If folks like Svetlana Novko and La Julia are to be believed, the Serbian people are to the last man, woman, and child a pious, Christian people; daily churchgoers for sure. So of course there's no sex trade or sex industry in Serbia. Absolutely, positively not! Nopenopenope! No way, Josip! (And any claims to the contrary are all lies drummed up by Croatian Fascists and Bosnia and Albanian Nazi-lovin' Islamofascists!! ;-) )
(Warning: the links from the words "sex trade" and "sex industry" are most definitely NSFW!)
Thursday, November 22, 2007
La Julia Sez: "The United States was in violation of the law by declaring independence from England!!"
....well, not actually, but she might just have well said it. (It seems ironic that on this, one of the most quintessential American holidays, that I should be writing about something like this....) You see, La Julia (AKA Conservative blogger/"commedienne" Julia Gorin, for those new to the Blog), in her latest blog POSting, crows about how finally a member of the "MSM" is in agreement with her and all other "true believers", that it was those nasty Yugoslav republics like Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia, and not Slobodan Milosevic, who destroyed the de facto Greater Serbia known as the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia and started the Balkan conflicts of the '90s by declaring independence, and worse yet, actually getting international recognition for their efforts! (Why the effrontery! Why, how dare they not recognise the right of a largely Serbian dominated Yugoslav government-or at least from the death of Tito on-in Belgrade to rule over them!?) It is equally ironic that the source for this "joy" (more like schadenfreude) on the part of La Julia comes from the main newspaper of one of the "capital cities" of the American Revolution (and the home to the oldest Albanian-American community in the US), the Boston Globe.
In any case, here is what the Globe editorial actually says on the subject:
Now, from that editorial, it's hard to tell for sure by the wording if the writer is blaming the former Yugloslav "republics" for the wars, the international community for daring to recognise the breakaway republics as independent countries (as was their right to become if they so desired under the Yugoslav constitution), or both. But the meaning to La Julia seems pretty clear:
Yep, pretty clear there, I'd say. First and foremost, in her opinion, it was Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia. "You nasty little Yugoslav republics! Bad, bad ex-Yugoslav republics! Why, how dare you declare your independence from Mother Serbia, er Yugoslavia!?" (Not surprisingly, there are many who decry the dissection of Yugoslavia who at the same time consider the "north" to be "bullies" for "daring" to allow themselves to be dragged into a war in order to keep the United States together, instead of allowing a bunch of uber-traditionalist, luddite plantation owners to have their own country where they'd be free to continue declaring a significant part of the population to be "3/5ths of a human being"-and that only for purposes of democratic representation.) Of course, never mind that Yugoslav republics did have the right of unilateral secession (contra La Julia), or that Macedonia and more recently Montenegro did just what Croatia, Bosnia, and Slovenia did-with no retribution whatsoever. Nope, it was those nasty republics that did it (not surprisingly, the three that most often come in for demonisation by Serbian National(Social)ists and their supporters). Milosevic cant be held responsible for his actions-he was just trying to keep those miscreant republics in line (and under Belgrade's thumb....)!
But of course, sane rational people whose thoughts and beliefs are dictated by reason and logic, as opposed to systematic dogmas (no real thinking needed-just add adrenline!) that try to give one a "position" to take on every single matter in the world know better. Slobo and "Yugoslavia" could have responded differently. The wars could have been prevented-not by the republics continuing to remain part of a federation (and before that a kingdom) they never really wanted any part of to begin with-but by Belgrade respecting their right to secede if they so desired.
Now, if you're wondering what all this has to do with the US, and it's right to secede from Great Britain, well, that's simple. What we did was an illegal act. No doubt about it. We had no permission to secede from George III or his parliament, nor any right whatsover to do it, unlike the former Yugoslav republics. We did it on our own. And even Ben Franklin himself knew this when he said 'we must hang together, or we will be pretty sure to hang separately.' But we did it anyway, to the benefit of not only ourselves, but the whole world. But if the Boston Globe and La Julia are to be believed, we were naughty for declaring our independence against the English, and France was naughty for "having our back". By that logic, it is the Union Jack that should be flying over this land today, not the Stars and Stripes.
Remeber that, as you sit down to your Thanksgiving dinner (and by the way, a Happy Thanksgiving to all our American readers!). And remember also that Turkeys are for eating, not for listening to. ;-)
In any case, here is what the Globe editorial actually says on the subject:
While 20 of the EU's 27 members favor independence for Kosovo, nearly all dread a unilateral declaration. That prospect conjures up memories of Europe's careless acceptance of declarations of independence from Yugoslavia by Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia in the early 1990s. Those acts ushered in horrific wars and crimes against humanity.
Now, from that editorial, it's hard to tell for sure by the wording if the writer is blaming the former Yugloslav "republics" for the wars, the international community for daring to recognise the breakaway republics as independent countries (as was their right to become if they so desired under the Yugoslav constitution), or both. But the meaning to La Julia seems pretty clear:
Let the record show November 21, 2007 as the date that, for perhaps the first time in history since the 1990s Balkan wars, the mainstream American media has acknowledged that illegal acts of secession, hastily recognized by European nations, are what set off the Balkan wars. This is the first time I am seeing something other than, and in contradiction to, “Slobodan Milosevic set off the Balkan wars.”
Yep, pretty clear there, I'd say. First and foremost, in her opinion, it was Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia. "You nasty little Yugoslav republics! Bad, bad ex-Yugoslav republics! Why, how dare you declare your independence from Mother Serbia, er Yugoslavia!?" (Not surprisingly, there are many who decry the dissection of Yugoslavia who at the same time consider the "north" to be "bullies" for "daring" to allow themselves to be dragged into a war in order to keep the United States together, instead of allowing a bunch of uber-traditionalist, luddite plantation owners to have their own country where they'd be free to continue declaring a significant part of the population to be "3/5ths of a human being"-and that only for purposes of democratic representation.) Of course, never mind that Yugoslav republics did have the right of unilateral secession (contra La Julia), or that Macedonia and more recently Montenegro did just what Croatia, Bosnia, and Slovenia did-with no retribution whatsoever. Nope, it was those nasty republics that did it (not surprisingly, the three that most often come in for demonisation by Serbian National(Social)ists and their supporters). Milosevic cant be held responsible for his actions-he was just trying to keep those miscreant republics in line (and under Belgrade's thumb....)!
But of course, sane rational people whose thoughts and beliefs are dictated by reason and logic, as opposed to systematic dogmas (no real thinking needed-just add adrenline!) that try to give one a "position" to take on every single matter in the world know better. Slobo and "Yugoslavia" could have responded differently. The wars could have been prevented-not by the republics continuing to remain part of a federation (and before that a kingdom) they never really wanted any part of to begin with-but by Belgrade respecting their right to secede if they so desired.
Now, if you're wondering what all this has to do with the US, and it's right to secede from Great Britain, well, that's simple. What we did was an illegal act. No doubt about it. We had no permission to secede from George III or his parliament, nor any right whatsover to do it, unlike the former Yugoslav republics. We did it on our own. And even Ben Franklin himself knew this when he said 'we must hang together, or we will be pretty sure to hang separately.' But we did it anyway, to the benefit of not only ourselves, but the whole world. But if the Boston Globe and La Julia are to be believed, we were naughty for declaring our independence against the English, and France was naughty for "having our back". By that logic, it is the Union Jack that should be flying over this land today, not the Stars and Stripes.
Remeber that, as you sit down to your Thanksgiving dinner (and by the way, a Happy Thanksgiving to all our American readers!). And remember also that Turkeys are for eating, not for listening to. ;-)
Sunday, November 18, 2007
JTF.org
OK, I can hear somebody right now saying or thinking, "Peshku, why the hell are you bothering worrying about a bunch of nobodies like these guys? Someone "high profile" like Julia Gorin or Michael Savage I can understand, but these losers??" Well, let me say that even organisations like the ADL (IMO, we need an Albanian version of that, and have for some time) and The Southern Poverty Law Center monitor hate groups and Haters even less "significant" than JTF, Why? Because you can never take it for granted that people will see such groups and persons for the nutjobs they are. Also, because some of the most evil movements ever to threaten the peace and safety of the world started out as a few "nutjobs" getting together to bitch about what was pissing them off in their country and in the world, and to something about it-usually by force. The Nazis started out as six disgruntled German vets meeting in a bar.
So who or what is JTF? JTF stands for "Jewish Task Force". (The original name of the organisation was "Jewish Task Force on Media Bias".) They are an offshoot of Martin "Meir" Kahane's "JDL" (Jewish Defense League), an organisation that advocated Jewish people using indiscriminate violence to defend themselves and eliminate anti-semitism. Most notably, the the JDL was hugely racist, especially against Arabs and African-Americans (though for some reason Italian-American Catholics-esp. those who happened to be mafiosi-they didn't seem to have a problem with....). The JTF was founded in 1998 by and is today lead by a former JDL leader named Victor Vancier, better known to most today as "Chaim Ben Pesach". Vancier, who resembles both in facial appearance and dress the younger version (John Megna) of the Hyman Roth character from Godfather Part II, is a convicted terrorist, among other things. His organisation, like the one it is an offshoot from, is one that advocates violence and indiscriminate law breaking, is racist (one must admit, the idea of "Jewish White Supremicists" is one that kind of boggles the mind!), islamophobic, and has a long list of people and countries that they spew hate-filled invectives, including now Albania, all the Albanian-inhabited lands of the Balkans, and the Albanian people themselves. They have a standard organisation, a website, and produce videos that are aired on local public access in New York City, as well as are shown on youtube.
Of course, part of the reason for why they have so viciously targeted Albanians is doubtless because they have chosen to buy into the patently un-true myth that Albanians are by definition Muslims (though even if it were true, that would still be no justification, of course). But part of it is also because, in the true tradition of other bizzare alliances and collaborations, they have bought into the Serbian National(Social)ist lies that Serbs were the only ones to resist the Nazis in the Balkans, and the only ones to save Jews, and hence have joined their "side". Among other things, the JTF have moved on from making videos where they are "merely" demonising the Albanian people in opposition to the Serbs re: Kosova, to videos where Albanians and Albania are the exclusive targets of vicious harangues, including one where Vancier expressedly called for the abolition of the Albanian state, and the deportation of all Albanians to either Turkey or Saudi Arabia.
Now you still may ask: "Why bother with these jokers?" And my answer to that has been, and is: Because they advocate violence. Because they advocate the dismantling of the Albanian state, and the deportation of Albanians in the Balkans to Saudi Arabia or Turkey. Because they advocate mindless hate towards Albanians, based on lies, distortions, and half-truths. Because people need to know, no matter how "small" and "insignificant" they are. To me, so much as one "innocent" person falling victim to their propaganda and believing their garbage is one person too many, and so if this informational post, like my others on similar personages and groups, can save one person from being deluded by their lies, then I consider my time well spent.
Before I close, I am going to post a few of their more vitriolic Anti-Albanian videos. See for yourself. Be enlightened, so you won't be deceived!
And here's a few examples of their racism for good measure....
So who or what is JTF? JTF stands for "Jewish Task Force". (The original name of the organisation was "Jewish Task Force on Media Bias".) They are an offshoot of Martin "Meir" Kahane's "JDL" (Jewish Defense League), an organisation that advocated Jewish people using indiscriminate violence to defend themselves and eliminate anti-semitism. Most notably, the the JDL was hugely racist, especially against Arabs and African-Americans (though for some reason Italian-American Catholics-esp. those who happened to be mafiosi-they didn't seem to have a problem with....). The JTF was founded in 1998 by and is today lead by a former JDL leader named Victor Vancier, better known to most today as "Chaim Ben Pesach". Vancier, who resembles both in facial appearance and dress the younger version (John Megna) of the Hyman Roth character from Godfather Part II, is a convicted terrorist, among other things. His organisation, like the one it is an offshoot from, is one that advocates violence and indiscriminate law breaking, is racist (one must admit, the idea of "Jewish White Supremicists" is one that kind of boggles the mind!), islamophobic, and has a long list of people and countries that they spew hate-filled invectives, including now Albania, all the Albanian-inhabited lands of the Balkans, and the Albanian people themselves. They have a standard organisation, a website, and produce videos that are aired on local public access in New York City, as well as are shown on youtube.
Of course, part of the reason for why they have so viciously targeted Albanians is doubtless because they have chosen to buy into the patently un-true myth that Albanians are by definition Muslims (though even if it were true, that would still be no justification, of course). But part of it is also because, in the true tradition of other bizzare alliances and collaborations, they have bought into the Serbian National(Social)ist lies that Serbs were the only ones to resist the Nazis in the Balkans, and the only ones to save Jews, and hence have joined their "side". Among other things, the JTF have moved on from making videos where they are "merely" demonising the Albanian people in opposition to the Serbs re: Kosova, to videos where Albanians and Albania are the exclusive targets of vicious harangues, including one where Vancier expressedly called for the abolition of the Albanian state, and the deportation of all Albanians to either Turkey or Saudi Arabia.
Now you still may ask: "Why bother with these jokers?" And my answer to that has been, and is: Because they advocate violence. Because they advocate the dismantling of the Albanian state, and the deportation of Albanians in the Balkans to Saudi Arabia or Turkey. Because they advocate mindless hate towards Albanians, based on lies, distortions, and half-truths. Because people need to know, no matter how "small" and "insignificant" they are. To me, so much as one "innocent" person falling victim to their propaganda and believing their garbage is one person too many, and so if this informational post, like my others on similar personages and groups, can save one person from being deluded by their lies, then I consider my time well spent.
Before I close, I am going to post a few of their more vitriolic Anti-Albanian videos. See for yourself. Be enlightened, so you won't be deceived!
And here's a few examples of their racism for good measure....
Saturday, November 17, 2007
A dialogue on Conservatives, Serbs, and Albanians
Well, I'm afraid I didn't get much response to my posting last weekend asking why it seems that for so many "Conservatives", being Pro-Serb and Anti-Albanian is part and parcel of being a "true" Conservative. But one response I did get, from a Croatian Serb blogger who grew up in England named Alan Jaksic, I found particularly interesting, and so I decided to post it here, as well as my response to the writer's points.
****************************************
Something else I should point out: I have always tried to make clear that I feel there's a difference between "The Serbs" (or "Normal Serbs", as my occasional contributor Francois refers to them) and "Serbian Nationalists". I do not believe that all Serbs are Nationalists; in fact, I know this is not the case. Which is why I have even made positive posts on Serbs who are trying to escape/working against "the old hatreds" and Nationalism. On the rare occcasion when I do use the term "The Serbs", it is usually meant to reflect the point of view of the "Haters", rather than my own, since they seem quite unable, or more likely unwilling, to differentiate between "Serbs" and "Serb Nationalists". Such was the case of the title of the post you responded to, in fact (something I should have made clearer, but evidently erroniously assumed I didn't need to).
The other is because he, like Svetlana Novko of Byzantine Sacred Art Blog, takes such an over-the-top, "in your face, world!" attitude when "tooting" that aforementioned "horn". To be honest, I'd find it annoying even if I was totally neutral on Balkan affairs or Kosova/Kosovo. And no, I have no problem per se with a people being proud of their nation's or countrymen's sporting achievements-but like a lot of Americans, I find such hubristic trumpeting of it to be distasteful at the very least.
Yes, but as I said, I later discovered that at least a few of the "Haters" on the "right" were active well before that point-including people like Gorin and Feder. Also, I have real problems with calling the violence that took place in Kosova after the drowning deaths of the three lads in the Ibar a "pogrom", since usually a pogrom is a deliberate, well planned and organised act of racial/ethnic violence. And while there does appear to be evidence that some of the violent acts that took place at that time by Albanians were instigated by opportunistic political groups, taking advantage of a high tension situation where all the facts were not yet "in" at the time, a good bit of it also appears to have been a spontanious response. (Note: However much I may understand the emotions that were running through the Albanian community in Kosova at the time, I denounced then and continue to denounce the violent reaction to the incident, especially in light of the fact that all of the facts surrounding the incident were not yet known at the time. IMO, it was both a horrific thing from a moral standpoint, and a counterproductive thing from a practical/political one.)
****************************************
I've been to your blog before, and you present lots of realistic views and opinions. However, what I find rather unpalattable is your far-reaching condemnation of the pro-Serb side when it comes to Kosovo, or Kosova as you call it.Thank you for the kind compliments! I do need to say that actually, if you've read my blog entries throughly, you've probably noticed that in reality, I've written very little about the Kosova (I trust you will not mind me refering to it as such, as that is I am comfortable with and used to, just as I would would expect you to refer to it as "Kosovo") independence issue. To wit, to the best of my recollection, I have only a couple of times explicitly addressed the matter of Kosova independence in this blog. While I most definitely do support independence, my advocacy on behalf of that matter is not the primary focus of this blog. Rather, its purpose has been, from the "get-go", to refute slanders, lies, and half-truths against the Albanian people as a people, as perpetrated by various Serbian (and Greek) Nationalists and their supporters, as well as hypocritical and disingenous manipulations of both evidence and arguments by them designed to make out the Serbian (and/or Greek) people to be wholly "angelic" in comparison to the "evil", "barbaric", "nazi-islamo-fascistic" Albanian-an effort that I honestly believe goes far beyond a "mere" attempt to sway opinion on Kosova independence.
Something else I should point out: I have always tried to make clear that I feel there's a difference between "The Serbs" (or "Normal Serbs", as my occasional contributor Francois refers to them) and "Serbian Nationalists". I do not believe that all Serbs are Nationalists; in fact, I know this is not the case. Which is why I have even made positive posts on Serbs who are trying to escape/working against "the old hatreds" and Nationalism. On the rare occcasion when I do use the term "The Serbs", it is usually meant to reflect the point of view of the "Haters", rather than my own, since they seem quite unable, or more likely unwilling, to differentiate between "Serbs" and "Serb Nationalists". Such was the case of the title of the post you responded to, in fact (something I should have made clearer, but evidently erroniously assumed I didn't need to).
Ok, some of the protagonists of that camp may say things that are either factually incorrect or perhaps convey facts in an incorrect manner. But those members of the public who oppose Kosovo independence, however much you may personally justify it, do deserve some form of decent representation at the very least. And there are moderate advocates out there who do just that without having to apologising for Milosevic. Do have a look.
All due respect Alan, but I think you are putting it waaay too mildly when you say "some of the protagonists of that camp may say things that are factually incorrect or perhaps convey facts in an incorrect manner". I trust you have visited at least some of the websites and blogs of the "Haters", such as Svetlana Novko or Julia Gorin? If you have, then surely you have seen how practically all of them have tried to demonise the Albanians as a nation, i.e. as a people. Finding stories about Albanians engaged in any sort of misdeed, even half a world away, and making it out like "they're all like that", refering to the Albanian people as a people as being "beasts" and worse isn't just "saying things that are factually incorrect" or "conveying facts in an incorrect manner"; it's a cold, calculated attempt by way of using misinformation, "spin", and half-truths to foster misunderstanding, mistrust, and even downright hatred of an ethnic group en toto!
And why add "New Serbian Optimism" to your list of haters? Ok, I've seen the YouTube video on their site, and let me assure you that I don't agree with everything worded in that film. But that is a site devoted to bolstering the positive side of Serbia in the world of sport; there's nothing wrong with "tooting Serbia's horn", as you put it, "over any sort of sport achievement". That's the best way to promote any country and nation!
The other is because he, like Svetlana Novko of Byzantine Sacred Art Blog, takes such an over-the-top, "in your face, world!" attitude when "tooting" that aforementioned "horn". To be honest, I'd find it annoying even if I was totally neutral on Balkan affairs or Kosova/Kosovo. And no, I have no problem per se with a people being proud of their nation's or countrymen's sporting achievements-but like a lot of Americans, I find such hubristic trumpeting of it to be distasteful at the very least.
I notice where you mention in the article how you first heard from the "Pro-Serb/Anti-Albanian Conservative" crowd only in 2004. May I remind you that 2004 was the year in which the 17th March pogrom in Kosovo took place, followed later in that year by the November presidential elections in America between George Bush and John Kerry, who basically gave his support for an independent Kosovo. So it's not surprising that the anti-independence voice started to become louder at that time.
Yes, but as I said, I later discovered that at least a few of the "Haters" on the "right" were active well before that point-including people like Gorin and Feder. Also, I have real problems with calling the violence that took place in Kosova after the drowning deaths of the three lads in the Ibar a "pogrom", since usually a pogrom is a deliberate, well planned and organised act of racial/ethnic violence. And while there does appear to be evidence that some of the violent acts that took place at that time by Albanians were instigated by opportunistic political groups, taking advantage of a high tension situation where all the facts were not yet "in" at the time, a good bit of it also appears to have been a spontanious response. (Note: However much I may understand the emotions that were running through the Albanian community in Kosova at the time, I denounced then and continue to denounce the violent reaction to the incident, especially in light of the fact that all of the facts surrounding the incident were not yet known at the time. IMO, it was both a horrific thing from a moral standpoint, and a counterproductive thing from a practical/political one.)
You ask why so many Conservatives support Serbia and the Serbs, in your opinion, "so vociferously". I say why not, why not support Serbia and the Serbs? Is it a criminal offence to oppose Kosovo independence? I certainly don't think so. And is it so wrong to support a nation that, let's face it, has been so manipulated and grossly mislead by its many idiotic leaders during the 1990s, like the one mentioned above and the one you mention here? I think precisely such a people, like the Serbs, deserve and actually need, hear me out, need the support of other nations, even if some of its own members clearly don't deserve it.
- To reiterate, I do not consider myself to be "Anti-Serb" or "Anti-Serbian", and I do differentiate between "Serbs" and "Serb Nationalists". And when I used the term "Pro-Serb", I meant to have that understood as representing the viewpoint of the "Haters"; that THEY see THEMSELVES as "Pro-Serb" and "Pro-Serbian", and not simply "Pro-Serbian Nationalist". And I have no problem with Europe, "The West", etc. trying to support those whose vision for Serbia is one of a country that is fully integrated with the rest of Europe on all levels. But that is not what the "Haters" are supporting-in many cases, they are voiciferously and vehemnently opposed to it, as should be obvious to anyone reading their writings. They do not support "Serbia", they support "Serbian Nationalism". And that issue goes back far further into history than Milosevic or Seslj. It's a legacy that goes back at least to Ilia Garasanin, if not even further.
You condemn those who are "pro-Serb" and "anti-Albanian". Instead, how about you ask yourself, and your readers in turn, do you have to be "anti-Serbian" to be "pro-Albanian"?- To answer your question in short, no. But to be honest, I see a lot less polemic coming from Albanian sites and blogs (in fact virtually none) against the Serbs as a people in comparison to the hate-filled rants I see from Serbian bloggers towards Albanians as a people. Everybody in the Balkans has baggage to overcome before there is a chance for peace to "break out", but I'll be both blunt and honest: IMO, I think the Serbian and Grecian peoples have a lot more of that work ahead of them than the Albanians do.
I certainly ain't anti-Albanian myself, I can tell you that for sure.
- Do visit my website when you can Peshkatari. I hope to write and post a decent and balanced article on Kosovo soon. And please don't add me to your list of haters, 'cause I don't hate any nation under the sun.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
A Question: Why Do So Many "Conservatives" Seem to feel being Pro-Serb/Anti-Albanian is a Mandatory Part of being a "True" Conservative?
Today, I'd like to try something a little different on the ol' ARC: A little "audience participation", as it were. Specifically, I'd like to get your thoughts and opinions on why it seems that so many so-called "Conservatives" consider being Pro-Serb and Anti-Albanian to be a mandatory part of being a Conservative. The reason I'm asking is because, if you've ever noticed, most of the haters out there, from La Julia and Don Feder, to "policy analyst" Mary Mostert, to Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, most of the folks who frequent Free Republic, "new media" news sites like FrontPageMag, WorldNetDaily, etc. seem to be all Conservative Republicans or tend to represent that point of view. Now, mind you, there are some Conservatives who are on our side, like Bill O'Reilly (and IIRC, Sean Hannity too, though I can't remember for sure if he is or not), and some Conservative bloggers, like Patrick Poole. But by and large, most Conservatives seem to have a "Why, of course!" attitude towards the fact that they are Pro-Serb and Anti-Albanian, like it's an automatic given.
Now, I've been following Kosova since before I even got involved with the Albanian community, so I'm pretty aware of how things have developed over the past 15 years or so, both over there proper, and in other areas like political support for and against intervention in the situation that existed from '89 to '99. And I remember quite clearly that when we decided to intervene in the situation there, most of those opposed to it (or at least the most vocal) were far lefties like Jared Israel of emperors-clothes.com, and various "peace movement" types, all of whom the Serbian lobby courted quite fastidiously. There were a few "righties" out there, like La Julia, Feder, and the "freepers", who even back then were writing in opposition to it, either on "libertarian" non-interventionist grounds, or putting forth the old "The Serbs were our friends in two World Wars, and the Albanians have never been anything to us" argument, but they were a very small and easily ignored percentage of the voices out there (in fact, Pro-Serb/Anti-Albanian Conservative support didn't even hit my radar until about 2004). Most "Conservative" politicians, IIRC, supported intervention in Kosova back in '99. But something happened in between '99 and now. While there are still folks like Jared Israel and his buds out there still agitating for Serbia, and trying to defend the ghost of Milosevic, the majority of voices out there trying to derail Kosova independence, esp. in the "new media" and "blogosphere" are mostly Conservative/Republican.
Now all this makes me want to ask: "Why?" I mean, what is it about the Serbian/Albanian situation in the Balkans, both today and in history, or more the point, the Serbs and Albanians as peoples, that seems to make most Conservatives these days come out in support of the Serbs? I understand the "religion thing" is a part of it: After all, approximately 70% of all Albanians are Muslim. But that neglects two things: First, that Muslims, like Christians and Jews, are hardly uniform in all beliefs and practices. And Second, that 30% of all Albanians are Christian. Is it culture? It's hard to understand if it's from that point. Albanians have been famous for centuries for their independent spirit, industriousness, willingness to fight for what they believe in, strong families, hospitality, loyalty to friends, and the fact that like most Americans define themselves as American first, then a member of whatever religion they've chosen, most Albanians define themselves as Albanian first, then whatever religion they belong to. Those are all values that to the best of my knowledge are shared by most Conservatives.
So I'm hoping that some of you might put forth some opinions on exactly why so many Conservatives support Serbia and the Serbs so voiciferously. I'd especially like to hear from any readers who consider themselves "Conservative", since obviously they'd be likely to have the best insight into the matter. Now discuss! :)
Now, I've been following Kosova since before I even got involved with the Albanian community, so I'm pretty aware of how things have developed over the past 15 years or so, both over there proper, and in other areas like political support for and against intervention in the situation that existed from '89 to '99. And I remember quite clearly that when we decided to intervene in the situation there, most of those opposed to it (or at least the most vocal) were far lefties like Jared Israel of emperors-clothes.com, and various "peace movement" types, all of whom the Serbian lobby courted quite fastidiously. There were a few "righties" out there, like La Julia, Feder, and the "freepers", who even back then were writing in opposition to it, either on "libertarian" non-interventionist grounds, or putting forth the old "The Serbs were our friends in two World Wars, and the Albanians have never been anything to us" argument, but they were a very small and easily ignored percentage of the voices out there (in fact, Pro-Serb/Anti-Albanian Conservative support didn't even hit my radar until about 2004). Most "Conservative" politicians, IIRC, supported intervention in Kosova back in '99. But something happened in between '99 and now. While there are still folks like Jared Israel and his buds out there still agitating for Serbia, and trying to defend the ghost of Milosevic, the majority of voices out there trying to derail Kosova independence, esp. in the "new media" and "blogosphere" are mostly Conservative/Republican.
Now all this makes me want to ask: "Why?" I mean, what is it about the Serbian/Albanian situation in the Balkans, both today and in history, or more the point, the Serbs and Albanians as peoples, that seems to make most Conservatives these days come out in support of the Serbs? I understand the "religion thing" is a part of it: After all, approximately 70% of all Albanians are Muslim. But that neglects two things: First, that Muslims, like Christians and Jews, are hardly uniform in all beliefs and practices. And Second, that 30% of all Albanians are Christian. Is it culture? It's hard to understand if it's from that point. Albanians have been famous for centuries for their independent spirit, industriousness, willingness to fight for what they believe in, strong families, hospitality, loyalty to friends, and the fact that like most Americans define themselves as American first, then a member of whatever religion they've chosen, most Albanians define themselves as Albanian first, then whatever religion they belong to. Those are all values that to the best of my knowledge are shared by most Conservatives.
So I'm hoping that some of you might put forth some opinions on exactly why so many Conservatives support Serbia and the Serbs so voiciferously. I'd especially like to hear from any readers who consider themselves "Conservative", since obviously they'd be likely to have the best insight into the matter. Now discuss! :)
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
At Last!
The TRUE face of SerbianNational(Social)ism!
There aren't too many living human beings I can honestly say I really and truly hate, but the sub-human piece of filth pictured above is at the top of the list. Voijslav Seslj, who unfortunately is considered by many Serbs even today to be one of the greatest of their people to ever "grace" the planet with it's presence, is finally, nearly five years after it surrendered to the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague, going on trial for war crimes. If Slobo was "Hitler", this miserable POS was Julius Streicher, Alfred Rosenberg, and Adolf Eichmann all rolled into one. The one difference between him and Slobo is that while Slobo was crafty and careful to conceal his National(Social)ism with carefully crafted weasel words and actions, Seslj has been-in the true "more balls than brains" fashion of his kind-quite upfront about what he believes in, his goals, and his ultimate ambitions. Of course, that will be what ultimately hangs this fucker, despite his hubristic assumptions to the contrary. All else that I'll say is: Hope you enjoy your stay at the "Hague Hilton", Voijslav. You'll be there for a long, long time, bitch. :D
******************************************
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7082309.stm
Serb accused at war crimes trial
Prosecutors at The Hague said speeches he made during the wars in Bosnia and Croatia in the 1990s led to the murder, torture and persecution of non-Serbs.
Mr Seselj, the leader of the Serbian Radical Party, has denied the charges.
He has said he will rely on a political defence and use the tribunal to show there is a conspiracy against Serbia.
Mr Seselj surrendered to the ICTY voluntarily in February 2003, vowing to clear his name of three charges of crimes against humanity and six counts of war crimes, including persecution, deportation, murder and torture.
However, he remained the figurehead of the Serbian Radical Party (SRS) while awaiting trial and was elected one of its members of parliament in the January 2007 election.
The SRS subsequently became the biggest party in parliament, but was kept out of power by a coalition of reform-orientated parties.
'Unspeakable crimes'
Dressed in a dark suit and flanked by two guards, the 53-year-old appeared relaxed and confident at the start of his trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
In her opening statement, prosecutor Christine Dahl accused the former close associate of the late Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, of making several inflammatory speeches calling for the creation of a "Greater Serbia".
| | The destruction of her community, her life, her family exemplifies the product of the belligerent, bellicose nationalism propagated by the accused Prosecutor Christine Dahl |
She said hundreds of people were tortured and killed by Serb forces, who had been recruited or indoctrinated by Mr Seselj with "poisonous ideas" and sent to commit "unspeakable crimes" in Bosnia and Croatia.
Ms Dahl then told the story of a Bosnian Muslim woman who was raped by Serbs and whose husband and two young children were killed.
"The destruction of her community, her life, her family exemplifies the product of the belligerent, bellicose nationalism propagated by the accused," she told the tribunal's three judges.
Both he and Milosevic planned to ethnically cleanse large parts of the former Yugoslavia, Ms Dahl alleged, "but while Milosevic would not dare call aloud for the liberation of Serb territory, Seselj would, and did".
| | VOJISLAV SESELJ 1954: Born in eastern Herzegovina 1984: Jailed for criticising Communists 1990: Sets up Serbian Radical Party (SRS) 1991: Elected to Serbian Assembly 1993: Forces dissolution of Serbian parliament 1999: Resigns as vice-president in Serbian Government 2002: Stands in Serbian presidential elections 2003: Indicted by UN war crimes tribunal 2007: War crimes tribunal opens at The Hague |
"In the end, Mr Seselj did not achieve a Greater Serbia. He only managed to achieve a lesser Serbia, and gave the world the phrase 'ethnic cleansing'," she added.
The defendant chuckled when the prosecutor recounted the story of his dismissive reaction when he was told of atrocities committed by one of his volunteers.
"What can I do, he's tired - take his guns and send him home," Ms Dahl quoted him as saying.
Mr Seselj, who like Milosevic is acting as his own lawyer and displays contempt for the court, does not deny making nationalist speeches, but insists they do not constitute war crimes.
"I am being tried for atrocious war crimes that I allegedly committed through hate speech as I preached my nationalist ideology that I am proud of," he said at a pre-trial hearing on Tuesday.
"I have no other involvement in these crimes except for what I said or wrote."
He is due to make his opening statement on Thursday.
Mr Seselj's trial began a year ago, but was almost immediately stopped when he went on a hunger strike for 28 days to push various demands, including that he be able to defend himself.
Other key war crimes suspects, former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and his military chief, Gen Ratko Mladic, remain at large.
Milosevic died in detention in The Hague in March 2006 before his war crimes trial ended.
Political rhetoric
The BBC's Nick Hawton in Belgrade says Mr Seselj still has influence over political developments in Serbia.
MPs from his party turn up to debates wearing t-shirts or badges with his face emblazoned on them.
The SRS may not be in power, but political stability in Serbia is fragile and with the sensitive issue of Kosovo still to be resolved and a presidential election expected in the next two months, the party could benefit from the trial of their leader, our correspondent says.
Serbian state television has agreed to broadcast substantial parts of the trial, which is expected to last for about a year.
Many people will watch, either for the political rhetoric that Mr Seselj is sure to produce, or for the colourful and dismissive language that he employed in many of the pre-trial hearings, our correspondent adds.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7082309.stm
Published: 2007/11/07 15:14:43 GMT
© BBC MMVII
Monday, November 5, 2007
More on Jews, Albanians, and the Holocaust
I'm sure people like our "friends" Carl Savich and La Julia will do their best to try to debunk this, but for those of us who actually live in the real world, and aren't into the latest in "tin-foil" fashion, this article and others like it should bring a warmth to our hearts, and a joy to our souls. L'Chaim! :)
***********************************************
***********************************************
Sheltered from the Nazis in Albania
Albania was the only country in Europe in which there were more Jews after the war than there had been before the war, American photographer Norman Gershman said on Thursday at Yad Vashem.
He spoke at the opening of his exhibition honoring Muslim Albanians who rescued Jews during the Holocaust.
Gershman, who is Jewish, and who lives and works in Aspen, Colorado, has spent four years traveling the length and breadth of Albania to photograph families who provided a haven for Jews during the Holocaust years.
Before the war, there were only 200 Jews in Albania in a total population of 800,000. After the war, there were many more, with refugees from some half dozen other European countries.
King Zog himself saved the Weizmann family from Vienna, who fled to Albania after 1938's Kristallnacht, said Gershman, who managed to track the Weizmanns down in New York, where they now live.
Gershman on principle does not photograph wars or violence. What he looks for is the good in humanity. He is not necessarily an advocate for the Muslims of Albania, he said. "It's all about good people." He is greatly concerned about the growing paranoia in the world with regard to Muslims. "They think that all Muslims are terrorists - and that's crazy," he said.
Five years ago, he approached the Jewish Foundation for the Righteous in New York, about doing a project. They told him what little they knew about Albanian rescues. He said he wanted to do it, but they didn't have sufficient information. They referred him to Yad Vashem, which gave him access to its archives, and in turn referred him to the Israel-Albania Friendship Association, which is largely made up of Holocaust survivors rescued by Albanians.
The association in turn referred Gershman to the Albania-Israel Friendship Association and from there he was able to trace many people who had been involved in rescue operations, or in the case of those who had died in the interim, he learned the stories from their families, whose members he photographed.
Among those he photographed was Enver Alia Sheqer, whose late father, Ali Sheqer Pashkaj, rescued Yeoshua Baruchowic from a Nazi convoy, sent him into the forest to wait until the Nazis moved on, and then hid him for two years in his home, until the war was over.
Baruchowic, who today is a dentist in Mexico, came to Jerusalem for the opening of the exhibition. So did Sheqer. It was their first meeting, and it gave Baruchowic the opportunity to once again tell the story of the senior Sheqer's quiet heroism.
Albanian Charge d'Affaires Qirjako Kureta made the point that there was not a single instance in which Albanians accepted compensation for saving Jews. "Albanian was the only country in which Jews were not victims," he said, noting that Albanians had refused to comply with Nazi orders. They neither gave up their Jews nor supplied the Germans with names of Jews in their villages.
As a result, every Jew in Albania was saved.
The attitude of the Albanians derives from a philosophy called Besa. "It is a virtue that has characterized the Albanian people for centuries. It means faith and trust," said Kureta, adding that Albanians saw Jews as fellow human beings who needed shelter. Jews did not live in ghettoes in Albania, he said, but were integrated into the population.
Although the Jewish community in Albania was very small, Jews were not strangers there. The first Jews came to Albania 2000 years ago, said Kureta, who said both nations were small countries "with more history than geography."
Science, Culture and Sport Minister Ghaleb Majadle said that he was very moved by the exhibition. History was full of stories of war and inhumanity and people being killed, but the worst was the Shoah, he declared, "because the objective of the Holocaust was the extermination of a whole people."
Yet despite the horrors and brutality, he said, there were rays of light in the efforts to save Jews from the fate that the Nazis had in mind for them. The story of the Muslims who rescued Jews in Albania following the Nazi conquest in 1943 was a wonderful example of humanity and respect for the dignity of man, the minister said. "It deflates all that is said by those who would deny the Holocaust."
Muslims and Jews lived together in honor and dignity without compromise of values on either side during the Golden Age of Spain, said Majadele. "Jews and Muslims can live together in harmony and peace in the Middle East. We have to join hands and do our utmost to make that happen, with security for Israel and hope for the Palestinians so that we can once more be an example to the whole world. We must fight against ideologies of hatred."
Yad Vashem chairman Avner Shalev read an extract from a letter by a Holocaust survivor who wanted their family's rescuers to be recognized as Righteous among the Nations. "They may not have been educated on the heritage of Goethe and Schiller, but they attached the greatest importance to human life," the survivor wrote.
Yehudit Shendar, the curator of the Gershman exhibition, announced that it had been chosen to be the next exhibit at United Nations headquarters in New York, for International Holocaust Remembrance Day in January.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Serbian National(Social)ist porn!
Well, not exactly porn in the "normal" sense, but it's sure as hell obscene! It's nice to see that despite their claims that they don't want "Veljika Srbija" (Greater Serbia), that the (as usual) more-balls-than-brains Serbian National(Social)ists can still be counted upon to make their TRUE intentions blatantly obvious for all to see. Enjoy your sick and perverse little wet-dream, guys....your video is about as close as you'll ever get to seeing it happen for real. :D
Something YOU can do!
Last week, blogsupporter jamsjam made a posting on the albanian.com webboards urging people to flag as "hate speech" any videos people come across on youtube that are Anti-Albanian, an idea this blog wholeheartedly supports. While I fully support free speech, and don't believe that the government should be in the business of censorship, youtube is a private business, and in fact has set up within it's structure the means to flag videos that are in any way offensive.
Now, I'm not expecting or wanting folks to waste their whole day away hunting down offensive videos, but if you're on youtube, and you come across something that presents blatant (or even not so blatant) lies about the Albanian people, their history, their culture, or that advocates harm to Albanians, the abolition of Kosova or the Albanian state proper, etc., then please do yourself (and me) a favor, and flag it as hate speech. It's not hard to do, and literally only takes a couple of seconds. Thanks! :)
Now, I'm not expecting or wanting folks to waste their whole day away hunting down offensive videos, but if you're on youtube, and you come across something that presents blatant (or even not so blatant) lies about the Albanian people, their history, their culture, or that advocates harm to Albanians, the abolition of Kosova or the Albanian state proper, etc., then please do yourself (and me) a favor, and flag it as hate speech. It's not hard to do, and literally only takes a couple of seconds. Thanks! :)
How to "fisk" a Feder
The following is the "fisking" I did in late 2004 in an online discussion group I belong to of a piece by one of the staunchest of the "Haters", Don Feder. (The original piece can be found here.) Feder, a former Boston Herald columnist, is, shall we say, known for his rather dogmatic and extreme opinions, as well as his lack of diplomacy. Google him sometime-you'll find the results interesting, to say the least. Because of when I wrote the original "fisking", some things have changed since then, and so I've made a few changes-none of which substantially changes the points I originally made-as well as a few notations too.
***************************************
No, just death and destruction for a race of people they didn't like, who were legal citizens of their "empire".
Interesting. To me (and most people), a "terrorist" is a person or group that deliberately uses violence and intimidation on the civilian part of a populace. I've never seen any examples from credible, non-biased source or sources that shows that the UÇK leadership ever ordered any sort of systematic attacks on the Serbian, Roma, or other non-Albanian civilian segments of the Kosovar population from the time they were formed in 1996 to their official disbanding in 1999, the way during that time (and before) that the MUP (Interior Ministry Police) and local police were engaging in such actions against Albanian civilians. Or perhaps Mr. Feder is defining the term the way most governments do-that anyone who opposes the "lawful" rule of the reigning government in question is a "terrorist". In which case, everything from the Continental Army to Partisans fighting the Nazis in WWII is/was a "terrorist" organisation (and many such groups like them have indeed been labeled such by the powers that be).
Does saving a people who were begging us (and had been begging us even before the Dayton Accords) to be saved from potential annihilation have to be related to national security? I would have thought Oswiczim and Bergen-Belsen would have settled that argument forever.
Baloney. I've been following this issue closely since 1993, long before most people (or at least those who aren't Albanian or Serbian) had ever heard of the region. I think Mr. Feder needs to read some real history sometime: About how the Socialist Yugoslav government tried to wipe out Albanians who resisted their rule right after WWII; about how the Serbs tried to wipe them out during the First Balkan War; about how even after the province had been given "semi-autonomous" status in '74, that Albanians still had to put up with substandard institutions and second-class citizenship (which lead to the spring riots of 1981), because it was really Belgrade that still held the reins of power. He needs to read sometime about how Albanians in the early 90's went to bed in fear, hoping that they wouldn't hear a knock on the door from the local police, or even worse, the Interior Ministry Police. And how if they did, they hoped they would be alive the next day to tell the tale after their "questioning" down at the station. And he needs to read about Drenicë, Raçak, or Krushë Vela, among other things.
Hmmm....which "Yugoslavia" are we talking about here? The "Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes"? The post war Tito state? I'm not aware that either was "officially" Christian, especially not the Tito and post-tito states. And both incarnations contained Muslim citizens (some Albanians, Bosniaks, and some Serbian Muslims and Gorani, too). And as for our ally in two World Wars? Well, there was no "Yugoslavia" in WWI. There was a "Serbia", and we aligned with more or less "by default" with them rather than they with us, largely because they "stood up" to the big, bad Austro-Hungarian Empire (and actually, it was a gang of Serb revolutionaries, lead by Gavrilo Princip, who started the whole damned thing by assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife). And Yugoslavia in WWII was "busted up" into their constituent "republics" by the Nazis, all of which were Nazi puppet states (yes, we did fight with Yugoslav partisans, but most of the Chetnik bands were royalist and many, like that lead by the "great" Drazha Mihailovic, were willing to collaborate with the Nazis just as much as they were with us, too). So "Yugoslavia" was not our "ally" in two world wars, for the simple reason that it did not exist during either of them. Or is Mr. Feder equating "Yugoslavia" with "Serbia". If so, that is very telling....for that is precisely what Serbian Nationalists today do.
The UÇK has never identified itself with religion, it's members have never been exclusively Moslem (there were Catholic Kosovar Albanians fighting in the organisation, as well as well as non-Albanian, non-Moslem volunteers), and in any case, Albanians are the only people in the Balkans (with the possible exception of the Roma) who never have identified themselves by religion to begin with. Even the Yugoslav government during the Kosova situation (including the NATO action) never characterised them as an Islamic-based organisation.
I've never seen any reliable information to this effect. All the stories to this effect that I've seen have either had their origin in Serbian sources (surprise, surprise), or poor intellegence and/or biased/dubious outside sources. To the best of my knowledge, UÇK rejected working with the Mujahideen (unlike the Bosniak forces) because they did not want to be beholden to any sort of Islamic fundamentalist organisation. They clearly saw Kosova's future as being with the West, not the East. Kosovars have even rejected help from Saudi and other sources as far as rebuilding mosques and the like goes, as the times they did naively accept help, the organisations in question rebuilt things to Wahabi specifications, rather than recreate the original design and ambience of the building in question. Bin Laden and his outfit evidently had a presence in the Balkans from the mid 90's onward, but there is no-0-no evidence to suggest that he, Al-Qaeda, and UÇK ever cooperated, or made any deals with one another.
If NATO/KFOR's results have been "disasterous", it has been more because of their incompetence in handling the situation than anything else. (Though the unsettled status of the region, not to mention the hard-headness on some of the folks on both sides, hasn't helped much.)
Ancient? I wonder if Mr. Feder ever has tried to read any real history. The only time it's been a "province" by that name (or usually Kosovo-Metohija) has been in the 20th century. For 500 years before that, it was comprised of 4 Ottoman villyets, or administrative regions, and before that it was simply a region known usually as "Metohija", due to the large number of churches built there during the Nemanjid Dynasty.
We did (supposedly, had "Yugoslavia" gotten it's way in Kosova, Voivodina's Hungarians would have been next), and we didn't.
Mr. Feder seems to be forgetting a few things. Like George H W Bush's "Christmas Warning", putting Milosevic on notice that he might be subject to military action by the US if he kept oppressing Albanians in Kosova? That was certainly before Clinton.
Would Mr. Feder have been happier if we had actually lost military personnel there? If we'd fought a ground war instead? I don't think so.
He was Chief of their Political Wing, and their chief negotiator at Ramboullet. He was never their military CinC. That was Agim Çeku.
Kerry did so IIRC, not the DNC.
Hmmm....I suppose Feder only approves of military leaders with nomes de guerre like "Angelbutt", or "Sweetcheeks"? :-)
What "terrorist gang" might this be? UÇK? They weren't a terrorist gang (except to Serbian Nationalists, and their supporters like Mr. Feder, Julia Gorin, and Michael Reagan), and they don't exist any more, haven't since 1999. TMK (Kosova Protection Corps)? They are a multi-ethnic state police force. They are comprised in large part of former members of UÇK, but they are not a rebel army, they are the lawful police force of the region. Hashim Thaçi belongs to no "gang", terrorist or otherwise.
Well, at last he says something that has maybe some basis in fact. It's true that there is, and has been, some legitimate question as to how the UÇK gained some of it's finances, and some evidence that it might have been through morally and legally questionable means. However, can all the other revoultionary movements out there, even the ones that are pretty universally recoginised as having been "legitimate", claim to have gotten their financing and supplies only from morally and ethically "proper" sources? I think that most "revolutionary armies" don't look too closely at where their monies and supplies are always coming from. Maybe in a perfect world, they would. But when you are looking at fighting a properly equipped and financed army that's much larger than yours, maybe doing a through check to make sure that all the money and all the equipment comes from "proper" sources might not be the highest consideration at the moment. This is not to condone any rebel or revolutionary gaining financial resources or equipment by illegal means, but to acknowledge a simple fact of life.
Here Mr. Feder is correct. And the Serbian nationalists (like Draskovic and Seselj) and psuedo-nationalists (like Milosevic) have no one to blame but themselves. Kosovar Albanians prior to 1989 only wanted an equal republic with all the other Yugoslav republics. After that, they knew that the only way to end the harrasment of themselves by Belgrade was by independence. They tried the "Gandhi" method, until they realised that they were dealing with a bunch of goons who were determined to provoke them at all costs, and no matter how long it took, as a pretext for killing/expelling them.
Last I saw, Kosova was pretty solidly inside the bounds of Eastern Europe. And again, Mr. Feder seems to have this weird idea: All Muslims by definition are "fundies" or "islamofascists", and second, that Albanians who are Muslim are as devoutly fanatical about their Islam as Saudis, Iranians, etc. Nearly 14 years of personal experience tells me this is not true. Albanian Muslims are among the least religiously devout people I have ever known in my life. They are also a people that mostly think of themselves as Western (and ofttimes Latinate as well), not Eastern. Most if not all of them believe that religion is a personal matter, not a matter for public display. And certainly not something to be forced upon others. But then, I guess personal, first hand experience doesn't matter-only political philosophy and world view.
And the Nationalist ones are. Or perhaps he considers people like the late Zeljko Raznatovic (aka Commandante Arkan) to be heros?
Is there any evidence for what is being implied here-that they let it die because they thought it was "wrong" for us to save a group of 2,000,000 people from being at the least displaced, at most annihilated?
We were a part of a NATO coalition.
And so were the Brits "on board" too.
At the time Feder wrote that, it did appear that Kosova was indeed a lukewarm concern to him at best. Of course, at least as of this summer, he's moved it up to the front burner.
Taking in interest in the region, and not sucking up to Serbian Nationalist politicians like the ones in the SRS (Serbian Radical Party-no friends of democracy or free-enterprise, BTW), and actually caring about an ethnic minority that's gotten pushed around by both it's neighbors and invaders for centuries is "coddling terrorists"? Oh, but I'm sorry-I forgot. They're all Muslim, hence they're all fundies, hence they're all bad. :-(
Stuff and nonsense-the province had been about 90% Albanian (not Muslim, but then to an anti-Islamic types like Mr. Feder, there is no difference) at least since the early 60's. And much of the increase in Albanian population there was due to an increased birth rate on their part (Albanians there are Muslim or Catholic, and both do not believe in birth control), plus many Serbs leaving the area for urban centers, where the economy was better, and the chance for jobs greater.
Bull. Serbs never saw it as such until their own "national renaissance" that began with the publication of a nationalist tract called "Nacertanje" (The Program) in the 1840s. It was a part of the Nemanjid Dynasty (the only real Kingdom of Serbia that existed until after they got their independence from Turkey in 1878, when what amounted to a very wealthy pig farmer and bandit chieftain managing to get himself declared king), but the region during that time was never seen as central to said kingdom either politically or religiously. Kosovo Polije (Field of the Blackbirds), where the famous battle of the same name took place (which is more akin to the Alamo than Jerusalem, except for the fact that it wasn't just the "Brave Little Serbs" alone against the "Big Bad Turks"-there's plenty of evidence that it was a "coalition" effort, and on top of that, the battle was lost (though some, such as Balkans historian Noel Malcolm, claim a minor Serb victory in the battle) because of a couple of Serb generals that went over to the Turk side) has played a part in the Serb conciousness ever since 1389 (there was also a similar one a century later on the same spot, lead by the Hungarian king Janos Hunyadi, but most Serbs chose not to remember/honor that one), but that's a far different thing.
Is Mr. Feder completely ignorant of Balkan History? Or does he get it all from things like the Serbian Unity Congress website, or worldnetdaily? I'm not surprised that he picked up on the old Serbian Nationalist BS about a mass influx of Albanians into Kosova after WWII, but I am surprised that he put it as late as the 70's. Even the most rabid Serb Nationalist doesn't try to date it any later then the early 50's! Well, here are a few facts that are obvious to anyone who's done any serious study of the Balkans (and/or has any common sense).
First, Albania proper from 1944 to 1985 was in the hands of one of the most paranoid Communist dictators who ever lived, Enver Hoxha. Now there may have been some migration from Albania to Kosova (though why there should be, when most Albanians knew what happened to the Albanians living there in '46) the first few years after the war, when Enver and the Albanian Party of Labor were trying to get their power consolidated over the nation they "liberated", but I can guarantee that Albania from the late 40's onward, after the fallout with Tito, was sewn up tighter than a drum. VERY few people who tried to escape,whether by sea, or to Yugoslavia, or to Greece, ever suceeded. The borders were VERY tightly guarded, even the mountainous northern one with Yugoslavia. Most who tried to escape were shot, or brought back, severly beaten, and sentenced to VERY long prison sentences. The idea of huge numbers of Albanians streaming over the border during that time period is so ludicrous as to be dismissed out of hand, with no recourse to further evidence. Second, there's a little matter of the official 1953 Yugoslav census for the region. It puts the ethnic Serb population at 27%. Period. (Interestingly enough, in order to try to strip the Albanians there of any sort of ethnic identity without resorting to violence, the Yugoslav government made it so that a very high number of Albanians managed to redefine themselves, possibly unwittingly, as Turks.) And considering that the only other two major ethnic groups in the region (Turks and Roma) have never made a very high concentration of the population, guess who that leaves? (^_^)
Again BS, but I dealt with that above.
ALBANIANS (not "MUSLIMS"), have been a majority on and off in the region since at least the middle ages (most Albanians there didn't start converting-in order to make their lives easier, primarily-until about 2 centuries after the Turkish conquest of the region). The last time, IIRC, that Serbs were a majority (barely, at 60%) was sometime shortly after WWI. (But then, that's a real easy way to get people over to your side and "fired up"-just use a "buzzword" like "Moslem". Never mind that though technically true-most Albanians are Moslem-it only tells a very small part of the story. But then that would blow our "faith-based" view of the world out of the water. And we can't have that, now can we?)
The first time that happened was in 1968. Kosova was granted semi-autonomous status within Serbia in 1974, as was Voivodina. And the reason they "agitated" for autonomy was that they wanted to be granted the same rights and priveleges that all the other major constituent groups in Yugoslavia had-some of who were even less numerous than they were.
Yes, there was some Albanian on Serb crime, even back then. But at the same time, many of the "incidents" Feder alludes to were proven to have no basis in evidence-by Yugoslav police. And according to an independent survey done in 1990, there was more per capita Albanian on Albanian and Serb on Serb crime than there was Albanian on Serb. That's not to say it's right, but it is to say that Mr. Feder seems to be more interested in hystronic, unsubstantiated "spin" to support his side than he is objective fact (like that's a big surprise).
Yes, because they-along with a lot of the Albanian diaspora and even Kosovar Albanians-thought and hoped that the Rugova way (passive resistance) would ultimately work, as it did for Gandhi. Only one problem though-in order for passive resistance to work, you have to be dealing with an enemy that has a moral conscience, and normally acts civilised. Milosevic and his supporters were neither and had neither.
Yes, after year upon year of putting up with worsening harrasment of peaceful Albanian civilians, soley because they were Albanian. Of course, there is some argument that this is precisely the response Milosevic and his cronies were hoping for, and there is likely some merit to this argument.
Amazing. Mr. Feder is actually willing to admit that Slobo might have "overreacted" in his handling of the situation. How magnanmous. :-(
Yes, and people like Slobo, Draskovic, and Seselj have helped make it that way.
No, the issue started to get forced (as the Serbs no doubt hoped it would) when they invaded the Jashari compound, and not only killed the family patriarch, Adem, but all others there, including pregnant women (they cut the foetus out of one of them, alive) and young children. Of course, the Interior Ministry claimed they were all "terrorists". :-( And though neither side can be said to be 100% saintly, or 100% savage, objective history shows that, for good or ill, the Serbs (or at least the ones that have bought into nationalism) have chosen the latter role for themselves far more often than the former. (BTW, prior to the attack on the Jashari family, UÇK had next to no support from most Albanians, either in Kosova or in the diaspora. I remember that time very, very well, and remember a lot of Albanians expressing fears that they would crap up any chance for independence or even renewed autonomy, and that despite the failures and inaction of Rugova's policies, most wanted to continue going that route, since they saw it as their best bet for attaining their goals.)
The first was changes of borders due to war, IIRC. The second, voluntary migration after the settling of disputed borders. In neither case was it the effect of a state sponsored terror campaign, to the best of my knowledge. (Also, I'm not aware of any Albanian Serbs being resettled during that time, forcibly or otherwise.) Of course, it always helps to trivialise the plight of anyone you despise, make them look like a bunch of whiners. Or is Mr. Feder saying ethnic cleansing is OK, so long as it's the right people that it's being done to? I guess so, since he decries it for the Serbs (who did voluntarily leave Kosova, and were not systematically ethnically cleansed), but not for the Albanians (or Bosnians too, I assume).
All of which turned out to be true, even if the number of dead was smaller than was first predicted. But this makes it right?
Perhaps a bit overstated (BTW, it was Eichmann that was the architect of the Nazi "Final Solution", not Himmler), but whether genocide was the desired result, or merely "ethnic cleansing", that still makes it right? Especially against legal citizens of a country (though to Slobo's "credit", he was smart enough to try to have his "cops" confiscate all the passports and residency papers of all those who his thugs let go alive....)?
The US position was "no". Ditto for the UN and NATO. The only ones who were asking for it (and even they eventually were willing to settle for "autonomy") were the Albanians, and only because they knew that they could no longer live in peace under a Yugoslav regime.
So that the Serbs would stop trying to get rid of/harass Albanians.
No kidding. Milosevic and his buddies knew that if they did sign the treaty, their wet dream of an "Albanien Frei" Serbia would be crushed forever. And beyond that, Slobo knew also that if he did that, his time left in the drivers seat would be limited. Hence, he figured on trying to hold on to power by making himself look like the brave defender of the Serbs' interest, even if it meant getting his country bombed.
The fault was Milosevic's, pure and simple. There was nothing in the treaty promising independence for Kosova-at most, there was to be a review of the province's status in three years time. Hell, it didn't even call for a total withdrawl of all Yugoslav military troops. But Slobo just couldn't stomach the idea of a UN force being there to keep him from beating the crap out of Albanians any more.
Yeah-only took bright boy 3 mo. to figure it out.
And the MUP forces. And the Chetnik scum.
Baloney. They did not find the mass graves they expected right away (they eventually did find some, though the numbers were not as great as they thought for), but that's because Slobo and his buddies had found an intriguing way to avoid looking like monsters and being brought up on war crimes charges, or so they thought-removing at least some of the bodies to Serbia proper and burying them there. Some have been found under army bases near Belgrade, some in old refrigerator trucks in rivers, and elsewhere. But so what if the number found (and they are still finding them) was smaller than what the US and NATO thought they'd be? That makes it right?
Oh yay. This proves a point? Citing an article from 6 mo. after the end of hostilities, and that is almost 5 years past it's "sell by" date (note: As mentioned earlier, I wrote this "fisking" back in late 2004, hence the 5 year reference)? And why didn't Mr. Feder cite more of the article, so that people could see for themselves whether the quote was in or out of context? And why not an article more recent on the subject? (BTW, I tried to read the article for myself-it's on balkanpeace.org, a notoriously anti-albanian site. I couldn't access it for some reason, despite multiple attempts.)
Yes there were-from the Serbs, and of course people like Mr. Feder and others.
No-most of them who voiced an opinion, supported it.
Maybe because Milosevic made no serious attempt to cover up his intent, so the only people who did buy the Serbian-originated stories claiming this were those who supported (wittingly or unwittingly) Serbian Nationalism, and the pathetic wet-dream of a "Greater Serbia".
The reason we've not gotten out is because the UN still holds on to this ridiculous notion that Kosova can remain a part of the Republic of Serbia, and not break out into civil war eventually.
Well, since Mr. Feder has made it clear that even if there was, it was OK by him....
Again, nonsense. The mass exodus of military, police, paramilitary, and civilians was voluntary; the first three because they were ordered to leave as a part of the peace treaty, the last one because many of them had taken part in terrorising their Albanian neighbors-in some cases, people they'd been friends with for decades. They knew what likely awaited them when their neighbors returned-the same fate that most bullies suffer, esp, when there aren't even bigger bullies still to back them up.
That is more than the total number of Serbs believed to be living in the province at the time. According to the official 1991 Yugoslav census, the Serb population was 214,555. There would have had to have been (adding Mr. Feder's numbers-277,000 and 102,000 to get 379,000) nearly a 50% increase in Serbian population over 8 years! Even with forced migrations of Serb families to settle in Kosova, those figures seem totally out of line with pre-NATO population estimates and the relatively low birth rate in Serbian families at that time.
That is likely, and also both very wrong and very unfortunate.
"Destroyed"? Or is that the figure for sites either destroyed or damaged? I've seen figures approximating that for both, but not for soley "destroyed". And no, desecration or destruction of religious sites, regardless of religion (Serb forces destroyed several mosques in Kosova pre-1999, BTW), is not OK. But unfortunately, it is symptomatic of a larger problem, said problem being the severe mistrust and animosity that has risen like never before between the Serb and Albanian communities there. It is going to take a long time, given the history of the region, for reconciliation to take place.
The incident in question took place in an area of Kosova with very high ethnic tensions, near Mitrovicë. The actual "truth" was not (and some would say still isn't) known for sure. A couple of boys claim that they had wandered over to the "Serb side" of the Ibar river with their friends, where some locals spotted them, and chased them along with their dogs, forcing the boys to "swim for it". There seems to be some evidence that the boys may have been goofing around in the river, literally got in over their heads, and made up the story in order not to be blamed for the fact that three of their comrades drowned. There is no definitive proof one way or the other. There is evidence that some ad-hoc factions (not official government individuals or parties) did orchestrate in some regions the protests, violence, and vandalism that took place after the supposed incident. However, there is no evidence I've seen from reliable sources that the whole thing was coordinated by a central authority, governmental or non-governmental. The actions were not right, nor justifiable in any case. However, they do serve to show how long a road there is to be traversed until both parties can live together in peace and freedom.
Actually, that's the first accurate figure Mr. Feder's provided in this whole article.
In many places at the time Feder wrote his original piece, about 6 months after the unrest that took place over the Mitrovice incident, that was unfortunately probably true. And while the situation there is still far from perfect, that is basically not true today.
Was it possible if it had happened when Feder wrote his original piece? Probably yes. Was it likely? That is purely academic. It isn't now, and IMO won't be when Kosova finally gains independent status.
Interesting that he cites Ramsey Clark, since he's been a staunch defender of Milosevic, and of the Serbs in general.
No, I don't think there's any way you can give Chetniks a bad name. They've already managed that themselves. :-)
Hmmmm....and of course the right wing was being purely objective when they called the Nicaraugan Contras the same thing....yeah, sure, riiiighhhtttt.
0 Percent evidence of this (of course, that is in part because the UÇK doesn't exist any more).
Yes, though I believe that was initially in Bosnia in 1993. In any case, most of his activities in the Balkans from what I can tell were all conducted initially under false pretenses, and most of his actions were independent ones-he was interested in using the region as a base not with the conscious consent of the local governments, but under their noses. And I've seen no reliable evidence that he or Al-Qaida have ever been involved with UÇK. In any case, UÇK did not even exist prior to about 96-97.
Ah yes, "All the Moonie News that's Fit to Print"....
Hmmm....interesting that this "expert" is primarily a columnist for the WT, and that most of the places I see his "reports" cited are ultra-far right ones, making his reliability as an "objective" source somewhat dubious.
Nonsense. There has never been any attempt by any organised group of Albanians to destabilise the Montenegrin government that I'm aware of. Perhaps Mr. Feder is thinking of Macedonia, and in that case, the attempt was not to destabilise the government, but to get them to listen to the grievances of Albanians living as second-class citizens in Macedonia. The rebels disbanded immediately after a treaty was signed with the Macedonia government.
Utter nonsense. Searching for reliable evidence on this one brought up a goose egg-at least from any neutral sources. Most UÇK training camps were in Northern Albania or Southern Kosova, in highly mountainous regions near the border.
Baloney. There were a couple of Albanian nationals from Albania proper who were caught, IIRC. But what does this say? Nothing more than the fact that some Americans were fighting for them, too.
I've read that article (BTW, Mr. Feder is a year off on the publication date). A lot of the conclusions seem spurious, and the author's details more sketchy than I care for in any sort of a reliable information article. And all of her info citations hark to a website that seem to have more than, shall we say, a slight anti-albanian bias?
Unfortunately, there is indeed a drug trafficing problem there at the moment. Unfortunately, poverty and instablilty seems to breed such "alternatives".
I see Mr. Feder insists on boiling it all down to religion again, which shows how little he truly knows about the region, and how much he relies on articles, "experts", and fellow pundits.
Ibrahim Rugova a terrorist? Again, shows how little Mr. Feder knows (or wants to know) about the reality of the situation in the Balkans.
***************************************
KOSOVO: THE WAR DEMOCRATS LOVEDSo? Is that the only reason we should become militarily involved somewhere?
By Don Feder
There was a
little war of which Democrats are exceedingly fond -
so much so that they're still bragging about it five
years later. It's a conflict that didn't involve allegations of
weapons of mass destruction.
The nation we subjugated wasn't a sponsor of international terrorism.
No, just death and destruction for a race of people they didn't like, who were legal citizens of their "empire".
(this time we fought for the terrorists)
Interesting. To me (and most people), a "terrorist" is a person or group that deliberately uses violence and intimidation on the civilian part of a populace. I've never seen any examples from credible, non-biased source or sources that shows that the UÇK leadership ever ordered any sort of systematic attacks on the Serbian, Roma, or other non-Albanian civilian segments of the Kosovar population from the time they were formed in 1996 to their official disbanding in 1999, the way during that time (and before) that the MUP (Interior Ministry Police) and local police were engaging in such actions against Albanian civilians. Or perhaps Mr. Feder is defining the term the way most governments do-that anyone who opposes the "lawful" rule of the reigning government in question is a "terrorist". In which case, everything from the Continental Army to Partisans fighting the Nazis in WWII is/was a "terrorist" organisation (and many such groups like them have indeed been labeled such by the powers that be).
It wasn't remotely related to national security.
Does saving a people who were begging us (and had been begging us even before the Dayton Accords) to be saved from potential annihilation have to be related to national security? I would have thought Oswiczim and Bergen-Belsen would have settled that argument forever.
And the justification for our intervention turned out to be a complete fabrication.
Baloney. I've been following this issue closely since 1993, long before most people (or at least those who aren't Albanian or Serbian) had ever heard of the region. I think Mr. Feder needs to read some real history sometime: About how the Socialist Yugoslav government tried to wipe out Albanians who resisted their rule right after WWII; about how the Serbs tried to wipe them out during the First Balkan War; about how even after the province had been given "semi-autonomous" status in '74, that Albanians still had to put up with substandard institutions and second-class citizenship (which lead to the spring riots of 1981), because it was really Belgrade that still held the reins of power. He needs to read sometime about how Albanians in the early 90's went to bed in fear, hoping that they wouldn't hear a knock on the door from the local police, or even worse, the Interior Ministry Police. And how if they did, they hoped they would be alive the next day to tell the tale after their "questioning" down at the station. And he needs to read about Drenicë, Raçak, or Krushë Vela, among other things.
For 78 days in 1999, we bombed Christian Yugoslavia
(our ally in two World Wars)
Hmmm....which "Yugoslavia" are we talking about here? The "Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes"? The post war Tito state? I'm not aware that either was "officially" Christian, especially not the Tito and post-tito states. And both incarnations contained Muslim citizens (some Albanians, Bosniaks, and some Serbian Muslims and Gorani, too). And as for our ally in two World Wars? Well, there was no "Yugoslavia" in WWI. There was a "Serbia", and we aligned with more or less "by default" with them rather than they with us, largely because they "stood up" to the big, bad Austro-Hungarian Empire (and actually, it was a gang of Serb revolutionaries, lead by Gavrilo Princip, who started the whole damned thing by assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife). And Yugoslavia in WWII was "busted up" into their constituent "republics" by the Nazis, all of which were Nazi puppet states (yes, we did fight with Yugoslav partisans, but most of the Chetnik bands were royalist and many, like that lead by the "great" Drazha Mihailovic, were willing to collaborate with the Nazis just as much as they were with us, too). So "Yugoslavia" was not our "ally" in two world wars, for the simple reason that it did not exist during either of them. Or is Mr. Feder equating "Yugoslavia" with "Serbia". If so, that is very telling....for that is precisely what Serbian Nationalists today do.
to aid Moslem separatists
The UÇK has never identified itself with religion, it's members have never been exclusively Moslem (there were Catholic Kosovar Albanians fighting in the organisation, as well as well as non-Albanian, non-Moslem volunteers), and in any case, Albanians are the only people in the Balkans (with the possible exception of the Roma) who never have identified themselves by religion to begin with. Even the Yugoslav government during the Kosova situation (including the NATO action) never characterised them as an Islamic-based organisation.
who were tight with Osama bin Laden.
I've never seen any reliable information to this effect. All the stories to this effect that I've seen have either had their origin in Serbian sources (surprise, surprise), or poor intellegence and/or biased/dubious outside sources. To the best of my knowledge, UÇK rejected working with the Mujahideen (unlike the Bosniak forces) because they did not want to be beholden to any sort of Islamic fundamentalist organisation. They clearly saw Kosova's future as being with the West, not the East. Kosovars have even rejected help from Saudi and other sources as far as rebuilding mosques and the like goes, as the times they did naively accept help, the organisations in question rebuilt things to Wahabi specifications, rather than recreate the original design and ambience of the building in question. Bin Laden and his outfit evidently had a presence in the Balkans from the mid 90's onward, but there is no-0-no evidence to suggest that he, Al-Qaeda, and UÇK ever cooperated, or made any deals with one another.
Ever since, NATO has occupied its sovereign territory - with disastrous
results.
If NATO/KFOR's results have been "disasterous", it has been more because of their incompetence in handling the situation than anything else. (Though the unsettled status of the region, not to mention the hard-headness on some of the folks on both sides, hasn't helped much.)
Appearing on CNN's "Late Edition" in August, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
offered her husband's 1999 adventure, over the ancient province of Kosovo,
Ancient? I wonder if Mr. Feder ever has tried to read any real history. The only time it's been a "province" by that name (or usually Kosovo-Metohija) has been in the 20th century. For 500 years before that, it was comprised of 4 Ottoman villyets, or administrative regions, and before that it was simply a region known usually as "Metohija", due to the large number of churches built there during the Nemanjid Dynasty.
as evidence that Democrats are better at fighting wars than Republicans. (I would have thought Korea and
Vietnam proved that conclusively.) We smashed the
Serb war-machine, and "we didn't lose a
single American military person,"
We did (supposedly, had "Yugoslavia" gotten it's way in Kosova, Voivodina's Hungarians would have been next), and we didn't.
Hillary boasted of the conflict her draft-dodger hubby dragged us into.
Mr. Feder seems to be forgetting a few things. Like George H W Bush's "Christmas Warning", putting Milosevic on notice that he might be subject to military action by the US if he kept oppressing Albanians in Kosova? That was certainly before Clinton.
She neglected to mention that it was a war we fought from 30,000 feet.
Would Mr. Feder have been happier if we had actually lost military personnel there? If we'd fought a ground war instead? I don't think so.
The party of McGovern and Dean is so proud of this
notable feat of arms, that it invited Hashim Thaci,
chieftain of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)
He was Chief of their Political Wing, and their chief negotiator at Ramboullet. He was never their military CinC. That was Agim Çeku.
and Clinton's erstwhile ally, to attend the Democratic National Convention.
Kerry did so IIRC, not the DNC.
(You'd think the Party in a Perpetual Fog would be at
least a little curious about how Thaci got the nickname
"Snake." Hint: It's not because he's a patron of the arts.)
Hmmm....I suppose Feder only approves of military leaders with nomes de guerre like "Angelbutt", or "Sweetcheeks"? :-)
On his return to Kosovo, Snake Thaci - head of a terrorist gang
What "terrorist gang" might this be? UÇK? They weren't a terrorist gang (except to Serbian Nationalists, and their supporters like Mr. Feder, Julia Gorin, and Michael Reagan), and they don't exist any more, haven't since 1999. TMK (Kosova Protection Corps)? They are a multi-ethnic state police force. They are comprised in large part of former members of UÇK, but they are not a rebel army, they are the lawful police force of the region. Hashim Thaçi belongs to no "gang", terrorist or otherwise.
that finances its operations through drug-running and prostitution
Well, at last he says something that has maybe some basis in fact. It's true that there is, and has been, some legitimate question as to how the UÇK gained some of it's finances, and some evidence that it might have been through morally and legally questionable means. However, can all the other revoultionary movements out there, even the ones that are pretty universally recoginised as having been "legitimate", claim to have gotten their financing and supplies only from morally and ethically "proper" sources? I think that most "revolutionary armies" don't look too closely at where their monies and supplies are always coming from. Maybe in a perfect world, they would. But when you are looking at fighting a properly equipped and financed army that's much larger than yours, maybe doing a through check to make sure that all the money and all the equipment comes from "proper" sources might not be the highest consideration at the moment. This is not to condone any rebel or revolutionary gaining financial resources or equipment by illegal means, but to acknowledge a simple fact of life.
- proclaimed, "It was confirmed once again that a Democratic
administration would recognize and respect the will of the people of
Kosovo for self-determination." Self-determination is code for
independence from Yugoslavia
Here Mr. Feder is correct. And the Serbian nationalists (like Draskovic and Seselj) and psuedo-nationalists (like Milosevic) have no one to blame but themselves. Kosovar Albanians prior to 1989 only wanted an equal republic with all the other Yugoslav republics. After that, they knew that the only way to end the harrasment of themselves by Belgrade was by independence. They tried the "Gandhi" method, until they realised that they were dealing with a bunch of goons who were determined to provoke them at all costs, and no matter how long it took, as a pretext for killing/expelling them.
- the creation of another Republic of Jihad
(Balkanistan) on the periphery of Europe.
Last I saw, Kosova was pretty solidly inside the bounds of Eastern Europe. And again, Mr. Feder seems to have this weird idea: All Muslims by definition are "fundies" or "islamofascists", and second, that Albanians who are Muslim are as devoutly fanatical about their Islam as Saudis, Iranians, etc. Nearly 14 years of personal experience tells me this is not true. Albanian Muslims are among the least religiously devout people I have ever known in my life. They are also a people that mostly think of themselves as Western (and ofttimes Latinate as well), not Eastern. Most if not all of them believe that religion is a personal matter, not a matter for public display. And certainly not something to be forced upon others. But then, I guess personal, first hand experience doesn't matter-only political philosophy and world view.
Assistant Secretary of State for
European Affairs under Clinton, Holbrooke (who once
called the Serbs "murderous assholes")
And the Nationalist ones are. Or perhaps he considers people like the late Zeljko Raznatovic (aka Commandante Arkan) to be heros?
A war resolution died in the Republican House.
Is there any evidence for what is being implied here-that they let it die because they thought it was "wrong" for us to save a group of 2,000,000 people from being at the least displaced, at most annihilated?
What, we went to war without congressional authorization!
We also did it without the permission of the United Nations.
We were a part of a NATO coalition.
(Whatever happened toIt was multilateral, as Mr. Feder admits on the next line.
multilateralism?)
Still, the French and Germans were on board - always a bad sign.
And so were the Brits "on board" too.
In a July 23, 2004 letter to Albanian-Americans, Kerry
charged the Bush administration was "turning its back
on the region"
At the time Feder wrote that, it did appear that Kosova was indeed a lukewarm concern to him at best. Of course, at least as of this summer, he's moved it up to the front burner.
Whenever Bush doesn't coddle terrorists (the PLO, the KLA)
Taking in interest in the region, and not sucking up to Serbian Nationalist politicians like the ones in the SRS (Serbian Radical Party-no friends of democracy or free-enterprise, BTW), and actually caring about an ethnic minority that's gotten pushed around by both it's neighbors and invaders for centuries is "coddling terrorists"? Oh, but I'm sorry-I forgot. They're all Muslim, hence they're all fundies, hence they're all bad. :-(
Kerry accuses him of abandoning
whole regions. In said letter, Kerry declared, "The people of Kosovo
must be able to determine their own future, including how they want to be governed." Since "the people of Kosovo" now are overwhelmingly Moslem, thanks in part
to Clinton,
Stuff and nonsense-the province had been about 90% Albanian (not Muslim, but then to an anti-Islamic types like Mr. Feder, there is no difference) at least since the early 60's. And much of the increase in Albanian population there was due to an increased birth rate on their part (Albanians there are Muslim or Catholic, and both do not believe in birth control), plus many Serbs leaving the area for urban centers, where the economy was better, and the chance for jobs greater.
Kosovo is the ancient heartland of Serbian Orthodoxy.
Bull. Serbs never saw it as such until their own "national renaissance" that began with the publication of a nationalist tract called "Nacertanje" (The Program) in the 1840s. It was a part of the Nemanjid Dynasty (the only real Kingdom of Serbia that existed until after they got their independence from Turkey in 1878, when what amounted to a very wealthy pig farmer and bandit chieftain managing to get himself declared king), but the region during that time was never seen as central to said kingdom either politically or religiously. Kosovo Polije (Field of the Blackbirds), where the famous battle of the same name took place (which is more akin to the Alamo than Jerusalem, except for the fact that it wasn't just the "Brave Little Serbs" alone against the "Big Bad Turks"-there's plenty of evidence that it was a "coalition" effort, and on top of that, the battle was lost (though some, such as Balkans historian Noel Malcolm, claim a minor Serb victory in the battle) because of a couple of Serb generals that went over to the Turk side) has played a part in the Serb conciousness ever since 1389 (there was also a similar one a century later on the same spot, lead by the Hungarian king Janos Hunyadi, but most Serbs chose not to remember/honor that one), but that's a far different thing.
Until the 1970s, its population was predominately Serb.
Is Mr. Feder completely ignorant of Balkan History? Or does he get it all from things like the Serbian Unity Congress website, or worldnetdaily? I'm not surprised that he picked up on the old Serbian Nationalist BS about a mass influx of Albanians into Kosova after WWII, but I am surprised that he put it as late as the 70's. Even the most rabid Serb Nationalist doesn't try to date it any later then the early 50's! Well, here are a few facts that are obvious to anyone who's done any serious study of the Balkans (and/or has any common sense).
First, Albania proper from 1944 to 1985 was in the hands of one of the most paranoid Communist dictators who ever lived, Enver Hoxha. Now there may have been some migration from Albania to Kosova (though why there should be, when most Albanians knew what happened to the Albanians living there in '46) the first few years after the war, when Enver and the Albanian Party of Labor were trying to get their power consolidated over the nation they "liberated", but I can guarantee that Albania from the late 40's onward, after the fallout with Tito, was sewn up tighter than a drum. VERY few people who tried to escape,whether by sea, or to Yugoslavia, or to Greece, ever suceeded. The borders were VERY tightly guarded, even the mountainous northern one with Yugoslavia. Most who tried to escape were shot, or brought back, severly beaten, and sentenced to VERY long prison sentences. The idea of huge numbers of Albanians streaming over the border during that time period is so ludicrous as to be dismissed out of hand, with no recourse to further evidence. Second, there's a little matter of the official 1953 Yugoslav census for the region. It puts the ethnic Serb population at 27%. Period. (Interestingly enough, in order to try to strip the Albanians there of any sort of ethnic identity without resorting to violence, the Yugoslav government made it so that a very high number of Albanians managed to redefine themselves, possibly unwittingly, as Turks.) And considering that the only other two major ethnic groups in the region (Turks and Roma) have never made a very high concentration of the population, guess who that leaves? (^_^)
Due to illegal immigration from Albania,
Again BS, but I dealt with that above.
Moslems became a majority
ALBANIANS (not "MUSLIMS"), have been a majority on and off in the region since at least the middle ages (most Albanians there didn't start converting-in order to make their lives easier, primarily-until about 2 centuries after the Turkish conquest of the region). The last time, IIRC, that Serbs were a majority (barely, at 60%) was sometime shortly after WWI. (But then, that's a real easy way to get people over to your side and "fired up"-just use a "buzzword" like "Moslem". Never mind that though technically true-most Albanians are Moslem-it only tells a very small part of the story. But then that would blow our "faith-based" view of the world out of the water. And we can't have that, now can we?)
and began agitating for autonomy.
The first time that happened was in 1968. Kosova was granted semi-autonomous status within Serbia in 1974, as was Voivodina. And the reason they "agitated" for autonomy was that they wanted to be granted the same rights and priveleges that all the other major constituent groups in Yugoslavia had-some of who were even less numerous than they were.
Then they started committing atrocities against their Serb neighbors - like beating elderly nuns, raping
young girls and attacking monasteries.
Yes, there was some Albanian on Serb crime, even back then. But at the same time, many of the "incidents" Feder alludes to were proven to have no basis in evidence-by Yugoslav police. And according to an independent survey done in 1990, there was more per capita Albanian on Albanian and Serb on Serb crime than there was Albanian on Serb. That's not to say it's right, but it is to say that Mr. Feder seems to be more interested in hystronic, unsubstantiated "spin" to support his side than he is objective fact (like that's a big surprise).
Then the KLA -which the U.S. State Department listed as a terrorist
group as late as 1998
Yes, because they-along with a lot of the Albanian diaspora and even Kosovar Albanians-thought and hoped that the Rugova way (passive resistance) would ultimately work, as it did for Gandhi. Only one problem though-in order for passive resistance to work, you have to be dealing with an enemy that has a moral conscience, and normally acts civilised. Milosevic and his supporters were neither and had neither.
- started assassinating Yugoslav police and government officials.
Yes, after year upon year of putting up with worsening harrasment of peaceful Albanian civilians, soley because they were Albanian. Of course, there is some argument that this is precisely the response Milosevic and his cronies were hoping for, and there is likely some merit to this argument.
Slobodan Milosevic, an ex-communist apparatchik who was President of Yugoslavia at the time, overreacted.
Amazing. Mr. Feder is actually willing to admit that Slobo might have "overreacted" in his handling of the situation. How magnanmous. :-(
(It is the Balkans, after all, a region second only to the Middle East for ethnic/religious harmony.)
Yes, and people like Slobo, Draskovic, and Seselj have helped make it that way.
Casting about for a way to take the nation's attention off oral sex and impeachment, Bubba determined that we must intervene to save the saintly Albanians from the
savage Serbs.
No, the issue started to get forced (as the Serbs no doubt hoped it would) when they invaded the Jashari compound, and not only killed the family patriarch, Adem, but all others there, including pregnant women (they cut the foetus out of one of them, alive) and young children. Of course, the Interior Ministry claimed they were all "terrorists". :-( And though neither side can be said to be 100% saintly, or 100% savage, objective history shows that, for good or ill, the Serbs (or at least the ones that have bought into nationalism) have chosen the latter role for themselves far more often than the former. (BTW, prior to the attack on the Jashari family, UÇK had next to no support from most Albanians, either in Kosova or in the diaspora. I remember that time very, very well, and remember a lot of Albanians expressing fears that they would crap up any chance for independence or even renewed autonomy, and that despite the failures and inaction of Rugova's policies, most wanted to continue going that route, since they saw it as their best bet for attaining their goals.)
Ethnic cleansing was afoot, President Perjury gravely
intoned. Exactly how this was different from the
exchange of populations that took place throughout
Europe in the aftermath of World War II (think of
Poland and Germany, think of India and Pakistan)
The first was changes of borders due to war, IIRC. The second, voluntary migration after the settling of disputed borders. In neither case was it the effect of a state sponsored terror campaign, to the best of my knowledge. (Also, I'm not aware of any Albanian Serbs being resettled during that time, forcibly or otherwise.) Of course, it always helps to trivialise the plight of anyone you despise, make them look like a bunch of whiners. Or is Mr. Feder saying ethnic cleansing is OK, so long as it's the right people that it's being done to? I guess so, since he decries it for the Serbs (who did voluntarily leave Kosova, and were not systematically ethnically cleansed), but not for the Albanians (or Bosnians too, I assume).
was never quite explained. Worse, there were reports of killing fields and mass
graves.
All of which turned out to be true, even if the number of dead was smaller than was first predicted. But this makes it right?
Milosevic was cast as an architect of genocide
- the Heinrich Himmler of the Balkans,
Perhaps a bit overstated (BTW, it was Eichmann that was the architect of the Nazi "Final Solution", not Himmler), but whether genocide was the desired result, or merely "ethnic cleansing", that still makes it right? Especially against legal citizens of a country (though to Slobo's "credit", he was smart enough to try to have his "cops" confiscate all the passports and residency papers of all those who his thugs let go alive....)?
At the Rambouillet conference, the Yugoslav president
was presented with an ultimatum: allow a peace-keeping force into Kosovo (as a prelude to detaching the
province from Yugoslavia)
The US position was "no". Ditto for the UN and NATO. The only ones who were asking for it (and even they eventually were willing to settle for "autonomy") were the Albanians, and only because they knew that they could no longer live in peace under a Yugoslav regime.
and permit NATO forces to
occupy the entire country, if they choose.
So that the Serbs would stop trying to get rid of/harass Albanians.
The Serbs refused
No kidding. Milosevic and his buddies knew that if they did sign the treaty, their wet dream of an "Albanien Frei" Serbia would be crushed forever. And beyond that, Slobo knew also that if he did that, his time left in the drivers seat would be limited. Hence, he figured on trying to hold on to power by making himself look like the brave defender of the Serbs' interest, even if it meant getting his country bombed.
and the bombing commenced.
The fault was Milosevic's, pure and simple. There was nothing in the treaty promising independence for Kosova-at most, there was to be a review of the province's status in three years time. Hell, it didn't even call for a total withdrawl of all Yugoslav military troops. But Slobo just couldn't stomach the idea of a UN force being there to keep him from beating the crap out of Albanians any more.
We killed over 3,000 - mostly civilians, mostly with cluster-bombsBull. And most of the civilians who died were on, in, or near legitimate military targets at the time. It is still sad when any civilian dies as a result of military actions, but that is something that any leader of a country is supposed to be aware of when he consents to any sort of state of war with another country or entity. Milosevic had chances for 10 years to make things right with the Albanians living in Kosova. Instead, he insisted on stripping them of their jobs (if they worked in the public sector, which most people in Yugoslavia did, technically speaking), their homes (and often forcably moving Serbs from outside Kosova there-I know, I personally met one young Serbian woman once whose family was forced by the government to "resettle" in Kosova, against their wishes).
-- before Milosevic finally yielded to vastly superior force.
Yeah-only took bright boy 3 mo. to figure it out.
After the Yugoslav Federal Army was driven from Kosovo,
And the MUP forces. And the Chetnik scum.
forensic experts scoured the countryside, and came up empty-handed.
Baloney. They did not find the mass graves they expected right away (they eventually did find some, though the numbers were not as great as they thought for), but that's because Slobo and his buddies had found an intriguing way to avoid looking like monsters and being brought up on war crimes charges, or so they thought-removing at least some of the bodies to Serbia proper and burying them there. Some have been found under army bases near Belgrade, some in old refrigerator trucks in rivers, and elsewhere. But so what if the number found (and they are still finding them) was smaller than what the US and NATO thought they'd be? That makes it right?
A December 31, 1999, article in the Wall Street
Journal (coincidentally, by Daniel Pearl) reported
that allegations of "indiscriminate mass murder, rape
camps, crematoriums, mutilation of the dead - haven't
been borne out in the six months since NATO troops
entered Kosovo. Ethnic-Albanian militants,
humanitarian organizations, NATO and the news media
fed off each other to give genocide rumors
credibility. Now, a different picture is emerging."
Oh yay. This proves a point? Citing an article from 6 mo. after the end of hostilities, and that is almost 5 years past it's "sell by" date (note: As mentioned earlier, I wrote this "fisking" back in late 2004, hence the 5 year reference)? And why didn't Mr. Feder cite more of the article, so that people could see for themselves whether the quote was in or out of context? And why not an article more recent on the subject? (BTW, I tried to read the article for myself-it's on balkanpeace.org, a notoriously anti-albanian site. I couldn't access it for some reason, despite multiple attempts.)
Following these revelations, there were no cries of "Where are the MGs?" (mass graves).
Yes there were-from the Serbs, and of course people like Mr. Feder and others.
Republicans didn't begin every speech by accusing Clinton of lying to the nation in his rush to justify an unnecessary war (though they could have).
No-most of them who voiced an opinion, supported it.
Michael Moore did not make a documentary on how a
Democratic president engineered a conflict to advance his personal agenda. ("Fahrenheit 1999"?)
Maybe because Milosevic made no serious attempt to cover up his intent, so the only people who did buy the Serbian-originated stories claiming this were those who supported (wittingly or unwittingly) Serbian Nationalism, and the pathetic wet-dream of a "Greater Serbia".
No one in the media asked about Clinton's exit strategy (5 years
later, U.S. forces are still stationed in Kosovo)
The reason we've not gotten out is because the UN still holds on to this ridiculous notion that Kosova can remain a part of the Republic of Serbia, and not break out into civil war eventually.
or demanded to know how he intended to "win the peace." Whether or not there was ethnic cleansing before the war,
Well, since Mr. Feder has made it clear that even if there was, it was OK by him....
there certainly was afterward.
Again, nonsense. The mass exodus of military, police, paramilitary, and civilians was voluntary; the first three because they were ordered to leave as a part of the peace treaty, the last one because many of them had taken part in terrorising their Albanian neighbors-in some cases, people they'd been friends with for decades. They knew what likely awaited them when their neighbors returned-the same fate that most bullies suffer, esp, when there aren't even bigger bullies still to back them up.
Albanians, who were handed a victory by Clinton and
NATO, drove out 277,000 Serbs.
That is more than the total number of Serbs believed to be living in the province at the time. According to the official 1991 Yugoslav census, the Serb population was 214,555. There would have had to have been (adding Mr. Feder's numbers-277,000 and 102,000 to get 379,000) nearly a 50% increase in Serbian population over 8 years! Even with forced migrations of Serb families to settle in Kosova, those figures seem totally out of line with pre-NATO population estimates and the relatively low birth rate in Serbian families at that time.
(Hundreds were murdered and thousands brutalized.)
That is likely, and also both very wrong and very unfortunate.
As of March 2004, Moslem multiculturalists had
destroyed 135 Orthodox churches, monasteries and shrines
"Destroyed"? Or is that the figure for sites either destroyed or damaged? I've seen figures approximating that for both, but not for soley "destroyed". And no, desecration or destruction of religious sites, regardless of religion (Serb forces destroyed several mosques in Kosova pre-1999, BTW), is not OK. But unfortunately, it is symptomatic of a larger problem, said problem being the severe mistrust and animosity that has risen like never before between the Serb and Albanian communities there. It is going to take a long time, given the history of the region, for reconciliation to take place.
The rampage continues. The latest pogrom occurred in
March, when (in a planned and coordinated campaign) 28
Serbs were murdered, more than 600 wounded and another
3,600 forced to flee.
The incident in question took place in an area of Kosova with very high ethnic tensions, near Mitrovicë. The actual "truth" was not (and some would say still isn't) known for sure. A couple of boys claim that they had wandered over to the "Serb side" of the Ibar river with their friends, where some locals spotted them, and chased them along with their dogs, forcing the boys to "swim for it". There seems to be some evidence that the boys may have been goofing around in the river, literally got in over their heads, and made up the story in order not to be blamed for the fact that three of their comrades drowned. There is no definitive proof one way or the other. There is evidence that some ad-hoc factions (not official government individuals or parties) did orchestrate in some regions the protests, violence, and vandalism that took place after the supposed incident. However, there is no evidence I've seen from reliable sources that the whole thing was coordinated by a central authority, governmental or non-governmental. The actions were not right, nor justifiable in any case. However, they do serve to show how long a road there is to be traversed until both parties can live together in peace and freedom.
The Serbs left in Kosovo --estimated at between 102,000 and 114,000
Actually, that's the first accurate figure Mr. Feder's provided in this whole article.
-- live in a state of siege.
In many places at the time Feder wrote his original piece, about 6 months after the unrest that took place over the Mitrovice incident, that was unfortunately probably true. And while the situation there is still far from perfect, that is basically not true today.
Should KFOR be withdrawn, they'd all
be dead or exiled in a matter of days.
Was it possible if it had happened when Feder wrote his original piece? Probably yes. Was it likely? That is purely academic. It isn't now, and IMO won't be when Kosova finally gains independent status.
Yes, Kosovo truly was the Democrats' finest hour - a
prime example of just how tough the party of Jimmy
Carter and Ramsey Clark can be,
Interesting that he cites Ramsey Clark, since he's been a staunch defender of Milosevic, and of the Serbs in general.
when they're in a fighting mood. On the other hand,
their Kosovo allies are threatening to give
scum-of-the-earth a bad name.
No, I don't think there's any way you can give Chetniks a bad name. They've already managed that themselves. :-)
Back in '99, Senator Joe Lieberman, who's rumored to know something
about foreign policy, called the KLA "freedom fighters." Well, you know
what the moral relativists of the left say: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Hmmmm....and of course the right wing was being purely objective when they called the Nicaraugan Contras the same thing....yeah, sure, riiiighhhtttt.
As it transpires, the KLA is allied with other freedomf
fighters, -- whose SOP is car bombs and demolishing
sky-scrappers.
0 Percent evidence of this (of course, that is in part because the UÇK doesn't exist any more).
Bin Laden was active in the Balkans as early as 1994.
Yes, though I believe that was initially in Bosnia in 1993. In any case, most of his activities in the Balkans from what I can tell were all conducted initially under false pretenses, and most of his actions were independent ones-he was interested in using the region as a base not with the conscious consent of the local governments, but under their noses. And I've seen no reliable evidence that he or Al-Qaida have ever been involved with UÇK. In any case, UÇK did not even exist prior to about 96-97.
In a Washington Times story published within days of 9/11,
Ah yes, "All the Moonie News that's Fit to Print"....
defense expert Bill Gertz disclosed
Hmmm....interesting that this "expert" is primarily a columnist for the WT, and that most of the places I see his "reports" cited are ultra-far right ones, making his reliability as an "objective" source somewhat dubious.
: "Islamic radicals, including supporters of bin Laden, have been supporting Albanian rebels fighting in the region (who
then were trying to de-stabilize Montenegro),
Nonsense. There has never been any attempt by any organised group of Albanians to destabilise the Montenegrin government that I'm aware of. Perhaps Mr. Feder is thinking of Macedonia, and in that case, the attempt was not to destabilise the government, but to get them to listen to the grievances of Albanians living as second-class citizens in Macedonia. The rebels disbanded immediately after a treaty was signed with the Macedonia government.
including members of the Kosovo Liberation Army.
Intelligence officials have said there are reports
that KLA members have been trained at bin Laden camps
in Afghanistan."
Utter nonsense. Searching for reliable evidence on this one brought up a goose egg-at least from any neutral sources. Most UÇK training camps were in Northern Albania or Southern Kosova, in highly mountainous regions near the border.
During the initial fighting there,
U.S. units scooped up Kosovar Albanians who were
serving with the Taliban's foreign legion.
Baloney. There were a couple of Albanian nationals from Albania proper who were caught, IIRC. But what does this say? Nothing more than the fact that some Americans were fighting for them, too.
Another investigative article ("Al Qaeda's Balkan
Links," The Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2002)
noted, "By feeding off the region's impoverished
republics and taking root in the unsettled aftermath
of the Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts, al Qaeda, along
with Iranian Revolutionary Guard-sponsored terrorists,
have burrowed their way into Europe's backyard."
I've read that article (BTW, Mr. Feder is a year off on the publication date). A lot of the conclusions seem spurious, and the author's details more sketchy than I care for in any sort of a reliable information article. And all of her info citations hark to a website that seem to have more than, shall we say, a slight anti-albanian bias?
Also, in the wake of the Democrats' merry little war,
Kosovo became the prime route, after Turkey, for the
importation of heroin from Southeast Asia to Europe -
just one more way our friends the freedom fighters
thanked us for giving them a country.
Unfortunately, there is indeed a drug trafficing problem there at the moment. Unfortunately, poverty and instablilty seems to breed such "alternatives".
The foregoing all is courtesy of Bill Clinton, John
Kerry and the other Democrats who know what the US
military is for - killing Christians to aid Moslem terrorists.
I see Mr. Feder insists on boiling it all down to religion again, which shows how little he truly knows about the region, and how much he relies on articles, "experts", and fellow pundits.
In Kosovo, we put the terrorists in power.
Ibrahim Rugova a terrorist? Again, shows how little Mr. Feder knows (or wants to know) about the reality of the situation in the Balkans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
