20 Comments

1. Kevin Peters:

Roger:

Even God did not have the patience to wait another eight years before the U.N. trial of Milosevic ended.

Mar 11, 2006 - 8:06 am 2. maria horvath:

But is the trial really over? Don’t be so sure.

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2208

Mar 11, 2006 - 9:21 am 3. Mark McGilvray:

Roger,

Is this a joke? “Attacking Fascism at its roots”? He didn’t even scratch the surface. See “Balkans: One Step Closer to War in Kosovo”, at http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/balkans/articles/20060311.aspx
Read the late Col. David Hackworth’s, “Hazardous Duty”, ch 9-10, for a military professional’s take on our success in the Balkans. All we are doing is sitting on the lid while the pot simmers. There are a million Milosovics over there. You seem to have no idea of the depth and extent of the ethnic hatred held by the region’s inhabitants for centuries.

I wonder if Milosovic died of boredom while the World Court Eunuchs made fools of themeselves.

Mar 11, 2006 - 9:41 am 4. Coisty:

This is the second death in a week at the Hague. I believe there have been others. It was also known that Milosevic was at serious risk of a heart attack yet the authorities refused to let him get adequate treatment. Forget Guantanamo it in the Hague where an investigation is needed. Have human rights groups protested this the way they do Guantanamo? I doubt it.

Mar 11, 2006 - 9:47 am 5. Coisty:

Clinton followed a policy of attacking fascism at its roots

The Serbs were the main victims of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. It was the supposedly anti-fascist Clinton who helped the Croats launch Operation Storm in August 1995 leading to the worst ethnic cleansing of all the wars in the former Yugoslavia. It is also believed that Clinton connived with the Iranians (are they anti-fascists too?) to arm both the Croats and the Muslims of Bosnia. Thanks to Clinton Serbs continue to be terrorised and cleansed in Kosovo – which Clinton kept calling Kosova (the Albanian name). If there were any justice it would be Clinton, Albright and Wesley Clark sitting in the Hague.

Incidentally Roger, and anyone else here who thinks it was right to bomb Serbia, would you support similar action against Israel for violating human rights and not obeying the UN?

In Kosovo especially the Serbs were fighting terrorism. Defense Secretary William Cohen claimed that up to 100,000 Kosovar Albanian men may have been killed yet after the bombing campaign only a couple of hundred bodies were found. Clinton lied, people died!

Mar 11, 2006 - 10:01 am 6. Kevin Peters:

Coisty:

Milosevic was a desperate Communist flunky who didn’t want to lose power when the former powerbrokers in the eastern block were losing theirs. So he took the governments control of the military and began whipping up the ethnic tensions that Tito had kept a lid on with a steel boot and used disgusting racial rhetoric to mask his power grab. Many of the various leaders of the individual camps of the former Yugoslavia(including the Croats and the muslims) can be blamed but Milosevic began the march to destruction instead of leading the transition from communism to some form of democracy. Every group can be blamed but Milosevic began the bloody war and his work in Bosnia is beyond any rational defense. And your cheap shot at Israel weakens your argument. maybe I missed it but was their a group in the former Yugoslavia that was pushing to “wipe all of Serbia off of the map of the world” or “All Serbs need to be killed.” And I don’t mean any Serb in any particular region. I mean all of Serbia. The Croats, the Bosnians, The Kosovarans, all have blood on their hands and have criminals that need to be jailed. But Milosevic whipped this up and never attempted to keep the peace in Yugoslavia or tried to broker a peaceful seperation. In a craven power grab he went straight to the notion of a greater Serbia and the methods he used can’t be rationally defended.

Mar 11, 2006 - 10:23 am 7. Coisty:

Kevin Peters: your cheap shot at Israel weakens your argument.

It was not a shot at Israel. If anything I think Israel is too restrained in its fight against terrorism. The case against Serbia was no stronger than that against Israel, with the usual tranzi forces and the MSM being responsible for the Serbs being labelled the baddies. Labelling the Serbs as fascists is no more justifiable than doing the same with Israel.

Roger clearly doesn’t care about the Balkans – where are all the blog entries about the ongoing violence against Serbs in Kosovo and the plans of the “international community” to legitimise terrorist violence by granting Kosovo its independence? He is using the Balkans and Milosevic’s death to justify his “idealistic foreign policy views” and the use of American military power. But he wouldn’t (and nor would I) advocate the use of such power to force Israel to comply with UN resolutions regarding the pre-Six Day War borders.

If war erupts in Kosovo in the next few months I hope the neocons aren’t going to demand military action just to dampen Muslim anti-Americanism. Serbia has been the West’s fall guy long enough.

Milosevic was a desperate Communist flunky who didn’t want to lose power

It is true that Slobo was only interested in power but aren’t all world leaders like that? The war was going to happen in Yugoslavia sooner or later so Milosevic, Tudjman and others used it to their advantage. In the end Milosevic abandoned the Serbs of Krajina, Bosnia, and Kosovo so he was a traitor to his own nation.

he went straight to the notion of a greater Serbia

The use of the term “Greater Serbia” discredits you. Many Serb areas ended up in “Republics” other than Serbia because the communist Tito wanted to weaken Serbia. Given how the Croats and Bosnian Muslims treated Serbs during WW2 it was perfectly understandable that the Serbs did not want to end up a minority in states run by their enemies. Greater Serbia was really about giving Serb regions within Republics the same right to secede as the Republics themselves. Is Israel guily of a Greater Israel policy for holding on to Jerusalem, never mind the West Bank? I don’t think so.

Mar 11, 2006 - 11:59 am 8. Coisty:

Here’s an excellent entry at Captain’s Quarters by “jerry”:

It is interesting how our perception of events is formed by the MSM. American and European opinion was formed by heavily pro Muslim biased coverage of the Balkan Wars of the 1990s. Even after the rise of Al Qaeda, the increasing dhiminitude of Europe as exemplified by the Danish Cartoon caper and the continued attacks on civil liberties in the name of tolerance toward the intolerable we continue to believe that the Serbs were the complete villains in the Balkans. I recommend reading “Fighting for Peace” by Major General Sir Michael Rose, who was the last UNFOR commander in Bosnia, provides a welcome realism to the events for which we condemn Milosevic…

In retrospect, the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo were merely a precursor to today’s Islamic threat to Western Society. It pitted both Byzantine Serbs and Catholic Croatians against forces of Muslim expansion in Europe. Because they were ìallies,î it is a little discussed fact that Croatians were far more brutal in their ethnic cleansing in Bosnia then were the Serbs.

Europe demonstrated both their military impotence and their intention to surrender to insurgent Islam in the Balkans. By the 2010 the European man in the street will consider Milosevic and the Serb people heroes for opposing a Muslim enclave in Europe.

Mar 11, 2006 - 12:01 pm 9. Kevin Peters:

Coisty:

I am no apologist for the islamo fascists that are turning the 21st century into a bloody mess. But Bosnia was no Taliban or Baathist state. Yes, the Croats have blood on their hands. Milosevic was not reponding to Muslim attrocities in Bosnia. The ethnic tensions were still alive in Yugoslavia but they were not at a point where war was required. Milosevic pumped them up to mask his participation in the corrupt(mild by soviet standards) olighargy of the former Communist regime. He needed the appeal to Serbian historical slights to keep himself in power. Serbia had comtrol of the bulk of the military power in Yugoslavia and did not need to wipe out “the enemy” to protect Serbs. And the raw deal that the Serbs have received in Kosovo can be laid at the feet of Slobo. The Albanian majority have treated the Serbs like dirt in the region and they have legitimate gripes. And the multi state split up of B.H. is a joke. But Milosevic wanted this war so it it hard to feel sorry for him. And if the Croats were worse then the Serbs in the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia then lets go after the war criminals there too(I believe there have been some prosecutions of Croats). But that doesn’t excuse Milosevic.

Mar 11, 2006 - 1:53 pm 10. Captain Hate:

“I recommend reading “Fighting for Peace” by Major General Sir Michael Rose, who was the last UNFOR commander in Bosnia, provides a welcome realism to the events for which we condemn Milosevic…”

I also recommend Diana Johnstone’s “Fool’s Crusade”, which goes into detail about how the story that got sold regarding the break up of Yugoslavia was a crock. I think Johnstone’s sympathies are highly suspect; she’s obviously very pro-Serb, without wanting to be explicitly so, but the evidence she marshalls is pretty incontrovertible and impressive. Basically, she takes up the narrative of Croation/Bosnian Muslim/Kosovar Albanian victimhood and shows it to be factually wanting, takes issue with the depiction of Serbians as genocidal monsters bent on domination, and uncovers Germany’s role in promoting the breakup of Yugoslavia. She also argues that there were no guiltless parties in the Yugoslav civil war, that the western powers, led by Germany, merely exacerbated the rotten situation by prematurely recognizing Slovenia and Croatia as independent states, and that Germany was motivated not by humanitarian motives but by geostrategic considerations. She, like me, is mystified by the cheerleading that the MSM did for this conflict; basically all the atrocities that they highlighted have been shown to be overstated, in some cases grossly so.

Mar 11, 2006 - 3:22 pm 11. Gary Rosen:

Kevin,

You can rest assured that coisty, who likes to write about “trotskyist neocons” *was* taking a shot at Israel. Kinda like Pat Buchanan, who recently referred to David Brooks as “cosmopolitan”.

These code words aren’t code words any more. Might as well just use kike, mocky and sheeny.

Mar 11, 2006 - 4:06 pm 12. gumshoe:

in my personal views,
(i imagine,like many americans),
the history of the Balkans
was(and remains)
too byzantine and convoluted for many of us
to sort out the ethnic rivalries
and historical grievances.

i tried for a time,
but couldn’t grasp what the basic
conflict(s) were about,
except to view it as evidence
of “Islam’s Bloody Borders”.

that Europe seemed o take so little interest in the events at the time was both baffling and alarming.

as several here have pointed out,
some of the Balkans events were generated
by the Soviet Union’s collapse
and the power vacuum that left behind.

the recent rumblings about
Putin,Venona,McCarthy,
Castro,Chavez+Ahmadingdong,etc.
are evidence to me that
there’s a substantial stretch of the Cold War that’s not been completely put to bed.

the symbiosis of the Mahdi-Mad
and the Glorious-Socialist-Utopia types
seems to indicate more of the same,
from my biased viewpoint.

the messy reality is that the collapse
of the bi-polar/super-power world
has not been an unmitigated good.

Mar 11, 2006 - 4:31 pm 13. Alexandra von Maltzan:

All Things Beautiful TrackBack Slobodan Milosevic ‘The Butcher Of The Balkans’

Mar 12, 2006 - 10:09 am 14. Patrick S Lasswell:

Studying history is a tremendous joy because you get to actually watch the changes happening.

Remember the movie “Wag the Dog?” For a time it was plausible that a movie producer could manipulate a fake war to cover a blown presidency. Figure the odds anybody would buy that movie’s premise today, 18 months after the blogosphere chewed Dan Rather to shreds.

The more important point of the movie was that a bunch of anti-war leftists put it together to oppose Clinton. Those same anti-war leftists are still doing everything they can to oppose freedom brought by Bush.

I remember getting really pissed watching “Wag the Dog” with my family because it was so insulting to the US military, implying that they were nothing more than lapdogs for their political masters. Ignoring history is the first step to being part of the anti-war movement, dismissing honor is the second.

Mar 12, 2006 - 10:46 am 15. Coisty:

Gary Rosen: Kevin,

You can rest assured that coisty, who likes to write about “trotskyist neocons” *was* taking a shot at Israel.

Gary Rosen is obviously paranoid. He takes offense at a mere reference to Israel but sees nothing wrong with referring to Serbs (the main victims of the Nazis in the Balkans) as fascists. It was Roger who claimed Serbs are fascists (has he even heard of Jasenovacs?).

Gary, you poor deluded child, if you deny the connection between Trotskyism and neoconservatism then you are an ignoramus. That is not to say that neoconservatism is completely useless – it is not ALL about moronic wars for “democracy”. Some neocons are at the forefront in the battle against Islamofascism – though obviously Iraq has nothing to do with that. The problem is that most of them, like Trotsky, believe in universal wars for universal values. In other words they are fools with no understanding of human nature. Sadly 2300 Americans, 100 Brits and many thousands of Iraqis have had to die to show that neoconservative ideology is nonsense. The war in Iraq is lost and all but the most deluded (like the laughable Ralph Peters) know it.

I’m wondering what the advocates of an “idealistic foreign policy” will say if the Kosovo talks break down and there is another war. Bill Kristol said publicly that the US should “crush Serb skulls” back in 1998-9 because Serbs weren’t willing to be pushed around by the “international community”. The Israelis, understandably, won’t be pushed around by the thinly veiled pro-Palestinian Tranzis either. Will Bill Kristol call for the crushing of Jewish skulls? I doubt it. What about you Gary? Do you want to crush the skulls of Serbian Christians too?

When people who were leftists only a few years ago dismiss Western Christians, like the Serbian nation, as fascists those of us of a Christian background must speak up. I’d be curious to know what the Serb-haters really think about the American soldiers in Iraq. Are they Christian fascists too?

Mar 12, 2006 - 4:59 pm 16. Charlie (Colorado):

Mocky?

Interesting to watch a thread where the moonbattery is about evenly distributed, though.

Mar 12, 2006 - 5:53 pm 17. Kevin Peters:

Coisty:

Milosevic’s Christianity is seriously in doubt. And if you want to compare the American soldiers work in Iraq to the Serbian Militia’s activities in Bosnia you have the right. But I think the comparison will not hold up to serious inspection.

Mar 12, 2006 - 9:52 pm 18. jerry:

I should be flattered by Coisty’s use of my material from another blog but I am not.

What I was trying to point out is not that Serbs were the “white hats” but that merely that our impressions of rights and wrongs were shaped, no more like warped, by the MSMs sympathies with the Muslims. In many ways the Muslims in both Bosnia and Kosovo set the stage for the Arafat’s manipulation of Western Public opinion to undermine Israel’s legitimacy. I did say that the European Man in the street will soon consider Milosevic and the Serbs heroes for standing up to Muslims. I am a bit uncomfortable with Milosevic getting good press but the fact remains that the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo were successful in achieving dominance over Christians in the region. The Balkans is the place where the modern clash of civilizations began. All I can say from personal experience and discussions with Canadian and British officers who served as Peacekeepers that what they tell me is substantially different then what I learned from the MSM.

I have come across a National Post article written in 2004 by Major General Lewis MacKenzie of the Canadian forces who commanded UNFOR in Bosnia in 19994. It is instructive on how wrong are perceptions of the conflict were.

http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/apr04/hed6360.shtml

Mar 13, 2006 - 11:05 am 19. david72:

This Hebe’s with Coisty. The Slob and his people had a legitimate beef and they were thrown off the Western sled in the hope of appeasing Muslim wolves. That the Vatican sided against the Slob and his people is hardly surprising. The Romans have always sold out their Orthodox Christian bretheren to the Muslims. Others should have known better.

The Slob’s methods weren’t our methods but they fit right in with the local fashion in slaughter. His prescription for dealing with mad dog Islamists was far more honest and effective than that of his ostensibly more civilized, less stalwart Western neighbors. Methinks Charles Martel just died in a UN jail cell. Who’s left to defend European Christendom? Blair? Chirac? Merkel?

The rush by the NYT to assure us that there was no foul play involved in the Slob’s passing is a hoot. It occurs to me this Purim eve that journalism would be much improved if Punk Sleazeburger and his entire editorial staff were hung by the neck from lampposts at Times Square like Haman and his sons.

Mar 13, 2006 - 2:41 pm 20. Captain Hate:

“It occurs to me this Purim eve that journalism would be much improved if Punk Sleazeburger and his entire editorial staff were hung by the neck from lampposts at Times Square like Haman and his sons.”

Maybe the MSM should be threatened with just this until they come clean with why they’ve chosen to demonize the Serbs continually for the last 20 years. Lacking such a vivid reality, I think I’ll make a point this year to read Rebecca West’s “Black Lamb and Grey Falcon” to remind me of when journalists were professional and their writing inspired.

Mar 13, 2006 - 3:52 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: