of Tuesday 8/1/03. The biases of the reporting of the ”Yugoslav wars” in the western media is well recorded and does not need stressing,.But the attitude of the so- called NGOs is quite another matter. The honest reporting and work of many human rights workers in Yugoslavia has been censored,buried, dismissed, rejected and ridiculed. The case of the Greek branch of the ”Doctors without frontiers” is well known. But then again, like the person mentioned here, they are Greeks who, being ...Orthodox, live in the dreaded Balkans, are anti-Americans, well, they are almost ...Serbs!!!Not to be trusted!! In an exchange of letters about being misquoted in an interview published in the above daily almost a year ago, Mrs Aliki Maragoudaki chair- person of a Greek organisation called ”Foundation for Human Rights” writes the following: (my translation, and therefore all misspellings here are mine) Hopefully the text comes out correctly. Start of quote ------------------------------- ”On the matter of rapes ,as a member of the Warburton committee wich was sent in January of 1993 from the EU to Bosnia-Herzegovina to investigate the alleged rapes of muslim women, I had personal knowledge.However, on the ground ,we discovered that rapes had taken place against women of other religions and nationalities also, and by men of different armed factions.Despite our suggestion to investigate these allegations as a whole, regardless of the nationality or religion of the victims, those responsible forbade it.In the final report the following paragraph (no 8) was included wich was accepted by all members: …….The mission realizes that its mandate concentrated on the investigation of reports of sexual abuses against muslim women in Bosnia-Herzegovina.However the mission considers important to register its view ,that rape and sexual abuse are not restricted to the members of only one religion, nationality, or gender.The fact that the majority of rape victims are muslim women , is explained by the intensity and peculiarity of the conflict.It should not be ignored the fact, that there are many alarming reports of rape of women and children of Serbian and Croatian nationalities, as well as sexual abuse of men in detention camps.For these reasons the mission stresses that all the victims of this terrible conflict should be recipients of the care of international community….. From the above unbiased report it is obvious that we do not deny that rapes of muslim women took place, but also that the worldwide spread news that only muslim women were rape victims is a deliberate twisting of truth.” ------------------------------------- End of Quote Best regards
  
  Stylianos Kerasiotis
  Athens
  Greece

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 10:42 am
  I am not sure why I opened the can of worms concerning Bulgaria? I am even more perplexed why this topic is so close to Jari’s heart that it can’t be discussed in a more amiable way? I am sure if we go back far enough into history we can make a claim that the Celts should get a share in the Balkans since they once lived in that region. Yes Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Italy, Turkey and Albania like the ancient Celts have a claim to the Balkans. Eventually it seems to come down to the old adage that the land belongs to the one who “grazes his sheep upon it”.

  Bulgaria was given Macedonia by the Russians after the Russo-Turkish Wars of 1877. This was nullified by the Congress of Berlin but Bulgaria never accepted this decision and continued to trumpet that Macedonians were Bulgars. At the same time the Serbs and the Greeks trumpeted their claims to the same piece of territory. For the next thirty years blood feuds became a fact of life in this region. The blood feuds spurred on by the Bulgarian “comitadije’ promoted loyalty to Bulgaria among the Christian population. Those that refused to comply were eliminated in the similar way that the KLA eliminated Kosovo Albanians who did not come over to their cause. Thus the people became what those with guns wanted them to be. In reality, who was Greek, Bulgar, Serb, Albanian or Vlach in the region varied from district to district and from village to village. The language of the Macedonians seems to me to be closer to Serbian in the north, Bulgarian in the East and Greek in the South. What Slavic group did the Bulgarians assimilate into on their arrival in the Balkans? I can read Bulgarian and in most cases understand it. I don’t think that the Bulgarian language is a chicken and the egg story since the Bulgars or Volgars were originally Tartars or Turkic people and now they speak a Slavic language which is very close to the Serbian. It also seems to me that by looking at the culture of the region in question it is of Serbian origin but here I may be accused of Y1387 virus.

  The point I was trying to make concerning Bulgaria in the Second Balkan War, WWI and WWII and its support for the Iraq war is motivated by History no matter how one wishes to slice it. Like the Fins in WWII the Bulgarians found themselves between the rock and a hard place. Turkey and Greece to the south, Romania to the North, Serbia to the West who at one time or the other had clobbered them, thus they looked to patrons for protection. Motivated by revenge and fear ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ became the policy of Bulgaria. The Serbian King (Peter????) who promoted a Balkan union was dismissed as a quack but that is how most people treat an intelligent idea. Bulgarian loyalty to America was purchased with American payment of Bulgarian debts to Iraq, two billion worth I think.

  The fact that both Greece and Turkey are members of NATO the alliance has played a balancing act between the interests of these two nations. When Cyprus wanted to join Greece Turkey invaded, when Greece drilled for oil on the Aegean Islands close to Turkey they said if you find it we want it.

  For Serbs and Greeks five hundred years of bondage are hard to forget no matter how much we want to be citizens of the world. It seems to me that we are descending into a discussion based on the Bush principle “if you are not with me you are against me”. Even though I love historical discussions I am with Gerard Killoran who states in the above post “Can we return to discussion on the Milosevic trial everyone?”
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 12:27 pm
  

  International Criminal Court judges sworn in at The Hague

  UN chief Kofi Annan, the Netherland's Queen Beatrix and some 500 invitees attended the afternoon gathering at the Dutch parliament, the next step in establishing the controversial court which the United States vociferously opposes.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 12:33 pm
  No, but you don't see, Walter. We have still this name dispute over Macedonia, and it won't go away, even if you are happy about the present solution. The Greeks are very concerned about it.

  It is also very hard for me to measure the depths of history in the Balkans, as was pointed out by Pythagoras. But can I at least try? To me these depths of history seem an excuse to start a conflict on the basis of some pretext up to millennia old, but maybe I have misundestood something.

  We have discussed Iraq and North Korea, but when it gets to the Greeks, then you are very easily a marked man if you don't shut up on time. It is very instructive to follow the buildup to the silent treatment which Mr Stylianos - the Greek - is now trying to apply to me - the Barbarian - , his babbling notwithstanding. If you still believe in his amiable approach, read his post from the first to the last.

  So I guess we should forget about Macedonia, right? It wasn't even bombed. OK, the people were subjected to Greek sanctions, but that is a different matter, because they suffered slowly and silently. It is interesting that Mr Stylianos mentioned the sanctions against Iraq. He wouldn't want to see Iraq bombed. After all, we have the sanctions. Or am I distorting his words the way he distorted mine?

  The Greeks protested against the bombing, even if it is a Nato country. Somehow this is seen as an immeasurable sacrifice. Why? Mr Stylianos gets quite eloquent when defending the Greek policy to let the Nato troops pass the country to Kosovo. The Greeks had no option but to abide by their Nato obligations. That is what decent people do. Or what? Would Nato have bombed Greece, the Nato country, if it had said no? You see, Greek empathy knows no bounds, but don't expect the Greeks to get their hands dirty.

  So these Greeks protests didn't change anything, but they are remembered - as if they had changed something. The Bulgarian protests, on the other hand, are forgotten, because they didn't achieve anything, as Walter reminded us. However, the Bulgarians had a lot more to lose. If the Bulgarians hadn't open their airspace, Nato would have bombed, because Bulgaria is not a Nato country. In fact, that is what they did with one "stray" missile, when the Bulgarians thought a little too long whether to open the airspace or not.

  What the heck. The Bulgarians are Tartars, and they fought on the German side. The great anti-racist Walter likes to remind us of this, but as soon as you put forward the other side of the story, you are marked as a historical nitpicking bore.

  But closer to the present, it is also often forgotten that Norway didn't take part in the bombing. It is a Nato country too. So I don't know what this Serb-Greek axis that is being built up here want to prove. Maybe it is a kind of folie à deux.

  Mr Stylianos, it is not true that I am here to make monologues. I have asked very nicely the two Greeks here a few questions, but I have still to get an answer. What proof did you have that Bulgaria was planning a conquest of Macedonia? I am not happy with the 1913 explanation. If that was not the reason for the anti-Macedonian terror, what was? Is that somehow linked to the Greek Macedonian pride? What do the Greek Macedonians say? That they are first Macedonians, second Greeks, and third, nothing else. That sounds like secession to me, but at least Greece can rest assured they are Greeks second.

  Or should one be marked as humor-challenged, when one doesn't see the humor in the Greek adventures in Macedonia? Or maybe we should take satisfaction in the fact that Samaras was fired? You know, there is something strange here, because it seems Samaras did something right, because the two Greeks here are as worried about the name of Macedonia as Samaras must have been.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 12:37 pm
  Oh by the way, don't let me interrupt your interesting discussion on the trial that I must have interrupted. I got the impression there wasn't much happening. Is Milosevic getting a fair trial? That is the theme here. I would answer: definitely not.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 1:20 pm
  The following is an excerpt taken from the Washington Times, author, Larry Elders. Elders is a right wing radio talk show host

  Quote:

  Not that his supporters care, but Mr. Clinton apparently exaggerated the suffering in Kosovo. In November 1999, the Christian Science Monitor wrote, "U.S. and NATO officials at times implied that as many as 100,000 ethnic Albanians may have been killed, and they used words like 'genocide' to describe the Serbian policy. They later lowered the estimate to 10,000. But preliminary findings from war-crimes investigators indicate that the number of ethnic Albanians killed by Serbian forces during the air strikes was probably closer to 5,000." End Quote

  From what I read it was proably about 2,800 of which some were Serbs, Roma and Albanians.

  In his article Elders is complaining that the Hollywood crowd did not protest the bombing of Serbia. True they did not but then again 100% of the media backed the Albanians. If you were not a Serb, wouldn’t you be sympathetic to the Albanians when all you heard were the fabricated horror stories? The Serbs in the United States were awfully quiet. I think they were afraid to say or do anything. I know from experience that many would not write letters, make phone calls, or protest in marches. This along with the anti Serb media sure helped the Albanians. I know that some Serbs wrote letters and made phone calls and did whatever they could but not many. My 89 year old aunt made calls to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and the Whitehouse and anyone else she could think of. She made one call a week. Well......it takes hundreds of thousands to make a difference and unfortunately that did not happen. My aunt died not long ago, and she died with a broken heart. She was an American born Serb, but knew the history of her ancestors. I am proud of my aunt.

  People will protest bombing when they feel the bombing is just to grab oil, but when you are told over and over that the Serbs are doing what Hitler did this is something that tugs at the heartstrings and that is why the Muslims and the media and the Clintons are very clever in fabricating massacres, rapes, murders, and Hitlers. The Serbs were too quiet.

  Now we have another Hitler, i.e. Hussein, and today they are talking about dropping a 21,000 pound bomb on him. This bomb has 18,000 pounds of explosives.Call your representatives and the Whitehouse and protest.

  I am not blaming Hollywood.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 1:34 pm
  11 March 2003 WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL SETS DEADLINE FOR BELGRADE TO HAND OVER DOCUMENTS The Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on 10 March set a two-month deadline for Belgrade authorities to hand over documents requested by prosecutors in the trial of former President Slobodan Milosevic, RFE/RL's South Slavic and Albanian Languages Service reported. Those authorities have so far denied prosecutors access to the archives, saying they can ask for specific documents but not search the whole archives (see "RFE/RL Newsline," 6 March 2003). UB /// Also Nato says comply with the Hague or you will not be allowed in our organization. Hopefully Serbs will not have to worry about this as the organization will probably be gone in a few years. Good riddance.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  usa

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 1:45 pm
  

  That was part of yesterday's motion hearing, where as far I could understand the Serbian government was represented and objected to a free access and survey of Yugoslavia's National Archives. I did not see the end, but it seems Nice (NATO)) convinced the troika to issue an order.

  Nice (NATO) said today he is short of witnesses. Nothing new.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 1:50 pm
  

  Notice the changes in the Russian government today. It seems to me this time they power structure is ready not to let the situation get out of hnad. Yugoslavia and Nato in 1999 is in their mind.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 2:02 pm
  Why they did not order US to disclose documents about Srebrenica, or others on which indictment was based?
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 4:10 pm
  KFOR confirms Albanian extremist provocations

  | 20:09 | Beta

  SKOPJE -- Tuesday - KFOR commander Fabio Mini has confirmed the existence of Kosovo extremist groups which are attempting to provoke violence in Kosovo and south Serbia.

  Mini told media in the Macedonian capital of Skopje that international peacekeepers in the province were concerned about events around and across the administrative border with Serbia.

  He added that KFOR had evidence of extremist activities by small secessionist groups which were capable of merging into a larger organisation and inciting an armed uprising.

  ------------ Someone mentioned the terrorists are hoping everyone else is watching Iraq while they are shooting Serb police. If they lived in the United States and started this business they would be thrown out of the country or into a tiny cell.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  sjc
  usa

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 4:34 pm
  We need new blood. I say Gary Hart, but some think because he had girlfriends he does not stand a chance. I heard him say that we should not be running our foreign policy by those who come here with their complaints.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  sjc
  usa

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 5:07 pm
  What about Kusinich? He's of Croatina decent but he has a better and more objective opinion about the Balkans than most.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 5:12 pm
  Well, I do blame Hollywood.

  Hollywood has supported everything Clinton did, without a murmur, and although the Iraqis won't mind Hollywood's reason for being anti-war this time, Hollywood, nevertheless, is against the war because it's against Bush. It's not the oil motive objection, it's that it wasn't at Clinton's instigation. Hollywood had nothing but support for Clinton as they schmoozed with him during his entire term, whether he was getting his jollies with Monica in the oval office or killing Serbs and demonizing them into the next decade. Clinton probably got his jollies with some of those in Hollywood, too, not that I care about him. Hollywood appears filled with historical ignoramuses who are jumping on whatever bandwagon is best for them.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 5:13 pm
  The primary role of Hollywood, when it comes to creating hate propaganda on behalf of its patrons is not to simply reinforce official White House propaganda as already echoed by other arms of the same propaganda axis, such as newspapers and CNN, but also to create demons of its own, no matter how false or distorted. With respect to Serbs, Hollywood identified its task as having to create the illusion of a threat in the minds of American and western audiences (as Hollywood TV and cinema enjoy mass distribution throughout the world unlike any other). This is very interesting, as Hollywood and its patrons saw it was wholly insufficient to cast Serbs as bad guys in a civil war where we took sides, bla-bla-bla. The solution was found in the bogey of terrorism. In film after film, Hollywood repeatedly and maliciously sought to portray Serbs as terrorists, a role almost wholly assumed by Russians during the Cold War, and Arabs after the first OPEC crisis.

  And so there while there have been very few films dealing directly with the Balkan Wars with all the accompanying negative portraits of Serbs as war criminals, such as Behind Enemy Lines (a box-office and DVD failure), there have been a much larger body of movies and TV shows which cast Serbs explicitly as terrorists, with much greater commercial success. It started with films like the 1997 Jack Ryan style imitation, "The Peacemaker" (Dreamworks' 1st theatrical release)where George Clooney and Nicole Kidman stop a group of horrible Serbs from acquiring a nuclear bomb. And it's been going on ever since. In the opening season of the 2001-2002 FOX series 24 Homeland Security agent Kiefer Sutherland (a former Special Forces commando in Kosovo he repeatedly informs us) stops Serb terrorists from taking revenge on none other than the front running candidate for the American presidency (a black man who goes on to win the election after the Serbs are all tidily killed).

  Throughout this period, there have been a much larger group of TV shows and movies which paused to do their duty of defaming Serbs before going on with the rest of the "plot". The list is too long to mention here, but a notorious example is the The Rock, with Nicolas Cage reciting lines unworthy of a prostitute, never mind a celebrated actor. Both Cage, and Sean Connery, who knows better, should both be ashamed of themselves, but I've never seen them issue a single statement of remorse.
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CAN

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 6:00 pm
  Way to go, Nico. Spot on.

  I feel exactly the same but I did not have all those names of films and actors at my fingertips to give as examples. Thank you for listing them.

  It has been painful to watch some of these films/shows, and I have done so, usually inadvertantly with both my eyes and mouth wide open in disbelief.

  By the way, does anyone recall Richard Gere's meddling little self-riteous visit to the camps on the Macedonian border during the Kosovo bombings when all the Albanians, supposedly being ethnically cleansed, were shunted there en masse by the KLA for propaganda purposes? Did you see his appearance on that fool's TV show, Larry King, after Gere got back as he shook his head, and "tsk-tsk-ed" his way through the interview about how much he cares about humanitarian rights and how horrible those damn Serbs are? Why does anyone give a flying you-know-what about what these elitist egotistisical morons think anyway? Must be our deep thinking society...
  
  Anna P
  California

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 7:35 pm
  Nice place:) Interesting to see US Serbs, accustomed to wealth and luxury, taking buck-per-gallon fuel for granted, critisize the very essence of their satiated existence. And that`s not freedom, nor is it democracy, not even the greenish paper gods Americans so passionately worship, but this amazing variety of bullying techniques embedded in the US of A foreign policy. I wonder, how much of you would even remember your origin with an empty stomach ;?
  
  Stanislav K
  Estonia

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 8:15 pm
  I wasn’t going to go back to the Bulgaria issue but Jari in his eloquent and innuendo way forces me to respond. First of all I don’t think that I have ever met a single Bulgarian and I have no reason to dislike them nor do I dislike them. This does not change where they came from and who their government sided with in WWII. Those Serbs who were followers of Ljotic sided with the Nazis and I find that despicable because majority of their people backed the Chetniks or the communists. “What the heck” we can find all kinds of excuses as to why nations or people did what they did.

  Jari quotes me as saying that “The Bulgarians are Tartars, and they fought on the German side.” According to some historical evidence they are of Tartar or Turkic origin. Historical evidence exists that they may be related to the Finno-Ugric language family like the Turks and the Hungarians. The question under discussion was their Slavic traditions. No more and no less than if I was to discuss how the Finlandic tribes of Northern Russia; Samoyed (Nenets, Enets and Nganasa) and others became Russophide.

  Jari also writes that “The great anti-racist Walter likes to remind us of this”. Of what exactly am I reminding the readers on this forum? The fact that I state the Bulgarian origins as Tartar or Finno-Ugric and that they sided with the German in two wars is some sort of implication that I am a racist?? I am not sure why this innuendo was made? Jari it matter absolutely nothing to me if you are a Finn, Serb, Croat, Bulgarian, Muslim, Catholic or Hindu, what matters is if you are a person of character. If we speak the same language I may have more in common with you but in the end it will be your character that determines everything else. Most Greeks that I know I like and in fact several are my good friends as are Italians and even a Jari Nousiainen who lives in Kamloops.

  When Jari writes I read very carefully even “as soon as you put forward the other side of the story” and trust me you are not “marked as a historical nitpicking bore” by me, sometimes long winded mind you, but always interesting.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 8:20 pm
  Stanislav K. gas is one dollar Canadian per liter in Kamloops
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 8:33 pm
  

  HE PROTO-BULGARIAN ETHNOS

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 9:08 pm
  For the last two days the Prosecution was busy with 3 new witnesses and few technical/legal debates in open court. This all was just quantity and their case further caved in. First, they invited our Government representative to discuss documents needed for this 'trial'. I saw a piece of this argument, read reports of it in our press and heard bits on TV, and I also read a JCI article on that.

  It is always far more significant what JCI omits to report than what it actually reports. In her last piece, titled 'Trial Chamber Declines to Order Serbia-Montenegro to Produce Documents', Judith Armatta writes just about everything but the crucial thing: that May & friends refused to order a free physical access to the State archives by the Prosecution. The request from Nice was that the Prosecution wants to 'examine the archives and find' what they need. Our representative at the session, the Foreign Minister's Adviser Djeric, argued this would be a 'document fishing' and 'frisking another country'. The exact words by May were: 'The Trial Chamber is not convinced that the Prosecution should be allowed such physical access.' This is a step even the ICTY is reluctant to take, so our country has been only ordered to answer to a 'priority list' of the requested specific documents by the Prosecution within two months time. Therefore, it has been ordered to produce documents, thus exactly the opposite of what the title of the article claims. You will not learn this by reading Ms Armatta's 'informative' piece.

  As regards 3 witnesses, it was significant that the first witness for Bosnia & Herzegovina segment appeared, then there was another General/'insider' and finally another Dubrovnik witness started to testify today and will finish tomorrow. Do you know that at the end of today's session May read out a list of some 20 more Dubrovnik witnesses and asked the Prosecution with exasperation in his voice: "Do you really need that amount of witnesses?! We have already heard plenty of witnesses regarding Dubrovnik. Think about that."

  The first Bosnia-witness was one Mrs Malesevic, a Chairperson of the Bosnia & Herzegovina Prison Camp Inmates Association. She described in gruesome detail (or else, confirmed the descriptions provided by Nice) all 63 ways and means of maltreatment and abuse against the prisoners in 520 Serbian prison camps. The problem was she had not a single evidence to substantiate that vivid sadistic imaginativeness: no names nor dates were given, the locations were dubious (e.g. she had mentioned a prison camp in a fortress in Bijeljina, whereas no such place exists there), and she herself knows nothing about all those places, because she was imprisoned in a Croatian camp for nine months! She claimed all has been documented by the 'statements from witnesses' but was unable to produce a single one, arguing 'all has been still under investigation' (after 12 years?!). The most ridiculous moments with this confused woman were when Milosevic, well-informed as usual, had put to her that her claims of 2,500 Muslims being in that Croatian camp Kresevo where she had been kept were equal to the total number of Muslims in that municipality and that her own earlier statement in Sarajevo on 20 April 1994 was that there were only 500 civilians there. "It will now turn out that I'm defending the Croats here', joked Milosevic. The poor woman was finally reduced to such mumbled answers of 'I can not remember the details' (and she 'remembered' all those genitals-cutting, excrement & body parts-eating and others to which she was never present and to which she could not name a single witness). In re-direct, Nice made her 'promise' to 'subsequently' find and submit 'documents'. When will it be, I wander? What were they doing for the last 12 years? So, the first Bosnian 'witness' finished in disgrace and stupidity.

  The 'insider' General Milosav Djordjevic was completely useless: a long-time pensioner, who had been on a top position in Serbian Defence Ministry for only 1 year, could not provide a single piece of information, apart from his own personal opinion that Serbian police was better equipped than the JNA. The old army man resented Milosevic for not helping the JNA more (and he's been on trial for exactly the opposite, mind you!). Milosevic teased him mildly: "You claim that I took more care about the Police than about the Army. Is there any wander that I took more care about what was my job, instead of caring about what was not my job?" And when Milosevic said: "You came here to testify against me. Do you claim that I hated the Army?", the old man explained meticulously: "I did not come here to testify against you. The Federal Government allowed me on 3 March to testify of what I know; whether this would be against you or in favour of you, I would not enter into that." That was the end of it. Insiders' business is definitely a wrong card for the Prosecution.

  And yet another Dubrovnik witness? This was a Director of the Institute for the Cultural Monuments Protection in Dubrovnik, Mrs Baca. She started with some maps of Dubrovnik, with 4-10 black spots on them, representing buildings that had been hit. Through her, the Prosecution introduced 4 more binders of documents, proving that Dubrovnik actually is on the UNESCO list of the world cultural heritage! Here's something the Prosecution will be finally able to prove. She is to continue tomorrow.

  There were some heated arguments in this forum re Macedonia and FYROM. There's something to it, definitely, and not only a sort of the intellectual property encroachment case. And it has everything to do with the destruction of YU. I'll not go into history books, but only into today's DNEVNIK daily from Skopje: 'Macedonian President Boris Trajkovski will tell US officials tomorrow that his country supports military intervention in Iraq' and 'Macedonia's offer will include the deployment of a small contingent of Macedonian troops in Turkey as logistical support' and 'In return, according to the report, Skopje will seek support in its long-running dispute with Greece about the country's name.'

  There is a dictum Nomen est omen, meaning 'a name is a sign/an omen'. By opting to become an 'independent country' this former YU republic defined its present and future, opening itself to potential land-grabbing, blackmailing, beggar's policies, shameful trading with its position and all other benefits of an insignificant, unviable territory. The Macedonia's short record of 'independence' consists of such gems as proclaimed diplomatic relations with Taiwan, in vain hope to get economic support from that Chinese region/wannabe country, to which China reacted by vetoing UN peacekeepers from Macedonia. And by keeping a name 'Macedonia' now for a country and not anymore for merely a region within a country, it unjustly claimed willy-nilly the whole grand historical package this name implies, opening itself to any potential misuse, itself naturally too weak to 'take over' anything, but becoming a focus of any future instability and borders re-drawing by some real powers, wanting for instance to keep Greece disciplined if and when this may become necessary. Would not Romania be a bit worried in case an 'independent country' is formed of, say, the Serbian part of Banat (a cross-border region extending over the northeast of Serbia and the west of Romania), and this new country is now called 'Banat' and at the same time a region with the same name does still exist in Romania? When a country is too small and economically unfit to exist, its actions and decisions are not its own anymore, but of those other powers. And that was precisely the reason for breaking up YU and forming all those 'independent countries'. Take a look at the list of countries which signed the 'Vilnius Declaration', supporting the US over Iraq: SLO and CRO are dutifully present. The more breaking up done, the more instability to Europe inflicted, the more 'independent' voices and the military footing the sole world power gets and the more it can act as it pleases under the pretence of the 'coalition of the willing' or the 'international community', call it what you like. And the Balkans is very much an Eldorado-territory for digging up such creature-states.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 9:57 pm
  Vera

  Mega Thanks for the report Dudette
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 10:12 pm
  Anna,

  thank you for your kind words, and let me respond in turn and say how much I have enjoyed reading your posts, a number of which I understand wholeheartedly.

  You brought up Richard Gere, who was also joined by (#2 James Bond actor) Roger Moore among others, in shameless attempts at self-promotion in the midst of other people's suffering at the time of the NATO aggression. I have also been mildly disgusted by (actress) Selma Hayek's visit to the US military base in Kosovo. She was later followed by (completely washed up singer) Mariah Carey. In all cases, the celebrities involved are merely interested in advancing their careers, or salvaging them, as in Mariah's case.

  Such activities, however, hardly outrage to the extent of those of the various so-called "charities" and "relief agencies" in the Balkans over the past decade which discriminated on the basis of ethnicity. Kathryn already mentioned the example of how Greek doctors were actually expelled from their own organization, so-called "Doctors Without Borders", by treating all ethnic groups equally during the bombardment. This too is all part of a very long history, which has seen everything from the American Red Cross, headed by the wife of Bob Dole, Elizabeth, banning blood donations to Serbs in any part of the former Yugoslavia in the mid-90s, to World Vision collecting donations exclusively for the benefit of Albanians during the NATO bombardment.

  I'm hardly surprised to hear you were horrified from the moment you first became aware of this criminal campaign of defamation in the American mass media. (How could anyone not notice it?) My clumsily worded post above might appear to suggest that efforts to portray Serbs as terrorists were solely created by Hollywood, and for which I apologize. Hollywood, no matter how great its influence (which noone should dare underestimate), and despite the fact it bears almost exclusive responsibilty for its hate cinema, is still an arm of the same corporate controlled communications axis, and almost always follows a party line, or propaganda scheme, hatched elsewhere.

  All available evidence indicates that this entire campaign of defaming Serbs as terrorists was a coordinated effort on the part of a number of US government agencies and the news media back in the very early 1990s. In 1993, for example, Serbs, allegedly members of a (non-existent) organization called the "Serbian Liberation Army" were explicitly named by the FBI as responsible for the February 26 terrorist attack on the WTC (6 killed and 1,000 injured). The FBI spokesperson told this bare-faced lie only after his agency had already identified the Muslim terrorists and had, according to their own timeline, apprehended them. The FBI's lie was immediately seized upon by the corporate news media, very much in the manner of the infamous ITN lie about Trnopolje, where British reporters positioned a shirtless Muslim TB victim outside a barbed wire fence in order to incite anti-Serb hatred. The FBI announcement delighted propagandists at CNN, for example, where Haris Silajdzic and Muhamed Sacirbey (a.k.a Sacirbegovic) had already become permanent fixtures for soft interviews where they freely expressed any number of lies including the claim that 200,000 ("mainly women and children) had died in less than 9 months of fighting (!).

  Less than 6 hours after telling outrageous lies against Serbs, the FBI revealed that it was indeed Muslim terrorists who were responsible for the WTC bombing. No retraction or apology to the Serbian community was made, nor offered, and similarly no retraction or even note of this contradiction, was made by the powerful American media (dutifully followed by the news media of all members of the NATO pact). In fact, what CNN did in the aftermath of the FBI arrest of Muslim terrorists was very telling. Almost as much time was devoted by Ted Turner's private propaganda network to covering an "apology demonstration" organized by Muslim groups, notably the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), than to details surrounding the arrest itself. CAIR, very tellingly, had already organized a protest to coincide with the timing of the announcement, and actually had the gall to protest any association of Islam with terrorism, whether real or imagined. As Malic quite correctly points out in his very good article, criticism of Hollywood's crude caricatures of Muslims and Arabs has to be tempered by the extensive history of terrorism committed in the name of Islam.

  Further proof of FBI involvement in such a campaign, designed to vilify and otherwise demean the reputation of Serbs, had already been provided by that same agency just days before the February 26, 1993 attack on the WTC. On February 11, 1993, the FBI blamed a group of unidentified, and again non-existent, Serbs for the hijacking of a Lufthansa commercial aircraft headed for Africa. Again, major news media, looking for their ITN-anti-Serb moment, gave wide broadcast to the story. Hours later it was revealed there was only one hijacker, a discontented Ethiopian with no political agenda. No retraction or apology was offered at that time either.
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CAN

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 10:29 pm
  Vera. In the Romanian side of Banat there are very few serb villages so the independence theory is not an issue. There are romanian villages on serbian side too. The issue is with the 2-3 million hungarians living in Transylvania .During the last 20 years they were a lot of nationalist movements feeded from outside .You have the same problem in Vojvodina. I am watching the trial every night and I am very happy that Milosevic is at Hague. He is very alert and observent.He is the only chance the Serb have to show the world what really happened in the YU.Last week the judge ask Milosevic about the sanctions imposed on Yu.Everybody knows that the sanctions were imposed in 1993.At the trial we can see the nationalist views of the Croat and Kosovar witnesses . By having them testify at the Hague the prosecutor puts petrol in the fire. It does't help anybody. I myself became more skeptical about the true scope of the tribunal. I wonder what will happen in the next few days if France will veto the resolution at the UN. Will the Engligh team leave Hague.(continental Europe). If US and GB will go to war with no UN resolution ,the word will become even more divided . Vasile
  
  Vasile IANOS
  NJ

• Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 11:21 pm
  Sure Hollywood was for the bombing of the Serbs but where does it stop. How about the world. A man my husband worked with said, “We have to do something about those Serbs they are killing and raping women and children.” This is a very good man who believed what the government and media were saying. How could he help there was nothing else out there?

  We should have united and together protested in every fashion.I asked people to write letters and they refused. As for a protest march, I was told “that is dangerous.“ I was told “I am an American and I cannot get involved.” Write a letter, “I love everyone.”We were left to get the message out by ourselves and we did not. I know they felt terrible about what was happening, they were afraid. I cannot imagine why! There are hundreds of thousands of us living in the United States and that is what it takes. Not just a few hundred.I am not saying that all Serbs did nothing, there were those who tried.Bill Dorich was one of those. You can blame Hollywood, but we certainly did nothing to disprove what was being said. There are so many intelligent Serbian people who were in a position to be a great help.

  No one felt more upset over the bombing of the Serbian people than myself, my Mother and my Aunt. However, I care less what Hollywood did or did not do. I would hope that we would now put forth our efforts into getting our good reputation back. It is not too late to write letters and make phone calls.They still need our help. The Albanians are starting up again.The Hague wants Serb Heroes. It looks as though they will never stop persecuting Serbs.

  Randy Cunningham a congressman in San Diego tried his best to help the Serbs. I saw him on Cspan while he was on the floor of Congress and he was saying all the right and accurate things we like to hear.Why do you think that happened? His constituents were active!

  As for Dennis Kucinich ....he is a good man. He does not have the backing. He will not be able to raise the money. If through some miracle he does get on the ticket, I would vote for him.Not only for his help to the us but I agree with him on all the issues. He is a Croatian American and just the same he tried very hard to help the us. Serbian Unity Congress gave him an inscribed plaque in appreciation.

  I am against the bombing of Iraq.There is going to be a protest march on Saturday and there will be Serbian Americans marching in protest.I know because they notified me. They are not worried about Hollywood. They care about people being bombed....Iraq has suffered enough.Just imagine a 21,000 pound bomb being dropped on a country that has already been bombed and badgered.Don’t worry about offending Bush, he is filthy rich and he will get along no matter what happens.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 12:01 am
  Note from this 2000 news article, Paul Risley, Hague spokes person, puts Kosovo bodies at “more accurately determined at between two and three thousand.”

  Figures put on Serb killings too high

  Special report: Kosovo

  Jonathan Steele

  Friday August 18, 2000

  Nato officials conceded last night that their wartime estimates of the number of Kosovo Albanian civilians massacred by Serb forces might have been too high. They were reacting to findings by forensic experts for the International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague who are preparing to complete their work in Kosovo after exhuming about 3,000 bodies.

  Not all of the dead can be proved to be victims of murder or execution.

  The war crimes teams have dug up 680 corpses this year at 150 sites. Added to the 2,108 found last year, the total is well below the murder estimates, ranging from 10,000 to 100,000, made during the war. Paul Risley, the Hague tribunal's press spokesman, said yesterday: "The final number of bodies uncovered will be less than 10,000 and probably more accurately determined as between two and three thousand."

  Nato's intervention against Yugoslavia was prompted by massive Serb offensives against Albanian villages in Kosovo, which caused hundreds of thousands of civilians to hide in forests or flee across the border. There were frequent killings of unarmed civilians. During the Nato airstrikes, when the Serbs restricted access to Kosovo, there was no way to verify atrocity reports. But Nato officials talked of 100,000 missing men and said at least 10,000 had been killed. Mark Laity, the acting Nato spokesman, said last night: "Nato never said the missing were all dead. The figure we stood by was 10,000. If it's wrong, I'm prepared to put up with a little bit of egg on our face if thousands are alive who were thought to be killed.

  He added: "Nato is always going to lose. If there were 100,000 dead we would be criticised for entering Kosovo late. If it's a few thousand, we're criticised because people say there wasn't a crisis."

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 12:08 am
  To you experts. Are there any Iraq antiwar demostrations going on in Greece? Or in Serbia?
  
  J P
  USA.Wis

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 2:04 am
  Nico,

  A most informative posting. Thanks once for yet again putting things in historical perspective.

  Kathryn,

  Perhaps you'd like to know that my family and I marched against the bombing and during one of the marches my then 11 year old younger son carried one of his drums and played a beat tirelessly on it the length of the march. This same son, all on his own intiative, made it his cause at his middle school, where he was a mere 6th grader, by refusing to stand for, let alone say, the pledge of allegiance at any time during the bombing. His first period teacher was extremely irritated by this and made it a big issue. Finally he was sent, very scared but determined, to the principal's office and the principal, fortunately for the school, knew enough about his rights not to try to force him to at least stand up during the pledge, as his teacher insisted. Instead she asked him explain why he had taken this position and he told her that the US was bombing his family in Serbia and he could not pledge allegiance, nor respect the pledge, while his innocent family members were in direct danger from US forces. Most of the kids in the school had swallowed the news media line about the NATO aggression or had taken their parents' attitudes to it, which is the same thing, but my the fact that my son made an issue out of it at school actually made the kids, and some of the teachers and officials, think again. My boy was congratulated by some of the other kids on his courage and some of the actually told stories of how they had gone home to find themselves disagreeing with their parents about Kosovo.

  My older son was as student in NY at the time and he participated in marches against the bombing and in campus meetings about the issue. Unfortunately, he was dejected when he noticed that the organizers of some of the marches, rather than protesting the bombing as unjust and criminal, were doing more to support Milosevic. Whatever one's opinion of Milosevic at the time, this was a very poor policy for converting anyone away from accepting the demonization of Serbs campaign as fact and was doomed to fail.

  I have noticed before now that Serbs do not (I'm generalizing, of course) tend to promote themselves, nor defend themselves like some other national groups. I've always attributed it to their faith in being on the right side and a naive assumption that right "will out." Of course, this kind of character was formed and passed down long before these days of public relations and selling whatever idea you want, good or bad, via a world-wide media empire that is run mostly by thugs and miscreants.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 2:07 am
  Nico,

  ...thanks ONCE AGAIN...(I meant)
  
  Anna P
  California

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 3:14 am
  So, Vera, Macedonia shouldn't have become independent? The Serbs didn't even have Serbs in Macedonia to justify the continued bickering about the borders. Indeed, Milosevic gave the green light to the Macedonian independence (as Walter has enlightened us), but maybe that was only to piss off the Greeks.

  You are more conservative than Milosevic. You are even more conservative than Greece. We know that the Greek government was against the breakup of Yugoslavia, but suddenly it was OK with an independent Macedonia, provided it could keep bullying the new state using the name as a pretext.

  And what should Macedonia have called itself, if that is the question? Many proposals have been put forward, but somehow they have had as little success as finding a solution in Cyprus. Croatia became Croatia, Slovenia became Slovenia, so why did Macedonia become the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? Vera calls Croatia CRO, but it would be more logical to call it the Former Yugoslav Republic of Croatia (FYROC).

  You say that by becoming independent Macedonia only became a lackey of the US. Remember that this is the way Greece seems to perceive itself: a lackey of Nato. Does that now give Greece the right to call Macedonia a lackey of the US? Macedonia may do what the US tells. Similarly, Greece had no option but to do what the US wanted it to do during the bombing.

  So how can you say that Greece is any more independent than Macedonia? At least Greece has the protection of Nato when this potentially devastatingly aggressive Macedonia decides to invade Thessaloniki.

  The reason Greece protested against the name Macedonia was not the Greece knew that in a few years Macedonia would join the US in the campaign against Iraq. That is not more than any decent Nato country is expected to do, and that is what Greece is too. The reason was the Greek fear that Bulgaria would first take Macedonia, and from there it could get at Greece's back. That was the reason. Has that now changed too? It is amazing how much the depth of history can change in a couple of days.

  About the Doctors without Frontiers. As Mr Stylianos told us, we (or at least I) should see what the Greek government says. So why should I look at the actions of the Greek contingent in the Doctors without Frontiers? They are not dependent of the Greek government. Or are they? If they are, what makes them better than the rest of the Doctors without Frontiers, which suddenly turned less than non-governmental? Suppose that the Greek government would someday impose sanctions on a country. What would these Greek doctors then do?

  Anyway, I found this Greek posturing morally repugnant. The doctors were only doing their duty, if that was what they were doing. The fact that others were not doesn't make it any more than a duty.

  But back to the trial. It now revolves around the Greater Serbia idea, as anyone has noticed. Somehow most noise for such a Greater Serbia seems to come from Greece and the Serb diaspora, in other words, from those who wouldn't have to live in such a Greater Serbia. Or am I wrong to call the nostalgia for Yugoslavia (or YUGO) a yearning for Greater Serbia, when the integrity of Yugoslavia is subtly mixed with Orthodox faith, Ottoman yoke and other Serb-friendly rhetoric.

  Just a thought, don't get angry. The point is that Western capitals would be more willing to listen to the Serb diaspora (or maybe "willing" is not the word) and Greece than the Serbs who are living in former Yugoslavia.

  There are also parallels in regard to argumentation between the Greek-Macedonian policy and the prosecution's case against Milosevic. Both use funny evidence to prove expansion or "Greater" something. Greeks used Macedonian flags, Macedonian banknotes and the 1913 war. They were even more effective than the prosecution. The prosecution uses the Kosovo speech (misquoted), mutilated telephone conversations etc. The Greater Serbian songs are still to come.

  There is also the proving of negative. Greek reactions to Macedonia prevented the Bulgarian invasion. The missing bodies in Kosovo show that the bodies are in the Danube.

  There is also the inversion. The Macedonians are Macedonians first, Greeks second. That means that the Macedonians who are not Greeks are not Macedonians at all. Try criticizing this delusion and you will be called a racist before you know it.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 3:48 am
  

  Doctor Ranta and her high pitched voiced are on. Judge May (NATO) and his heavy lead voice asking questions. Mr. Nice (NATO) behaving as snake, very properly so.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 4:55 am
  Jari,

  I think you're missing the point that Vera was making. I think she was saying that these so-called "independent countries" made out of the SFRY are not really independent at all. They are all vassal states for foreign powers.

  Instead of having 1 united and independent Yugoslavia you now have 5 vassal states in its place. That was the plan all along. That is why Yugoslavia was destroyed. That is why war and succession were encouraged, so that Yugoslavia could be controlled in "bite-sized" pieces.

  Milosevic was demonized and singled out precisely because he advocated maintaining a united and independent Yugoslavia, and if not a united Yugoslavia then at least an independent rump-Yugoslavia. Milosevic's "great sin" was not dancing to the West's fiddle.

  There is no way that you could call any former Yugoslav state anything other than a puppet country. They're all falling all over themselves to try and impress the people in Washington and Brussles. Maybe Greece is in the same boat, but so what? She didn't claim that Greece wasn't. I think your response to her was out of line, and almost hostile.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 6:31 am
  Almost? I'd say it was, or maybe not so much hostile as bitter. One wonders why all this passion on Jari's part about this particular subject, because anyone would surely agree it seems to be far beyond an intellectual exercise, regardless of whether he is right or wrong. Hhhmmmmmm...we'll never know unless he decides to tell us.

  Please don't misconstrue my comments. I won't knock passion. But there seems to be something under the surface that you can't quite keep down.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 7:33 am
  
  (-:Beware of Greeks bearing gifts:-)

  Say some. But I say:

  Never look a gift horse in the mouth

  Pronouncements over the past two days by Blair and his party chairman Dr John Reid reduce me to despair. How can anyone justify an illegal attack upon Iraq, if there is no second UN Resolution, by appealing to the illegal bombing of Serbia and the dreadful consequences of that illegal action? How can so many be taken in by this massive dishonesty: How can so many claim that Blair is sincere?

  This Monday Blair questioned by a group of women expressing concern about the effect on British Muslims of an illegal attack upon Iraq justified himself twice by referring to how he rightfully fought for the Muslims against the Christians in Kosovo without UN sanction. Clearly Blair does not care for legality or who he kills and maims.

  Reid defending Blair yesterday referred to Blair’s criminal adventure in Kosovo five or six times. Such was his dishonesty that he claimed the prevention of Genocide at least twice and the prevention of tens of thousands of Albanian deaths. In this we see the true purpose of the ICTY. A political tool to perpetuate the myths of Blair and Clinton’s criminal adventure: the consequences of which need to be exposed.

  Indeed there has been a torrent of references to the Justification of the Kosovo intervention from many supporting an attack upon Iraq without a specific UN mandate. And so to the gift horse:

  The war was an attempt to stop the supposed slaughter of some 100,000 Albanians by Serbian militia; but we now see than such genocide apparently never took place. What, then, can we possibly say about the fact that, according to more accurate counts, NATO bombs reportedly killed as many civilians as the Serbs did Albanians? More importantly, reducing the body count from alleged genocide from 100,000 to 2,000, as the U.N. reportedly will do shortly, is to call into question the very accusations of genocide underlying the NATO action.

  What shameful things we are seeing done in the name of humanity. While no rational person can but decry the policies of the Serbian government that led to the Kosovo intervention, and while the murder of even one Albanian by the Serbs is worthy of condemnation, such things pale before the propaganda lie that spawned the present tragedy in Kosovo, in which only injustice and lies have prevailed. By Archbishop Chrysostomos.

  No one can over-estimate the international damage caused by the Messianic Blair and his ‘sincere’ or more likely Machiavellian convictions. It is not just my opinion that war criminal, war monger Blair egged on Bush over Iraq as he did Clinton in Serbia - thankfully this time most of the British people are not having any of it without a specific UN mandate:

  “The Clinton-Blair dog-and-pony show on the international stage clearly had the latter in the role of the militant, egging Clinton on in Kosovo and openly calling for the introduction of ground troops. Now, in Iraq, Blair is doing an encore: while the Bushies are tight-lipped about their future plans, British officials are openly saying that the Iraqis can expect more - and soon. And so Blair is allowed to take the lead once again: but there is, of course, a price to pay.” By Justin Raimondo.

  Source: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j021901.html

  We must expose the continuing lies and myths of the Clinton-Blair dog-and-pony show in Kosovo. Analysis of the data on Page 15 of ‘Kosovo: The Human Rights Situation and the Fate of the Persons Displaced from their Homes’ by the High Commissioner for Human Rights confirms the Archbishop’s prediction.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 7:52 am
  There is a detailed anlysis of the 2,108 bodies found by forensic investigators in KosMet. It shows pretty exhautively that at least 70-80% of non-combatant deaths were caused by KLA-NATO action.

  As is well known by now the KLA spent most of its energy murdering anti-KLA Albanians.

  It is availble on Decani and other websites.

  One can surmise that the additional 680 bodies found in the last two years will also have a similar cause of death. Killed by KLA.

  
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 8:00 am
  Bloombegr announced

  Djindic shot and is in critical condidtion

  My commment:
  Guess the HumWarriors wanted to teach him a lesson about sticking to the playbook. Lately Djinidc had been distancing himself from the HumWarrior party line. The HumWarriors are merciless.

  This assasination attempt is similar to the other the CIA orchastrated in the Spring and Summer of 2000.
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 8:12 am
  Djindjic has died.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 9:52 am
  Bet all you Milosevic supporters are delighted he's dead.

  I feel sorry for all of you. Its Milosevic's politics that let this happen.
  
  Arandjel Pasic
  Srbija

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 9:57 am
  

  I suspect a coup will follow.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 10:02 am
  Interesting. The president of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Serbia is no more.

  But I wasn't missing the point. You all are. As the Yugoslav parliamentary committee concluded, the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia can leave the federation if they want to, but the borders have to be defined first. Suppose this applies to Macedonia. No border negotiations were necessary, at least between the Serbs and the Macedonians. This border correction might have been construed by some as a stalling instrument, and judging by the latest comments here, that's what it was. Yugoslavia was so fine, as it was. Even if the Yugoslav parliamentary committee's advice had been followed, I don't see how the republics could have been any more independent than they are now.

  This discussion is toxic to Milosevic, as I have now realized. Somehow the Yugoslav nostalgists talk the most of Milosevic, but I can't think of anything where Milosevic would have suggested that Yugoslavia should not have been broken up. Indeed, he was president of Serbia until 1997, and since then president of the "rump" Yugoslavia. He may have dithered about the Croatian independence, but I am glad he didn't do so in regard to the Macedonian independence. It is thanks to discussions like this that he is connected to the Greater Serbia.

  About the Macedonian independence a few things remain to be said. You are fooling yourself when you think the Greeks were happy with the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to begin with. They blame good old Tito for creating such an entity, with the horrendous name and all. Of course, the Greeks don't tell the Serbs that.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 10:19 am
  Arandjel Pasic:

  No decent person delights in murder and I believe most contributors here devote their time because they are decent people - seeking true justice.

  Save your pity for yourself. Your outburst indicates that you are a supporter of a vicious, biassed and unjust court: the ICTY.

  Are you so brain washed even in Serbia that you must attribute every wicked act to Milosevic: parrotting Blair, Cook, Roberston ... Clinton, Albright, Rubin ...
  
  Peter Taylor
  Hopefully

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 10:22 am
  Andy Wilcoxson

  At Dayton Milosevic did dance to the West fiddle and what more show me a country that makes independent policy. If you really believe in such a thing you must need your head examinated.
  
  A P
  Srbija

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 10:26 am
  Well, Jari, Tito probably is to blame.

  I thought this was a discussion about whether Milosevic is getting a fair trial (no) and not about whether he's a popular guy (he's not). There is more than one level to all this, isn't there?

  So do you want to tell us what this Macedonia - Greece thing is reeeaallly all about with you? :-)
  
  Anna P
  California

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 10:26 am
  Mr Tajlor

  Judging by your outbursts you are one obsessed with Tony Blair. You deserve him.

  If I am brainwashed by my media it shows my point about Milosevic politik.
  
  A P
  Srbija

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 10:35 am
  Mr Jari

  Your last post is correct I believe. A lot of people hide behind name Yugoslavia.

  I am very angry about assasination. Djindjic was not perfect but I know all Milosevic supporter will rejojce here. They hate him because he sent Milosevic to Hague so murder of Djindjic is ok.

  Message to red / black block:

  DOS will now unite again DSS and DS. You do not have a chance to get some crazy one back in the power.

  There is no danger of coup but there will be unity of all democratic forces in Serbia. You wait - now all of those war criminals will go. Let them go Im not surprised if they help to organize this murder. Who the hell they think they are?
  
  A P
  Srbija

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 10:45 am
  True leadership has always eluded the states of the former Yugoslavia, thanks to foreign meddling. Name one decent leader, AP -- it wasn't Djidjic. Perhaps Kostunica could have been that, had he had a little more moxie. Djindjic was just one power-hungry, self-promoting, wealth-seeking devil replacing another.

  I just wonder who did this. On the radio they were alluding to a "CIA-style" killing. Well....are we EVER told the truth, we little people?

  see this
  
  Anna P
  California

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 10:58 am
  Talking about foreign meddling, aren't you meddling too Ms Anna?
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 10:59 am
  Anna P

  Thats right just speak ill of the dead. Just think of his family - you dont care at all do you? As I say I dont think he was perfect but he was human being. Sometimes I think supporter of MIlosevic dont have any humanity

  I suppose you want to believe CIA did this as well? Good conspiracy theori - even better than Macedonia to take over Greece.
  
  A P
  Srbija

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:03 am
  A.P.,

  Slobodan Milosevic did exactly what he said he wanted to do from the outset of the Bosnian war. He ended that war. He bent over backwards to end that war, and in my opinion he gave too much. That being said, it is no surprise given the nature of the statements Milosevic was making that he would sign, even a bad agreement, if it would just end the war.

  In my opinion the Dayton Accords are a bad agreement.

  I don't think that Milosevic signed Dayton because the West wanted him to. I think he signed it because the war in Bosnia was hard on Serbia, and Milosevic, being the president of Serbia, just wanted to put an end to the war at any cost. Unfortunately I think, and you seem to think that the cost was too high.

  Dayton didn't solve anything. Bosnia isn't democratic, it's clearly a UN/EU administered dictatorship. Bosnia is a state that nobody, except the Muslims, really wants. The Croats and the Muslims don't really seem to be totally happy with their alliance, and the Serbs don't want anything to do with Bosnia at all. The so-called "independence day" that was held in Bosnia last week was ignored by the Serbs and by most Croats.

  I agree that Dayton was bad, but Milosevic didn't sign it because the West wanted him to. He signed it because the war in Bosnia was hard on Serbia, and he just wanted an end to that war, he always said that from the very start. Unfortunately, the abscence of war isn't automatically peace and Bosnia isn't at peace.

  The fact that Milosevic signed that agreement at Dayton shows just how absurd it is that he is accused of being a war criminal. Slobodan Milosevic is the last guy who wanted a war in Bosnia. Who would want to have a war on their border and to have to take care of a bunch of refugees?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:05 am
  I am in building overlooking streets where assasination took place.

  Main street Knez Milos closed. People are in streets, nobody believe he is dead. This will make sepeartion between good people and bad people. Most people had respect for Djidjic even if not agree with all his policies. Im sorry he's gone and I hope this is change need to finally rid this state of criminals that got so large under Milosevic.

  Sorry to anyone I didnt mean to make any insult - just have respect for death that all I ask
  
  a p
  Srbija

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:07 am
  To: Peter Taylor, Anna P and all other honest forum participants who respond to "Arandjel Pasic" (or "A P")

  This A P person sounds fake. In an attempt to convince us that he/she is really from Serbia, he/she spells the country as Srbija. However, in a small but telling mistake, his/her apparent obsession to sound really Serbian by adding "j" characters made him/her write "Peter Tajlor".
  
  Pythagoras C
  Greece

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:08 am
  To Arandjel Pasic,

  Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?
  
  Vedran T.
  Netherlands

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:12 am
  AP,

  I'm not happy to see Djindjic shot. I don't care for "gangland justice," moreover I know that regardless of who did it Milosevic will get blamed for it.

  I wanted to see Djindjic arrested and put on trial for treason for his anti-constitutional behavior. The bottom line is that Djindjic violated the law and the constitution when he arranged the extradition of Serb citizens to the ICTY and he should have been prosecuted for that. It was hyoicritical for him to talk about democracy after he did that. Democracy is impossible without the rule of law.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:16 am
  Pythagoras, why would AP do that? Or rather, why would you say something like that?
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:20 am
  AP

  The murder of Djindic is pretty clearly linked to 3 points

  1) Djindic has been distanting himself from his paymasters positions vis a vie KosMet and elsewhere. Please do not forget that the Clintonistas spent $100 million on Djindic's 2000 election campaign.

  2) Djindic hasn't parceled out Yugoslav prize firms to his paymasters. Neither Soros, Holbrooke, Gen Clark, Clinton, ALbright, Rubin, etc. etc have benefited from Djindic run privatizations.

  3) It is in the interest of the HumWarriors to keep Yugoslavia destablized and weak. Djindic was developing enough local support to be a force in his own right w/o depending on the whims of the HumWarriors. Djindic posed a threat to the HumWarriors.

  The HumWarriors created Djindic.

  The HumWarriors destroyed Djindic

  No one here is pleased with his tragic murder.

  Suggesting that President Milosevic had the slightest thing to do with the murder of Djindic can't be serious. The SPS has been out of office for 2 1/2 years. All organs of the state are controled by Djindic loyalists. Milosevic has been locked away in a Nazi era prison for 15 months.

  No, the opponents of Djindic are not gloating at all about his murder.

  Quite in contrats to those Djindic loyalists whose gleefully praised the destruction of Government institutions and laws. Quite in contrast to those Djindic loyalists who openly suggested that the best course of action in Oct 2000 would be for the President Milosevic to be hung from a lamppost.

  The contrast is unmistakable.
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:23 am
  Who knows. Maybe AP is what''s her name. WhatEVER...

  Jari,

  Was that an attempt at being cute, or what? How am I meddling and what am I meddling in?

  Go ahead -- tell us what it's all about, Jari, this very personal thing you have about Macedonia and Greece. I have my passions, too, and they are about things that affect me, personally. One just doesn't get so heated and grumpy about a mere intellectual discussion, right?
  
  Anna P
  Calfornia

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:24 am
  First of all, the HumWarriors are meddling in Serbian affairs. When a Serbian voice is heard here, it is dismissed as a conspiracy to take over Greece.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:24 am
  Andy,

  You're absolutely right. Djindjic should have been tried in Serbia for similar crimes against Serbia to Milosevic's. They should both have been brought to justice there, in Belgrade.
  
  Anna P
  Calfornia

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:28 am
  Serbian Prime Minister assassinated in Belgrade

  BELGRADE, Serbia-Montenegro (AP) - Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic - a key leader of the revolt that toppled former President Slobodan Milosevic in October 2000 - was assassinated Wednesday by gunmen who ambushed him outside the government complex, police sources said.

  Djindjic died of his wounds in a Belgrade hospital after having been shot in the abdomen and back, the sources told The Associated Press.

  Witnesses said two suspects were arrested.

  Thanks Anna. One can tell you were always active. Anyway we got off the hot topic of Greece.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  sjc
  USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:31 am
  We got off the hot topic of Greece. Oh did we? And what have we got instead? Djindjic and Ms Anna's opinions on Serb leadership. I thought this discussion was about whether Milosevic is getting a fair trial.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:39 am
  Jari: It is about the trial. Djindjic assassination is a big deal. As for the hot topic of Greece. It was causing bad feelings. Jari you have done a lot for this forum. We appreciate it and want you as an active supporter. Let us forget all this quibling and go on as before. A big hug to you from me with my thanks. Believe me we Serbs need all the support you give us.

  As for that phoney baloney who is telling us she is from Serbia, I think we know who she is.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:42 am
  Pretty awesome. I know who it is: Arandjel Pasic from Srbija. Why does there have to be a conspiracy everywhere? Or is it just about the bad feelings that Arendjel is causing?
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:52 am
  

  Shot by a sniper at the yard inside of government building, a safe and protected site.

  State of emergency declared, reports the BBC.

  That traitor of Mesic tells the BBC the assassination of Wall Street darling Djindjic is bad for the whole Balkans.

  Quien con infantes anochece, excrementado amanece

  I also agree, it is better to be young, healthy and rich than sick, poor and hated. As always all is relative.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 12:00 pm
  No, Jari it is not about bad feeling that Arandjel is causing. It is about that we just don't know what he thinks about trial. We know that he thinks that we are all Milosevic supporters (and that is BAD by definition) and we also know that he feels sorry for as (how nice) but about trial...
  
  Vedran T.
  Netherlands

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 12:10 pm
  Where did Arandjel say he feels sorry for us? I know he feels sorry for Djindjic and his family, because he said so. Some other people have said they feel sorry for us, but that is not the same thing.

  We have developed a curious kind of defensive mechanism with this sticking to the topic, when it suits us. A guy breaks the news that Djindjic is dead, and you want him to discuss the trial?
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 12:18 pm
  In his very first post.

  Bet all you Milosevic supporters are delighted he's dead. I feel sorry for all of you. Its Milosevic's politics that let this happen. Arandjel Pasic Srbija
  
  Vedran T.
  Netherlands

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 12:23 pm
  OK. And where have you said whether you think this trial is fair? Or do you suppose that everyone that joins here thinks the trial is not fair? I think that is what AP meant.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 12:28 pm
  
  On murder and ridding the Serbian State of criminals:

  In conclusion, I call on you (Steiner) personally, as a UN representative, to finally stop the process of legalizing the secession of Kosovo and Metohija, and the glorification of the KLA and its branches, which were never really disbanded and disarmed and whose former and current leaders are directly responsible for crimes against the Serb and Albanian civilian population. As such these individuals have neither moral nor political credibility to build the multiethnic society which they have been destroying by their actions for more than four years. It is completely unrealistic to expect a contemporary democratic and multiethnic society to be built on a foundation of lawlessness and ethnic hatred, in an atmosphere of omnipresent Albanian national mythomania.

  Quote from the letter of temporary resignation of Dr. Rada Trajkovic, Serb National Council of Kosovo and Metohija, Gracanica.

  In spite of del Ponte’s many promises do not expect Blair’s puppet court, the ICTY, to help you rid the State of Serbia of these particular criminals. These criminals were established in government in a province of your state by the forces of Mr ‘Sincerity’ Tony Blair who is always ‘convinced’ he is right. Moreover he used al-Qaeda and the Mujahedin to help him in this episode of his global policy of ‘regime changes’. Never forget that he authorised a failed attempt to murder Milosevic and his family: A guided missile targeted and destroyed Milosevic’s home.

  Is the murder of their head of state by foreign powers something Serb’s in general approve of? Whatever Milosevic’s faults he was attempting to prevent the murder and ethnic cleansing of Serbs in their centuries old homeland in Kosovo. And without Blair he would have succeeded. I hope that if such a plight should ever befall the British people we would have a leader who would also stand up to such an Islamic terrorist insurgency.

  Such is Blair’s command of global ‘morality’ that, again without UN sanction, he now feels able to embark upon the murder and maiming - largely by US military power - of Iraqi women and children rather than Serbian women and children: in order to further another ‘regime change’ to his liking: this time, among many other excuses, in order to oppose his allies in Kosovo: al-Qaeda and the Mujahedin?.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 12:45 pm
  Explicit answer to topic question is important if one start with statement which is not relevant like "you are Milosevic supporters". From that I can conclude that he is not Milosevic supporter (for me irrelevant) but I don't know what he thinks about trial. If he thinks the same as I do, we are on the same side if not I would like to hear his arguments.
  
  Vedran T.
  Netherlands

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 12:58 pm
  And what do you think of the statement made by Kathryn above: "Jari you have done a lot for this forum. We appreciate it and want you as an active supporter."

  I think it is difficult to present arguments here when it is well-known that we are "supporters". Deviant voices get the "agent provocateur" treatment. That has happened to me, the champ. And that is (one of the reasons) why there is no reasoned opposition.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 12:59 pm
  An interesting article on the Radio Netherlands website about another assassination that occoured in Serbia.

  http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/yugoslavia011005.html
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 1:30 pm
  Jari

  To me this forum has alway been a "them and us" forum. I reacted to this by reading posts only, I've quit posting because anything thought of as antiNato/ICTY is ok, to me this was and is morally wrong. But neither the less I still learn by reading posts here.

  I'm deeply sadened by the murder of ZD and by Andy's post of a url, the topic of which, to me is in bad taste giving the man has just died.

  I'm glad you feel like an "agent provocateur", its how you made me feel when I first came here, you made me think long and hard about my pov and I must say my positioned has since changed, for me its not about the ICTY any more, its about justice and I see the ICTY as guilty of providing Milosevic with a way of evading real justice.

  Good bye all.
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 1:41 pm
  To ones who posted comments that Im fake. I was in internet cafe on 13th floor of biggest building in BG. Some of you will know it, some will not.

  To Vedran you may have left country but I have not, the most important thing is our Premier has been killed. You I see are not sad about that. That is ok but when you leave the country please dont pretend like you care about it. Right now the thoughts of Serbs who care about country should be on future of country. There is state of emergency. The main street Knez Milos is closed. Police look in cars and buses. People are so shocked they stay at home.

  To Ms Love and Anna P or whatever you say your name is (is it same person?). You claim to have Serb background - how come you think Im a woman? Arandjel sound like woman to you? I am in Belgrade and not someone else. Ask me something if you dont believe but dont try to hide your lack of care for countries Premier being killed. Country that you say you have connection with but feel nothing when Premier is shot. Let us talk about trial - you care so much about Serbs?

  APV say that humanitarian worriars killed Djindjic. Rubbish. Legija killed Djindjic. Does anyone know who Legija is? Does anyone care? Legija was guy who was in charge of Red Berets (JSO). Legija made demonstration with Red Berets last year to stop government to arrest suspect war criminals. Then Legija ordered Bugsy to assasinate Djindjic last month. Now he suceeds. Legija was the guy who used to be Milosevic man. Remember the film at the Hague - Halo Legija with Frenki, Dragan and the others. Djindjic made deal with honourable Legija for Oct 5. These days Djindjic decide he wanted to break deal. Legija killed him for that.

  Milosevic paramilitary state caused this. There was never such strong mafia till he came in power. Stupid accusation of outside forces is biggest joke of all.
  
  a p
  SRBIJA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 2:03 pm
  Jari: Go right ahead and communicate with the AP from SRBIJA, and the Joseph Simons and the Rita, Rita and whomever you care to. I am so sorry I called you a supporter. Shame on me. Just do not put everyone else down because they disagree with you. You say we are that way, you better read some of your posts.
  
  Kathryn Love
  USA
  SJC

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 2:05 pm
  
  Jari: I for one would like to make it clear that I do not contribute here because I am a supporter of Milosevic. Why would I be.

  Until I learned that Britain was about to drop bombs on Serbia I knew little or nothing about Serbia or Milosevic.

  My interest became active when I realised I was being lied to by the British government and the media. This fact gradually dawned on me while I watched on TV, night after night, refugees pouring into Macedonia accompanied by reports that tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, of Kosovars were being slaughtered by the Serbian security forces.

  The moment of truth: As I watched the pathetic columns I suddenly realised that none of them were injured. There were no ambulances, no stretchers, no mangled or bandaged wounded people. This was an impossibility. If tens of thousands had been slaughtered by the Serbian security forces then must have been at least an equal number of injured - but there were NONE. There was only one conclusion to be drawn: tens of thousands of Kosvars had not been slaughtered by the Serbs. The recent report by the Commissioner for Human Rights bears out my conclusion.

  Having established that I was being lied to on a massive scale, so effectively that I was unable to convince any of my acquaintances, the next question I asked myself was “why?”. My contributions here have been an ongoing search for that truth.

  A court of true Justice must be impartial and based upon a commitment to the truth. In failing to indict the Leaders of the KLA - responsible for initiating the aggression and responsible for at least half of the casualties - in a period of four years the ICTY has demonstrated that it is not impartial. In not throwing out Ball’s testimony - being one of many examples - that “10,356” Kosovars were murdered by the Serbs it does not respect the truth: See the Commissioners report for Human rights that puts the deaths at between two and three thousand - without any clear evidence as who had killed them: the KLA, Nato or the Serbs. In not prosecuting witnesses for perjury it also demonstrates no respect for truth.

  It is clear to me that Blair has committed war crimes in Serbia. There was no authority for his aggression and in releasing cluster bombs from a height of three miles or more in danger of hitting civilian targets he was in breach of the rules of war. He was also the person who persuaded his allies to continue with the criminal aggression when most were sickened of the carnage.

  Jari: the reason no one comes here to support the ICTY is because it is impossible to support the insupportable: Impossible to justify the unjustifiable.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 2:13 pm
  

  How fascinating. was Legija (legion) arrested at the scene of the crime or is it just a rumor in Belgrade?

  I wonder since Sejelj is in prison, who will be the next Serbian prime minister or will it be a junta ?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 2:13 pm
  I regret the death of Djindjic though I didn't respect him. The article in the International Herald Tribune, linked to the Jurist, states that he won political points when he traded Milosevic for 1.2 billion dollars in aid to Serbia (those may not be the exact words). My question: did Serbia EVER get 1.2 billion? How much did Serbia get?
  
  Nikole J
  Canada

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 2:15 pm
  AP of SRBIJA: We will wait and hear from Vera of Belgrade on what is happening because she has been commlunicating with us for a long time. I was sorry Djinjic was assassinated because he is a Serb. He was in Germany cheering the bombing of Yugoslavia and for that he should have been placed on trial in Serbia.

  You may have liked him but from all the reports I have read about him he was not well liked. I have friends there who tell me that he was not well liked.

  However, lately he wanted to partition Kosovo. That may have been bad news for him. Who knows? It is a dishonest world and one can never tell friend from foe.

  You may like Djindjic, some here in the USA love Bush and some hate him. It is all a matter of supporting the one you think is right for yourself and/or your county.

  Although I have made some unkind remarks about Djindjic he is a Serb and this is going to be bad for Serbia, as I am sure the western media will do their best to call Serbia a nation of thugs, etc., et al.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 2:26 pm
  Whatever happened to “Judas?” The deciple who sold Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.

  I do not think Serbs ever received the amount of money they were promised.

  At this moment our media is not too interested in Djindjic but God knows what the Nato freaks are cooking up.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 2:35 pm
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------Posted on Wed, Mar. 12, 2003 Bush Extends Condolences to Serbia

  Associated Press

  WASHINGTON - President Bush offered condolences Wednesday to Serbians mourning the loss of their pro-Western prime minister, Zoran Djindjic.

  "Prime Minister Djindjic will be remembered for his role in bringing democracy to Serbia and for his role in bringing Slobodan Milosevic to justice," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

  Bush, he said, "expresses his sorrow to the people of Serbia."

  Djindjic saw Serbia's fate as linked to the West and favored greater cooperation with the U.N. war crimes tribunal, where Milosevic, the former president, is now standing trial on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 2:40 pm
  

  BBC Kathy Rowland said Djindjic was very unpopular but committed to economical reform and democracy.

  He was clearly misunderstood by his countrymen.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 2:42 pm
  

  Miss Ranta is not the Sibelius of forensic science. That much was made clear during her testimony today.
  
  G C
  USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 3:29 pm
  Arandjel!

  -Your Premier that got killed today was installed by the outside powers that terrorized Serbia for 11 weeks. - Those powers spent a lot of money (wonder what Your $hare was) and did quite a bit of other dirty and possibly "wet" things for " The Regime Change" that was necessary for them to get away with their crime.

  - The first and most pleasing thing Your Puppet-Premier did for his masters was to send S, Milosovich to Haag by breaking the law...... - If it makes You feel better in Your hour of sorrow - try to look at it as a "Regime Change" - and remember - Those Who run the Show retain the right to change the puppets,,,,, and especially - The Premier Puppet!
  
  vytas abrutis
  phila,PA
  USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 4:20 pm
  From the BBC:

  However, they say economic and politicial reforms are likely to continue because Serbia is in currently in no position to defy the United States and the European Union.

  I would think that the USA and Blair have enough to worry about and would keep their noses out of the affairs of Serbia.
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 5:15 pm
  I would like to add my sadness those who feel bad about assasination of our Premier.

  Maybe wasnt big supporter of djindjic but such attack on Premier is attack on all Serb citizens.

  Milosevic may have illegally transported to Hague by Djindjic but he did not deserve to die. There is a feeling of fear now. The biggest suspects are organised criminals, they closed down Zemun but we shall see in the next days. This makes me feel sick. God help Serbia will it ever be normal country?

  There is joke going round Belgrade right now about how nobody assasinated Sloba or Seki after so many years in power, few attempts on Draskovic were not successful. It is not funny. I feel sick, sick like diing slowly and not to know how to get better. Personaly hurt like when NATO bombs fell. Maybe you must be here to understand its so bad it makes me feel like Milosevic trial and Macedonia question irrelevant.

  Sorry to change subject but all Serbs will be hurt by this very much.
  
  Sasa Kapor
  Yugoslavia

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 5:33 pm
  

  Today this crossed my mind:

  In 1492 when Boabdil, the last Moorish king, fled from Ferdinand and Isabella's troops to the Alpujarra, the Christian re-conquest of Spain was complete. The summit of the road south from Granada still bears the evocative name of Puerto del Suspiro del Moro: the Pass of the Moor's Sigh. As Boabdil looked wistfully back at Granada and the magnificent Alhambra palace from this point, his mother is said to have scolded him: "You weep like a woman for what you could not defend as a man."

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 5:52 pm
  Walter Trkla

  Well, actually petrol price "soared" to 1.8$ per gallon average ahead of the coming war. It should be back to the dollar mark though, as soon as the world is "rid of the evil dictator, spreading weapons of mass destruction" and mysteriously cheap oil starts arriving into US harbours. No wonder the Administration is annoyed with Blair having dragged them into the UN business (I loved recent Rumsfelds remarks. Does the chap ever think before opening his mouth?). Apart from highlighting their disregard for the international community, every single day of this circus also costs.
  Being the world`s only superpower is so convenient. Your market drops half a percent, next thing you know - Europe`s down three. It`s just impossible to lose out.
  
  Stanislav K
  Estonia

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 6:30 pm
  Hardly good news for Serbia in these times of trouble. A few quiet years would help them immensely.

  In regards to their policy, however, there is little to choose from. EU - US - NATO seems the only way to go, `cause it`s everywhere around, mind you. "Join the US" is the most common idea in Eastern Europe, as far as I know. "Keep your noses away" is probably not what the Serbs will ultimately say.
  
  Stanislav K
  Estonia

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 8:50 pm
  I am very upset that some people felt that there was a need to assassinate ZDJ. Political murder is the type of violent activity that concerns us, but this term can be applied as well to mass killings, blood baths or genocide. But assassination is not usually used to denote mass murders. The victim must be singled out as an individual, not merely as a member or representative of some large group against which general terrorism is being directed. Assassination refers to those killings or murders usually directed against individuals in public life motivated by political rather than personal relationships. I am sure Djindjic’s assassination was not personal.

  Assassination is the deliberate extralegal killing of an individual for political purposes. Djindjic presented himself as a democrat but used rule by decree. He broke the law in order to enforce it. For that he paid the ultimate price of a quisling.

  The word assassin is of Arabic origin. It derives from the Arabic “hashishiyyln” meaning “those who use hashish’. This refers historically to one of the Shiite and Ismaili sects in Syria and Iran. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries they, for a time, facilitated its political aggrandizement by the violent removal of its opponents, allegedly inducing courage and fortitude among its agents by the use of drugs (hashish).

  Those political philosophers who have defended assassination have always insisted the tyrannical character of the victim. Before violence could be justified before God it had to be demonstrated beyond all doubt that the object of the extended violence was vile and reprehensible to justify killing him, there was no other way of relieving the burden of his tyranny. The question I want answered here was there another way to bring this nation up from its knees? Some people would have hung him from the nearest lamp post for they felt that he betrayed his people the same way Brankovic betrayed Lazar in Kosovo. Here I will be accused of the Kosovo virus.

  In general, the more carefully planned the act of violence the more necessary is an organization for its consummation. Organizations can spew violence more efficiently than a single individual. Individuals may contemplate violence at one moment or another but groups are more likely to carry such inclinations to fruition. An organization also gives the individual a raisin d’etre; he acts now not merely in accordance with his own selfish feelings, but as the agent for something much greater than himself. (OSAMA) i.e. concerns himself as the savior of his people, his church, and his race or even of mankind. In such a mental condition he does not think too seriously of his own personal preservation. These people will die for their cause, i.e. (Gavrilo Princip WWI)

  Governments have often provoked violence to serve their own ends and they have often used assassination when other methods of elimination were closed to them. It is sometimes necessary to eliminate individuals completely, silently and rapidly. Trials and prison sentences are time-consuming and uncertain. Moreover, they permit the victim soma favorable opportunities to speak. Here I don’t need to remind you of my previous posts about dozens of American assassinations.

  Even when an assassination fails, numerous effects can be discerned from the attempt.

  1. Some assassinations tend to provoke other attempts. Killing some political figure becomes a challenge. Copycat attempts by others who want notoriety.

  2. An attempted assassination may change some personal behavior among other political leaders. The victim who survives is no longer the same.

  3. Assassination also affects the political system and society at large. This ‘shock’ disturbs the emotional state of the people. This shock manifests itself in many ways: increased mental disturbances, enormous public displays of grief, political exhortations to remember the fallen leader, possibly riots and demonstrations, attempts at revenge, public or secret trials of the assailants, the public renaming of streets, airports or parks after the dead hero.

  NB A high degree of shock and its response permit a system to absorb the sudden death of a leader. Shock is a ritualized substitute for change. Will United States change its direction and examine the cause of September 11th? Are secret trials as proposed by US after Sep. 11th a camouflage for manipulation of foreign policy????? I think they are.

  1. Some Assassinations produce no discernible changes -- just the dead person is removed.

  2.In most assassinations PERSONNEL changes occur that would not have taken place otherwise. The victim is removed and also some other key personnel.

  3.Assassination impact may be measured in some cases by the degree of policy change. i.e. Canada anti-terrorism legislation that may affect civil liberties.

  4.A few assassinations produce alterations in political system -- i.e. abolition of political parties, disregard for constitutional civil liberties, etc.

  5 An extreme combination of the previous two categories is assassination that leads not only to political SYSTEMIC changes but also to social revolution. Lets hope that this is not the case in Yugoslavia.

  What Accounts for Differences in Impact

  1.Political maturity and development is the political system based upon a number of institutions or on personalism --one person.

  2.The impact of assassination is also of course a function of the nature of the opposition within the state. Where opposition is forbidden, its parties are outlawed, its leaders muzzled, its ideas sequestered, and then a traumatic event like an assassination becomes the opportunity to force changes that would be otherwise impossible. This I hope will be the case in Yugoslavia.

  3.The impact also depends upon the assassin and the conspiracy (if any) that has produced him. What kind of person was the assassin? What ties did he have with opposition groups? An assassination isolated from other political acts is rarely of significance.

  4.The potential impact of an assassination is roughly proportional to the position occupied by the victim. In addition to, the position that he occupies, the role that victim plays at the time of his death is important. The death of a mayor may well have a local impact but is unlikely to splash into wider circles. National impact generally results from the death of a national leader. If a victim’s role is purely ceremonial, it is difficult to imagine any major impact on the political system. I am sure this is the case here.

  5.The nature of the regime is important in assessing impact of an assassination. An important factor after an assassination is the nature of the political actors who occupy the chief positions in the system. Is it a cohesive, well-knit group likely to act decisively and in union? Or is it divided within itself by petty quarrels, containing restless and ambitious men with conflicting claims of loyalties. What about the political heirs of the victim? Are they able, determined and forceful? Who commands the armed forces? How loyal or how ambitious are these military leaders? I hope that the military leaders will exercise good judgment and if need be act in the interest of the people.

  The impact of an assassination on most political systems tend to be low:

  1.Many assassinations seen to be only partially political. Assassination is often directed against political figures as symbols of authority and not always focused on specific political issues or against specific political systems. In this case Djindjic was seen as a traitor to the interests of the Yugoslav people.

  2.Impact tends to be low when there are competent heirs or successors to support the regime or when political inertia maintains the regime in the post-assassination periods. When the heirs are incompetent or suspect, higher impact from the death of the victim may be registered forever. The assassin can take full advantage of a situation of this sort only when he acts for a group that is big enough and rich enough in political resources to alter the regime. In this case we will get more of the same.

  3.The Assassin succeeds completely only when his aims are quite simple, e.g. the removal of the victim, Attempts to achieve more complicated objectives are likely to go astray.

  4.On most occasions assassinations result in utter failure as far as the political aims of the conspirators are concerned, especially if these conspirators expect to profit politically from their deed. I hope that this is not the case.

  5.As far as the Individual assassin is concerned, even when some of his aims are achieved by his act, his own personal fate is frequently extinction. Most assassins of important political personages although not always all the conspirators are caught many are killed on the spot or quickly executed. If someone wishes to institute political change, particularly if one wishes to witness that change, he had better try some other means than assassination.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Wednesday March 12, 2003 at 11:57 pm
  Walter good post.

  Assassination does change a country believe me. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated it changed the future of the USA. The USA was never the same. The Kennedy family even campaigned on a happy note. The country as a whole felt good while he was president. If you were to ask me I would tell you that what John Kennedy did for the country was to give it hope. After that it went downhill. Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, Vietnam.

  If John Kennedy had not been assassinated he would have been a two term president, after that it would probably have been President Robert Kennedy.

  I was in Los Angeles when Bobby Kennedy campaigned before he was assassinated. Never has there been anything like it. The crowd was screaming for him and trying to touch him as they shouted his name.The sun was shining on his blonde hair and he was smiling and reaching out to them as they tried to touch him.He looked so sweet and boyish.He looked with love at the people who were calling his name.The streets were knee deep with supporters. You would have to see it to know what it was like and never to forget it. Not “One” candidate for president or president has ever seen a loving response from a crowd such as this.Yes, our future was changed and not for the better.

  The Vietnam war would not have dragged on. Nixon may not have ever been elected. No Watergate.

  For those of us who lived through this, we see that the assassination of John F. Kennedy and then Bobby Kennedy made a huge difference in this country. From then on nothing seemed rosy.

  What the assassin did not count on was making John F. Kennedy a legend. If he had lived to finish his term he would have aged as everyone else does and there would not be this fixation on Camelot. Bobby Kennedy is like his brother an icon. Same thing with Martin Luther King, he has his own day.

  I am still bitter that the assassins changed the entire course of the country. I cannot look at the newsreel of John Kennedy being shot without feeling dejected. I turn my head away from the picture and then I see Bush and shake my head. Boy it sure changed the course.

  I am waiting to hear what Vera has to say about Djindjic.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA