Register to Comment
Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 199
Like Tree81Likes
  1. #161
    IvoShandor IvoShandor is offline
    IvoShandor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    7,818
    Twitter
    @

    Quote Originally Posted by Kf View Post
    Glenny was and still is considered to be quite sympathetic to the Serbs
    I consider him to be quite clear-headed in his writings. He didn't let sympathy deteriorate into partisanship.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kf View Post
    Here my tuppence worth on the Balkan wars. Unlike the Muslims the Serbs weren't fighting to hold on to to the unity of Bosnia. They were fighting to carve out a western and eastern shoulder of the country that could be connected to Serbia in the belief that post conflict the old internal borders of Yugoslavia would be redrawn. Therefore they had no real incentive to fight the clean war that the Muslims did.
    Excellent post. But I disagree with one thing. The Bosnian Serbs may have initially wanted to carve out their own state from Bosnia, but I think that during the war, appetite grew with the eating. At the height of their conquests, the Serbs were holding onto an area quite disproportionate to their proportion of the population, and showed no sign of stopping their advance. I think they wanted to occupy most of Bosnia and to drive most of the Bosnians into a small, shrunken, crowded and impoverished enclave,from motives of greed,yes, but also to forestall any Bosnian resurgence in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kf View Post
    They would have been brought up on a diet of stories of Serb patriotism, how their ancestors had prevented the Turks from invading Europe, how Serbs had been victimised, dispossessed and now lived on the margins in Bosnia. The urban, educated elite in Bosnia were the Muslims - that caused further resentment and in my opinion a collective chip on the shoulder of Serbs.
    We also have to take into account the diet of Goebbels-like propaganda these men were being fed, full of lies and distortions, whipping up hatred quite deliberately.I recall hearing about a list being circulated which was purported to be of Bosnian Muslim origin and which was supposed to show the names of hundreds-maybe thousands-of Serbs who were marked for death when Bosnia became independent. Whether any copy of this list was real (perhaps a kind of exercise in black propaganda) or just an artfully circulated rumour is unknown to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kf View Post
    .It is precisely this arguments you put forward that provides Serbs the justification of Srebrenica - a justification I heard in person two many times that I care to remember.
    Of course,The Bosnian Serbs and their apologists are being quite disingenuous in claiming that Srbrenica was in any way some kind of response to,prompted by,or a reprisal for Bosnian killings. We know that they needed no excuse, that killings on a massive scale began from the word go (examples:the Foca, Visegrad, Prijedor and Zvornik massacres).

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Pat View Post
    3) "the Serbs had a strategic interest in terrorizing civilians and as they were fighting to carve out a territory out of the old Bosnia they had no incentive to fight a clean war as the Muslims did." This really has to be questioned. In fact, it was the Bosniaks who wanted to break away from Yugoslavia, the Bosnian Serbs were quite content with the old Yugoslavia. As for a clean war by the Bosniaks, I think that needs to be taken with a large grain of salt. You admit that Naser Oric and his gangs were killing Serb civilians in villages around Srebrenica before Mladic and his henchmen arrived - there is a large discrepancy between the number of Serb victims of Oric's gangs - you say 150, Partizan says 3000 with given links- but, in any event, to imply that the Bosniak forces were above clearing territory for themselves is highly questionable.
    Yes, the Serbian government wanted to hold on to Bosnia, but when the breakup became inevitable,it made perfect sense (in a monstrous way) for the Bosnian Serbs to act as they did. They wanted to attach Serbian Bosnia to Serbia, so they didn't want a Muslim population there to object. Once the objective changed,Ethnic cleansing came onto the agenda.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScreeOrTalus View Post
    But no matter how many books I read on this subject, how many web sites I visit or posts I read (including this interesting thread) I'm still profoundly suspicious of "neocon", "humanitarian" intervention.
    For a start,the "Neo-Cons" (as a group with influence on American foreign policy) did not have positions of influence in an American government until the second Bush administration. Clinton was in the White House then and.....
    I'm sure the hapless Bosnians did'nt give a tuppeny damn who helped them. If it was between NATO or the early handwringing,pleading and moaning of the British and French, they knew there was no contest..

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Pat View Post
    Your words, not mine. Propaganda from whatever side including the Western Powers must be resisted and there was and still is a huge amount of it - just look at the "Serbs=baddies" on this thread, for example . The killing of non-combatants be it by Bosniaks, Serbs, Croats, Albanians, NATO or whoever is not justifiable.
    So? Sometimes propaganda coincides with reality or with part of it. Just because the news comes from Downing Street does'nt make it a lie, unless you can prove otherwise. Nothing that has been spoken here has disproved the initial assessment as to where most of the blame lies.
    Of couse the killing of non-combatants is wrong, but if you require a conflict where devils are fought by angels before you can distribute responsibility,you will not find it outside of the pages of fantasy.In, for example, the Spanish Civil War, the right side ,the "goodies", if you will,were responsible for the murder of large numbers of civilians, but the fact that we regard that as deplorable-rightly-does not exculpate Franco and his murderous cohorts. Not one whit. History has made its judgement on him.
    Last edited by IvoShandor; 11th August 2013 at 06:31 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #162
    ScreeOrTalus ScreeOrTalus is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,324

    Quote Originally Posted by IvoShandor View Post
    For a start,the "Neo-Cons" (as a group with influence on American foreign policy) did not have positions of influence in an American government until the second Bush administration. Clinton was in the White House then and.....
    I'm sure the hapless Bosnians did'nt give a tuppeny damn who helped them. If it was between NATO or the early handwringing,pleading and moaning of the British and French, they knew there was no contest..
    I don't want to sound like Noam Chomsky but didn't the actions by NATO in Balkans set up the doctrine of "humanitarian intervention"?

    And isn't it possible that the situation in the Balkans was simplified to justify both that specific intervention and to help justify future "humanitarian" interventions (e.g. Libya) and wars such as Iraq.

    IOW, I don't think Chomsky is completely wrong about this.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #163
    ScreeOrTalus ScreeOrTalus is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    4,324

    Quote Originally Posted by IvoShandor View Post
    So? Sometimes propaganda coincides with reality or with part of it. Just because the news comes from Downing Street does'nt make it a lie, unless you can prove otherwise. Nothing that has been spoken here has disproved the initial assessment as to where most of the blame lies.
    Of couse the killing of non-combatants is wrong, but if you require a conflict where devils are fought by angels before you can distribute responsibility,you will not find it outside of the pages of fantasy.In, for example, the Spanish Civil War, the right side ,the "goodies", if you will,were responsible for the murder of large numbers of civilians, but the fact that we regard that as deplorable-rightly-does not exculpate Franco and his murderous cohorts. Not one whit. History has made its judgement on him.
    I gave your expanded effort-post a 'Like' for the part I've quoted above.

    The part I've put in bold is fact of public life. An unfortunate fact, in my judgement.

    IRT The Spanish Civil War I've read books from both the leftist and pro-Nationalist perspective but don't know if there is a non-partial, yet non-apologist, historical account in readable book form.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #164
    Dr Pat Dr Pat is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    10,286

    Quote Originally Posted by IvoShandor View Post



    Yes, the Serbian government wanted to hold on to Bosnia, but when the breakup became inevitable,it made perfect sense (in a monstrous way) for the Bosnian Serbs to act as they did. They wanted to attach Serbian Bosnia to Serbia, so they didn't want a Muslim population there to object. Once the objective changed,Ethnic cleansing came onto the agenda.




    So? Sometimes propaganda coincides with reality or with part of it. Just because the news comes from Downing Street does'nt make it a lie, unless you can prove otherwise. Nothing that has been spoken here has disproved the initial assessment as to where most of the blame lies.
    Of couse the killing of non-combatants is wrong, but if you require a conflict where devils are fought by angels before you can distribute responsibility,you will not find it outside of the pages of fantasy.In, for example, the Spanish Civil War, the right side ,the "goodies", if you will,were responsible for the murder of large numbers of civilians, but the fact that we regard that as deplorable-rightly-does not exculpate Franco and his murderous cohorts. Not one whit. History has made its judgement on him.
    Ethnic "cleansing" wasn't just a prerogative of the Bosnian Serbs; it was practised by all sides in the Yugoslavian breakup.

    As for your point about propaganda, they say history is written by the victors and the Balkans wars are no exception. NATO conducted a media campaign supporting the illegal Kosovo landgrab by the Albanian section of its population which was as vigorous as its military campaign in bombing what were stated to be legitimate targets in Serbia and killing innocent Serbian civilians in the process. It is not unfair to say that the Western Powers have a powerful influence on Western media, whether one likes it or not. No chance of NATO generals being hauled before the Hague Tribunal, of course. Therefore, forgive me if I am skeptical of "official" views emanating from sources with patently obvious vested interests telling us just how awful the Serbs were.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #165
    likesfish likesfish is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,678

    the serbs started out with more firepower than everybody else, Although when given the chance various other players certainly capable of behavoiur that would have made the shankhill butchers feel sick (or possibly inadequate never can tell with sociopaths)
    the failure to stop it was embarrasing.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #166
    IvoShandor IvoShandor is offline
    IvoShandor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    7,818
    Twitter
    @

    Quote Originally Posted by ScreeOrTalus View Post
    I gave your expanded effort-post a 'Like' for the part I've quoted above.

    The part I've put in bold is fact of public life. An unfortunate fact, in my judgement.

    IRT The Spanish Civil War I've read books from both the leftist and pro-Nationalist perspective but don't know if there is a non-partial, yet non-apologist, historical account in readable book form.
    I liked Anthony Beevor's book on the war. He wrote it years before he achieved widespread fame with 'Stalingrad' and published a revised edition recently.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScreeOrTalus View Post
    I don't want to sound like Noam Chomsky but didn't the actions by NATO in Balkans set up the doctrine of "humanitarian intervention"?

    And isn't it possible that the situation in the Balkans was simplified to justify both that specific intervention and to help justify future "humanitarian" interventions (e.g. Libya) and wars such as Iraq.
    Perhaps, but that sounds as it was some kind of cunning plan, whereas these policies often arise as a response to a specific situation and are then rationalized. Policy makers can't be held hostage to the way that future administrations might interpret policy or doctrine that they formulated or nothing could be done. In any case, Bush's cabinet would have come up with some form of words to justify the Iraq invasion:they were like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Pat View Post
    Ethnic "cleansing" wasn't just a prerogative of the Bosnian Serbs; it was practised by all sides in the Yugoslavian breakup.
    The Serbs were not unique,but they opened that Pandora's Box and practised it with an incredible brutality. Yes, in the end their cruelty came back to bite them on the ass and to be perfectly frank I could never summon up a lot of sympathy for them;it was all used up on their victims (just as I can never find a lot of sympathy in my heart for, say, the Sudenten Germans.) As it says in the Bible "Those who sow the wind,reap the whirlwind".


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Pat View Post
    As for your point about propaganda, they say history is written by the victors and the Balkans wars are no exception. NATO conducted a media campaign supporting the illegal Kosovo landgrab by the Albanian section of its population which was as vigorous as its military campaign in bombing what were stated to be legitimate targets in Serbia and killing innocent Serbian civilians in the process. It is not unfair to say that the Western Powers have a powerful influence on Western media, whether one likes it or not. No chance of NATO generals being hauled before the Hague Tribunal, of course. Therefore, forgive me if I am skeptical of "official" views emanating from sources with patently obvious vested interests telling us just how awful the Serbs were.
    Well, for a start, I'll knock that old chestnut on the head. History is often written by the losers,especially if they can find good publicists. De Valera lost the Civil War but FF were writing the history books for a long time;The Old South fell, but one wouldn't have thought it in Alabama schoolrooms in 1950 and... where are the Bolshevik versions of the Russian Civil War now? But its less the historians (and do you really believe that Misha Glenny and Tim Judah take their orders from Tony Blair and the "vested interests"?) than the Forsenic Anthropologists that have told us "how awful the Serbs were" and that's pretty official.
    Powerful influence? Just so, but then again I saw different versions of that business in the papers then,they were not all singing the same song.

    they say history is written by the victors

    In the name of God who is supposed to have "won" here? Kosovo? Like Macedonia,another corrupt,divided and impoverished micro-state (one of several in Eastern Europe);Croatia now has to forego its dream of a greater Croatia;Bosnia has to accept an unstable union with the surly,restive and un-cooperative Bosnian Serbs while locked in with the scarcely more friendly Bosnian Croats;and Serbia will continue to mewl about the loss of Kosovo (a millstone around their necks, had they the wit to realize it). The only "victors" are Slovenia and Montenegro, who have left the whole sorry mess and its revanchist enmities behind.
    Last edited by IvoShandor; 12th October 2012 at 01:41 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #167
    Lonewolfe Lonewolfe is offline

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    19,186

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Pat View Post
    Ethnic "cleansing" wasn't just a prerogative of the Bosnian Serbs; it was practised by all sides in the Yugoslavian breakup.
    Whataboutery.

    Deal with the scale of what the Serbs did by comparison to all others. Deal with the fact that the Serbs were the intiial aggressors.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #168
    Dr Pat Dr Pat is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    10,286

    Quote Originally Posted by Lonewolfe View Post
    Whataboutery.

    Deal with the scale of what the Serbs did by comparison to all others. Deal with the fact that the Serbs were the intiial aggressors.
    Propagandist waffle. Prove it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #169
    Partizan Partizan is offline
    Partizan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    9,527

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Kf View Post
    Partizan - your posts on this would have far more credibility is you didn't use the phrase islamofascist to describe Nasir Oric. The man is no more an islamofascist than Martin Mc Guinness is a Catholicofascist. As for the number killed in the villages surrounding Srebrenica it was established by the Hague that the majority of the killings were military. While there were a number of civilian murders by those under Oric's command, notably in and around Kravica, the total number over the serb civilian murders during the 92 - 95 period was somewhere in the region of 150. That 150 too many but a far cry from 3,000.
    Let me rephrase that for you. Naser Oric is a murdering fascist scumbag. Period. No glossing over the crimes committed by the Bosnian Muslim side can every hide the crimes committed by him and his band of merry man. A Canadian journalist who interviewed Oric in 1995 was shown graphic evidence of his 'Greatest Hits'. Crime and Punishment by Nebojsa Malic -- Antiwar.com

    Look at the link that I gave you from B92. It says over 3,000 were killed.

    It is precisely this arguments you put forward that provides Serbs the justification of Srebrenica - a justification I heard in person two many times that I care to remember.
    Nobody is justifying any kind of murder. Srebrenica was a horrible, horrible crime. Murder is murder, no matter who does it. Serbs, Croats, Muslims. Each human life is equal. The life of a Bosnian Muslim is not worth more than that of a Serb.

    I think the black market organ thing has been utterly discredited by now.
    Dick Marty doesn't seem to think so and he was the one who exposed Rendition flights that were being operated by the CIA and facilitated by many states including Ireland. I do remember that when Marty exposed this, he was met with the same denial and blase statements from NATO/EU Imperialist/colonialist apologists and stooges who have invested so much in the political narrative that we have heard from the last 20 years regarding Yugoslavia, i.e. Serbs bad, everyone else good.

    I do agree with you though in relation to the gloss that was put on Kosova by the Yugo government from the 70's. In my opinion the changes made to the '74 constitution only feed into irredentist ambitions by the Albanians.
    I fully agree with you here. I would recommend to anyone Misha Glenny for a fully comprehensive understanding of the Balkans as well as the journalistic dispatches of David Binder of the NYT. Alan Little is also good as is Robert Fisk, Laura Silber and John Simpson.
    Last edited by Partizan; 1st May 2012 at 10:29 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #170
    Dr Pat Dr Pat is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    10,286

    Quote Originally Posted by IvoShandor View Post

    they say history is written by the victors

    In the name of God who is supposed to have "won" here? Kosovo? Like Macedonia,another corrupt,divided and impoverished micro-state (one of several in Eastern Europe);Croatia now has to forego its dream of a greater Croatia;Bosnia has to accept an unstable union with the surly,restive and un-cooperative Bosnian Serbs while locked in with the scarcely more friendly Bosnian Croats;and Serbia will continue to mewl about the loss of Kosovo (a millstone around their necks, had they the wit to realize it). The only "victors" are Slovenia and Montenegro, who have left the whole sorry mess and its revanchist enmities behind.
    Are you serious? Montenegro - a "victor"?. That "state" is mired in corruption. MonteNigeria might be a more appropriate name for it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment