Thursday, 27 March 2008

Kosovo, what have we done ?

Destroying Churches that date back to the 9th Century, destroying what Serbia is and has always has been. Kosovo has always belonged to Serbia. L@@k at these links please........
The real Srebrenica Genocide
WARNING - graphic pictures
Be sure to read the numerous comments which follow.
The main post originates at
This documents the genocidal attacks on the Srebrenica Serbs from 1992 - 1995.

Overview: Why should one read articles refuting the charge that Serbs committed mass murder in Srebrenica?
Small extract: July 11 is the tenth anniversary of the recapture of the East Bosnian town of Srebrenica by Bosnian Serb troops. In coming weeks we will be sending you a number of pieces challenging the official story about Srebrenica. According to the official account, after the Serbs re-took Srebrenica, they slaughtered 8000 Muslim men.

More articles on the "Srebrenica Massacre" hoax available here.

Emperor's Clothes Articles on Yugoslavia
A partial list

What really happened in Bosnia?
Were the Serbs the criminal aggressors, as the official story claims, or were they the victims?

Part 1 - Who was Alija Izetbegovic: Moderate democrat or radical Islamist?
Alija Izetbegovic, who fought the Bosnian Serbs, was portrayed in the Western mass media as a dovish defender of multiculturalism and human rights. But Izetbegovic published an entire book calling for the slaughter of 'infidels' so that Bosnia could become a theocratic Muslim state, as documented here.

Part 2 -- Painting fascists as victims and their victims as fascists: The mainstream media turned Bosnia upside down.

The media went out of its way to represent the Serbs as the supposed fascists and Izetbegovic's Islamist followers as the supposed victims. There is no shortage of evidence that the reverse was the truth. In fact, it appears that Alija Izetbegovic may have been a Nazi during World War II, and he certainly revived the Nazi SS Handzar Division in Bosnia in the 1990s, as documented here. But the media has not shared this with the public, calling him a 'moderate' instead.

Part 3 -- Who started the war in Bosnia? And who committed genocide? Was it the Bosnian Serbs, as NATO and the mass media alleged, or the Bosnian Muslim followers of Alija Izetbegovic?

There is no question that Alija Izetbegovic and his Muslim followers started the Bosnian war. The Bosnian Serbs were just defending their homes. Nevertheless, the media claimed that the Bosnian Serbs were supposedly conquering territory. The accusation against the Bosnian Serbs that they were supposedly exterminating the Bosnian Muslims was a total fraud, as documented here.

Articles on the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia



Anonymous said...

What NATO has done is a war crime. Clinton, Bush and Blair - and others - should be tried for war crimes. It is an absolute disgrace and what's happening to Kosovo makes my blood boil.

Here's the truth about what really went on. It's a couple of hours long but well worth it, especially when you discover what lengths NATO went to so they could bomb an ally:

The avoidable war -



Kosovo is Serbia.


Ray Boyd said...

Pity the links are not working - would have liked to look into this.

Anonymous said...

lucky that some folks knew the media would remove anything that could get to the truth and copied news of the day.
When Molsawick told his people before the war started " i won't allow anyone to beat you again"
Those few documented words should have made everyone ask what did the words refer to.
Moslems had been for years attacking the Serbs kinda like here it just gets censored.
This cannot be called a right wing rag by anyone at all.


America used Islamists to arm the Bosnian MuslimsThe Srebrenica report reveals the Pentagon's role in a dirty war
Richard J Aldrich The Guardian, Monday April 22 2002 Article historyAbout this articleClose This article appeared in the Guardian on Monday April 22 2002 . It was last updated at 02:43 on April 22 2002. The official Dutch inquiry into the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, released last week, contains one of the most sensational reports on western intelligence ever published. Officials have been staggered by its findings and the Dutch government has resigned. One of its many volumes is devoted to clandestine activities during the Bosnian war of the early 1990s. For five years, Professor Cees Wiebes of Amsterdam University has had unrestricted access to Dutch intelligence files and has stalked the corridors of secret service headquarters in western capitals, as well as in Bosnia, asking questions.
His findings are set out in "Intelligence and the war in Bosnia, 1992-1995". It includes remarkable material on covert operations, signals interception, human agents and double-crossing by dozens of agencies in one of dirtiest wars of the new world disorder. Now we have the full story of the secret alliance between the Pentagon and radical Islamist groups from the Middle East designed to assist the Bosnian Muslims - some of the same groups that the Pentagon is now fighting in "the war against terrorism". Pentagon operations in Bosnia have delivered their own "blowback".

In the 1980s Washington's secret services had assisted Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. Then, in 1990, the US fought him in the Gulf. In both Afghanistan and the Gulf, the Pentagon had incurred debts to Islamist groups and their Middle Eastern sponsors. By 1993 these groups, many supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia, were anxious to help Bosnian Muslims fighting in the former Yugoslavia and called in their debts with the Americans. Bill Clinton and the Pentagon were keen to be seen as creditworthy and repaid in the form of an Iran-Contra style operation - in flagrant violation of the UN security council arms embargo against all combatants in the former Yugoslavia.

The result was a vast secret conduit of weapons smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine agencies of the US, Turkey and Iran, together with a range of radical Islamist groups, including Afghan mojahedin and the pro-Iranian Hizbullah. Wiebes reveals that the British intelligence services obtained documents early on in the Bosnian war proving that Iran was making direct deliveries.

Arms purchased by Iran and Turkey with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia made their way by night from the Middle East. Initially aircraft from Iran Air were used, but as the volume increased they were joined by a mysterious fleet of black C-130 Hercules aircraft. The report stresses that the US was "very closely involved" in the airlift. Mojahedin fighters were also flown in, but they were reserved as shock troops for especially hazardous operations.

Light weapons are the familiar currency of secret services seeking to influence such conflicts. The volume of weapons flown into Croatia was enormous, partly because of a steep Croatian "transit tax". Croatian forces creamed off between 20% and 50% of the arms. The report stresses that this entire trade was clearly illicit. The Croats themselves also obtained massive quantities of illegal weapons from Germany, Belgium and Argentina - again in contravention of the UN arms embargo. The German secret services were fully aware of the trade.

Rather than the CIA, the Pentagon's own secret service was the hidden force behind these operations. The UN protection force, UNPROFOR, was dependent on its troop-contributing nations for intelligence, and above all on the sophisticated monitoring capabilities of the US to police the arms embargo. This gave the Pentagon the ability to manipulate the embargo at will: ensuring that American Awacs aircraft covered crucial areas and were able to turn a blind eye to the frequent nightime comings and goings at Tuzla.

Weapons flown in during the spring of 1995 were to turn up only a fortnight later in the besieged and demilitarised enclave at Srebrenica. When these shipments were noticed, Americans pressured UNPROFOR to rewrite reports, and when Norwegian officials protested about the flights, they were reportedly threatened into silence.

Both the CIA and British SIS had a more sophisticated perspective on the conflict than the Pentagon, insisting that no side had clean hands and arguing for caution. James Woolsey, director of the CIA until May 1995, had increasingly found himself out of step with the Clinton White House over his reluctance to develop close relations with the Islamists. The sentiments were reciprocated. In the spring of 1995, when the CIA sent its first head of station to Sarajevo to liaise with Bosnia's security authorities, the Bosnians tipped off Iranian intelligence. The CIA learned that the Iranians had targeted him for liquidation and quickly withdrew him.

Iranian and Afghan veterans' training camps had also been identified in Bosnia. Later, in the Dayton Accords of November 1995, the stipulation appeared that all foreign forces be withdrawn. This was a deliberate attempt to cleanse Bosnia of Iranian-run training camps. The CIA's main opponents in Bosnia were now the mojahedin fighters and their Iranian trainers - whom the Pentagon had been helping to supply months earlier.

Meanwhile, the secret services of Ukraine, Greece and Israel were busy arming the Bosnian Serbs. Mossad was especially active and concluded a deal with the Bosnian Serbs at Pale involving a substantial supply of artillery shells and mortar bombs. In return they secured safe passage for the Jewish population out of the besieged town of Sarajevo. Subsequently, the remaining population was perplexed to find that unexploded mortar bombs landing in Sarajevo sometimes had Hebrew markings.

The broader lessons of the intelligence report on Srebrenica are clear. Those who were able to deploy intelligence power, including the Americans and their enemies, the Bosnian Serbs, were both able to get their way. Conversely, the UN and the Dutch government were "deprived of the means and capacity for obtaining intelligence" for the Srebrenica deployment, helping to explain why they blundered in, and contributed to the terrible events there.

Secret intelligence techniques can be war-winning and life-saving. But they are not being properly applied. How the UN can have good intelligence in the context of multinational peace operations is a vexing question. Removing light weapons from a conflict can be crucial to drawing it down. But the secret services of some states - including Israel and Iran - continue to be a major source of covert supply, pouring petrol on the flames of already bitter conflicts.

· Richard J Aldrich is Professor of Politics at the University of Nottingham. His 'The Hidden Hand: Britain, America and Cold War Secret Intelligence' is published in paperback by John Murray in August.

Anonymous said...


The Art of Political Lying
By John Laughland
Created 2008-03-26 21:34

Hillary Clinton has proved that she can outdo the historical record of her husband, Bill. Whereas President Clinton is mainly remembered for lying about his sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary Clinton will now be remembered for having lied about a trip she made to Bosnia in 1996. You can watch her account of that trip, and compare it to the news reports at the time, here.

Hillary Clinton’s lie is, in my view, worse than Bill’s about Monica. When Bill Clinton said he had “never had sexual relations with that woman”, he knew that he was telling an untruth. The sentence was strictly true because by “sexual relations” he meant “sexual intercourse,” but he used semantics with the intention to deceive his listeners into believing that there had been no sexual relations of any kind with her, which there had been.

Hillary’s lie is of a different order. Her description of landing at Tuzla airport in 1996 and having to run to the car for fear of sniper fire was pure fantasy. She said there was no welcoming ceremony on the tarmac, when in fact there was. She was met by the president of Bosnia, and a schoolgirl who read her a poem. She did not run to the cars but instead spent several moments on the tarmac, in no danger of sniper fire whatever. 1996 was a year after the end of the war in Bosnia and the country was at peace.

The lie tells us something important about American political culture. It shows, unfortunately, to what extent militarism has become the dominant political ethic in that country. No other democracy regularly apostrophises the head of its executive as “the commander in chief”, and the rather primitive and exaggerated admiration for the capacity to inflict violence which is encapsulated by this phrase has become a decisive factor in the ups and downs of every American presidential campaign. John McCain, the real “Manchurian candidate”, is campaigning heavily on the basis of his war record, and Hillary’s fantasies about her trip to Bosnia were presumably an attempt to counter this.

Unfortunately, however, it is not the only lie that has been told about the Balkans. During NATO’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999, all NATO leaders, including Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, told much worse lies in their attempt to bolster public support for the violence they were inflicting on Yugoslavia. Hillary’s infantile fantasy about Tuzla pales in comparison with this statement by the British Prime Minister in 1999 about what was happening in Kosovo: “Women raped. Children seeing their fathers dragged away to be shot. Thousands executed. Tens of thousands beaten. 100,000 men missing. 1.5 million people driven from their homes.”

If Hillary was awarded “four Pinocchios” for her ultimately harmless braggadocio about Tuzla, Blair should be awarded the Adolf Hitler prize for telling such a Big Lie that no one would ever believe that he would have the audacity to tell it, and that therefore people would believe it. This quote from Blair is just one of many dozens of similar dishonest claims. I cannot, of course, rule out that women were raped in Kosovo, but I do rule out that children saw their fathers dragged away to be shot, that thousands were executed, or that any of Blair’s other claims were true. As I have detailed in my own books and articles on the subject there was never any racial genocide in Kosovo or anything remotely approaching it. Indeed, the evidence for Blair’s claims proved so non-existent – as non-existent as the later weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – that the charge of genocide was never even included in the otherwise fantastical indictment brought against Slobodan Milosevic by the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in May 1999.

That lie, unfortunately, unlike Hillary’s, and unlike the equivalent lies about Iraq, has not yet been really “found out”. People may not feel as emotional about Kosovo today as they did in 1999 (it is a feature of our sentimental political culture that moral outrage is as transient as it is intense) but they still believe that the Serbs committed terrible atrocities against the Albanians. In many cases, this belief in based on such a shaky grasp of the facts that Britain’s “leading quality newspaper” was able to write “Kosovo” instead of “Bosnia” when reporting Hillary Clinton’s Tuzla tall tale.

Concomitantly, they believe that the Albanians have a right to a state, having been such poor victims in the recent past. Very few people know about the counter-evidence produced during the Milosevic trial, for instance about how heavily armed the Albanians were (whereas the propaganda presented them as defenceless civilians); about how there was no plan to drive out the civilian population; about the terrible atrocities committed by Albanians; or about how all the Serb and Yugoslav armed forces were under strict instructions to observe the rules of war. The lies told by NATO to justify its war of aggression have become accepted truths and it will be a very long time, if ever, before they are rumbled.

We will therefore live with the consequences of this lie for many decades to come. As a result of it, a large piece of Mafia turf has been elevated to the status of sovereign statehood; a huge US base has been built in Kosovo, and it is evidently there to stay; and a people which fought bravely against the Nazis has been comprehensively demonised. The historian Arnold J. Toynbee famously argued that history follows very long cycles, and he is right: decisions (often based on lies) can have consequences which last for centuries. The lies told to justify the Protestant reformation or the French revolution have proved astonishingly successful, and they persist; Lenin’s decision to federalise the Russian empire, on the basis that the new administrative units reflected the pre-existence of distinct nations within the Soviet Union, was based on a lie whose consequences have still not fully developed.

We must, though, be thankful for small mercies. It seems likely that Hillary’s lie will have one short-term consequence, about which I am personally happy – and that is that she will never now be elected president of the United States.

Source URL:

Anonymous said...

Thank you very much for all information regarding Balkan.

Since I was staying in Kosovo for several weeks in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 I rapidly got information from muslims that the whole "war" was planned for several years. At first it was very hard to believe that some could be so satanic that they would push a war upon innocent people, but I keept meeting people that told all kind of stories about what they had done.

Some of my best friends are from Kosovo, they are all marked by the conflict, a conflict that had not been necessary at all!

Also thanks for some very good links in the first comment. It took 3 hours to see, but I am glad I did!

Part 1

Part 2