23 years from NATO's war of aggression vs. Yugoslavia - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15221030
Sandzak wrote:Greece faces shame of role in Serb massacre


1) Greece had no role in the Srbrnica "massacre" that went on for 3 years during which the Serbs had signed a lot of the peace agreements offered while the Muslims had rejected them all. The Muslims also never provided a reason for the war they started, nor did you ever provide a justification as to why you refused the Serbs breaking off Bosnia when you started the war to break off Yugoslavia, why are Muslims entitled to separate from Yugoslavia, while the Serbs are not entitled to seperate from Bosnia? Bosnia the country was founded & established by Serbs, not by Bosniak Muslims. The Serbs of Bosnia elevated the Muslims from a 'minority' to a 'constituent nation' and then the Muslims downgraded the Serbs from a 'constituent nation' to a 'minority' by force of arms. The same happened in Kossovo by the Albanians.

2) Around 100 Greek private volunteers took part in operations near Srbrenica at some point during that 3 year period.

3) Greece and Greeks are very proud and not shamed at all for the support they provided to Yugoslavia. My family hosted a Muslim Bosnian child for a 2 year period. The entire nation was on a war-footing and the Yugoslav war has marked my memory. My mother took me to pro-Yugoslav marches & concerts that were a weekly standard affair anyway. The Serbs were having concerts out in the streets defiant & proud while Belgrade was being bombed 20-30 times a day in 15 minute intervals just enough time for the medics to arrive and then be inoculated themselves by banned cluster bombs. The Greeks were doing the same in parallel in Athens and Piraeus, standing by the Serbs in defiance and we do not regret it at all.

4) Helena Smith of the Guardian has been extremely anti-Greek for decades, quite evidently from 99% of her articles, she only writes about Greek misgivings, from Yugoslavia to refugees, to the financial crisis and nothing good to say about anything, not even now when Greece is fully integrated in NATO(unlike back then), so her attitude is by no means pro-nato but deeper and more fundamentally anti-Greek.
Even more sinister than that, Helena Smith's organisation is the one that got caught red-handed manufacturing fake stories of "death camps" which today have been totally discredited, scientifically.



we talk about 7000 just in one town.


7000 dead over a 3 year period during which the Bosniak Muslims rejected all the peace plans while the Serbs agreed to them.

Phillip Corwin, former UN Civilian Affairs Coordinator in Bosnia, advisor and contributor to the work of the Srebrenica Research Group[330] said "What happened in Srebrenica was not a single large massacre of Muslims by Serbs, but rather a series of very bloody attacks and counterattacks over a three-year period."[331]

Lewis MacKenzie, former commander of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in Bosnia, was continuing to challenge the description of genocide in 2009 on the grounds firstly that the number of men and boys killed had been exaggerated by a factor of 4 and secondly that transfer of the women and children by bus contradicted the notion of genocide – the women would have been killed first if there had been an intent to destroy the group.


Lewis MacKenzie, former commander of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in Bosnia, was continuing to challenge the description of genocide in 2009 on the grounds firstly that the number of men and boys killed had been exaggerated by a factor of 4 and secondly that transfer of the women and children by bus contradicted the notion of genocide – the women would have been killed first if there had been an intent to destroy the group. Writing in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies (Vol. 12, Issue 1, Fall 2009), MacKenzie expressed his opinion without reference to the detailed arguments published by the ICTY Trial and Appeal Chambers in the Krstic case judgements published several years earlier and confirmed by the ICJ since.


The director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center office in Israel, Efraim Zuroff, also disagrees that Serb forces had genocidal intent. He explained: "As far as I know, what happened [in Srebrenica] does not [fit] the description or the definition of genocide. I think the decision to call it genocide was made for political reasons. Obviously a tragedy occurred, innocent people lost their lives and their memory should be preserved." Zuroff also called attempts to equate Srebrenica to the Holocaust "horrible" and "absurd", saying: "I wish the Nazis moved aside Jewish women and children before their bloody rampage, instead of murdering them, but that, as we know, did not happen."[340]


On 18 March 1992, all three sides signed the agreement; Alija Izetbegović for the Bosniaks, Radovan Karadžić for the Bosnian Serbs and Mate Boban for the Bosnian Croats. On 28 March 1992, after a meeting with US ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmermann in Sarajevo, Izetbegović withdrew his signature and declared his opposition to any division of Bosnia.
#15221065
Sandzak wrote:@noemon I know personally several people who survived Serb Death and Rape camps.

The Guardian is a trustfull source unlike your Serb conspiracy theories.


The Guardian has its moments but it's ultimately irrelevant because it does not say anything contradicting what I posted.

The Russians are actively using the same argument the Bosniak Muslims used, "we want all of the province, regardless of who lives in them" to justify their expansion.

Sandzak wrote:Same stuff comes from your orthodox brothers the Russians about the Bucha massacre.


Do the Russians have video footage of Ukrainian movie directors setting up a scene? Because the Serbs have footage of British journalists visibly directing and editing footage due to the fact that the journos were recorded while filming and they knew it. The 2 crews operated within a metre from each other. The British still did not care because they correctly believed that they would drown the Serbian footage filming them which have now been confirmed as valid in court in the UK. And the drowning has happened, even in youtube the German documentary uncovering the evidence is being removed and drowned.
#15221069
According to the Yugoslavian constitution any republic had the right to declare independence. The Serbs do not took part in the referendum even they got threatened by Karadzic to cut them all 3 fingers (I heard him talking in the radio).





Karadzic is turkish name "Kara" means black. The Serbs have complex because they are darker then Bosnians therefore they wanted in the Rape camps to create a new race.





@noemon You spread lies and conspiracy theories without providing real sources.
#15221075
Sandzak wrote:According to the Yugoslavian constitution any republic had the right to declare independence. The Serbs do not took part in the referendum even they got threatened by Karadzic to cut them all 3 fingers (I heard him talking in the radio).


The reason for leaving is Karadzic's response to the declaration of leaving and taking over half of Serbian territory as a gift. :roll:

Nice time-lapse. It is the same as Russia's argument for the DNR and LNR. It's not valid.

Karadzic is turkish name "Kara" means black. The Serbs have complex because they are darker then Bosnians therefore they wanted in the Rape camps to create a new race.


Whatever.

@noemon You spread lies and conspiracy theories without providing real sources.


All these are conversations we have had together over the years, with sources & references posted.

If you want to address them you will have to actually do so.
#15221188
noemon wrote:That said it is truly astonishing and embarrassing for the Serbs that the Serbs are totally OK with Russia doing the same to Ukraine, visiting the same kind of horror that they were visited upon and against their own Slavic and Orthodox brothers.

Not to mention that their favorite champion, Russia, has lost another 2 decades itself.

It's truly mind-boggling.


Serbs have always seen Russia as their champions.
This fundamentally make them never capable to be US ally.

The OP and Igor Antunov are both products of the Serbs, and apparently they are both good examples of what Serbs have become.

IMHO speaking on their behalf ultimately goes against the interest of freedom and democracy.
#15221214
Rugoz wrote:The genocidal maniac had to be stopped.


There were 3 seminal moments of US, NATO intervention and bombing in Yugoslavia.

The first was when the US decided to openly arm the separatist Muslims in Bosnia sometime around 1992/93, the excuse used by the US at the time was that Serbia was running "death concentration camps". This was total hoax utterly debunked by German journalists in the documentary posted by myself in this thread.

The second seminal moment was the US bombing of Serbia in 1995, the excuse used at the time was the shelling of Sarajevo by Yugoslav forces. Srebrenica had not come to the limelight yet.

The third seminal moment was the bombing of Serbia in 1999, the excuse used at the time was Serbia's refusal to sign an unconditional surrender, the total occupation of its entire territory and to bear the cost of that occupation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambouillet_Accords

Rugoz wrote:NATO should have done that by moving a peacekeeping force into Kosovo however, not by bombing stuff in Serbia (other than air defense). That was chickenshit.


The bad part was not just that NATO bombed civilians and civilian infrastructure in Serbia but that it flattened Pristina, the capital of Kossovo, killing more Albanians in the process than Serbia itself during the entire war. Several prominent Albanian intellectuals lamented the NATO bombing more than anything else that happened.

So, all in all, not even NATO used "genocide" as an excuse for its bombings.

If one leaves all these moral stuff aside and examines the causes of the war from a geopolitical & realpolitik perspective one can clearly see that US hubris due to the fall of the USSR is what led to this war and the worst part of all is that Yugoslavia was in a process of integrating itself with the West. It was extremely arrogant on the part of the US, to basically tell Yugoslavia, "you are not reforming fast enough, it'd be better if we break you up, after all the end of history is here and we won, so we can do whatever we like".

That was the attitude of the Brits and Americans at the time and it was open, the hubris was everywhere, leading to several countries getting utterly disgusted by the "west". After that it all went downhill with Iraq and the 2-3 decades of US domination were wasted away causing vast damage to the west and its liberal mission. It is these chickens that are roosting as we speak.

Patrickov wrote:Serbs have always seen Russia as their champions.
This fundamentally make them never capable to be US ally.


That is total nonsense. Yugoslavia's government during WW2 permitted the Germans to occupy the country, Yugoslavs revolted in masses and the government had to backtrack and back the allies instead, the Nazi's were refused free-passage and Yugoslavia went to war with the Nazi's instead, that was while the SU was still a Nazi ally.

After WW2, Yugoslavia split with the USSR and joined the west since 1948.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_split

The OP and Igor Antunov are both products of the Serbs, and apparently they are both good examples of what Serbs have become.


You should not be judging Serbia based on Igor and I_S. My Serbian friends in Cambridge, all openly support Ukraine. But that is besides the point anyway. We should not judge countries based on a few individuals and besides this for me at least has never been about teams but about logic and truth. Hence why I support Yugoslavia and Ukraine because both were/are fighting for their own national integrity.

IMHO speaking on their behalf ultimately goes against the interest of freedom and democracy.


I think you have this quite mangled, but I will take this opportunity to say that Yugoslav Serbia was an ultra-liberal model whose liberalism has not been seen in the earth, before or after its fall.

Yugoslavia is a country founded by 3 states. The Kingdom of Serbia, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats & Slovenes and the Kingdom of Montenegro.

The Kingdom of Serbia has now broken apart to Serbia, Kossovo, North Macedonia and Srprska in Bosnia.

The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes has now been broken apart to Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia.

And the kingdom of Montenegro has only stayed as it were.
#15221216
noemon wrote:You should not be judging Serbia based on Igor and I_S. My Serbian friends in Cambridge, all openly support Ukraine. But that is besides the point anyway. We should not judge countries based on a few individuals and besides this for me at least has never been about teams but about logic and truth. Hence why I support Yugoslavia and Ukraine because both were/are fighting for their own national integrity.


If you notice it I actually hold similar views against my own people (i.e. Chinese).

I also know a lot of Chinese against their own government or regime, but as long as they have not been able to overthrow their corrupt / tyrannical government the "punishment" would not spare them when the time comes.
In fact, I accept that I would face that punishment myself some day, and I am afraid those emigrated from Hong Kong would still be seen as Chinese and suffer.

The same goes for Russia and Serbia -- Serbia is being punished already so I am not going to comment too much.
Meanwhile, I also see a lot of Russians express their opposition against Putin, but since he already did the unthinkable, after this war Russians probably have to suffer, regardless of whether they are Putinist or not.

Collective guilt is not fair, but I see it as a "physical phenomenon", just like celestial things like black holes.


noemon wrote:I think you have this quite mangled, but I will take this opportunity to say that Yugoslav Serbia was an ultra-liberal model whose liberalism has not been seen in the earth, before or after its fall.

Yugoslavia is a country founded by 3 states. The Kingdom of Serbia, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats & Slovenes and the Kingdom of Montenegro.

The Kingdom of Serbia has now broken apart to Serbia, Kossovo, North Macedonia and Srprska in Bosnia.

The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes has now been broken apart to Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia.

And the kingdom of Montenegro has only stayed as it were.



IMHO the 19th and 20th century history of Yugoslavia was Serbs grabbed their opportunity to implement their pan-(Yugo)slavic dreams. They failed.
#15221240
Patrickov wrote:If you notice it I actually hold similar views against my own people (i.e. Chinese).


Have you exhausted the benefit of the doubt for Serbs? For the Chinese, you know them well being one yourself and I like to think that you have certainly exhausted it but have you done the same for Serbia? It looks very doubtful to me.

I also know a lot of Chinese against their own government or regime, but as long as they have not been able to overthrow their corrupt / tyrannical government the "punishment" would not spare them when the time comes.


The Serbs have overthrown their government several times and are a democracy. It's more critical of Russia than Turkey for example.

https://balkaninsight.com/2022/02/25/se ... ucic-says/

Patrickov wrote:IMHO the 19th and 20th century history of Yugoslavia was Serbs grabbed their opportunity to implement their pan-(Yugo)slavic dreams. They failed.


It should be pointed out that they failed because of their kindness rather than because of their ugliness. Their ugliness did come out in the open in the end and that is how they have now been marked in the west, but it is important for everyone concerned to revise their prejudices.

The fact is that the Serbs granted full political rights to all minorities in their country and crystallized them as constituent nations with independent legal and political bodies giving them equal votes to the federation as themselves. Going way beyond anything else in the west. Bosniak Muslims less than a million people in total and less than a 1/3 of the population of Bosnia and 1/20 of the population of Yugoslavia became equal members to the functions of the state as the Serbs more than 10 times more numerous, not just in name but in politics. That is 1 vote for Bosniak Muslims in the Yugoslav federation and 1 vote for the Serbs, not 1 man 1 vote but 1 'nation' 1 vote.

The Serbs not only tolerated this for decades but it was the others that left the arrangement. :lol:

Another fact is that the Serbs and frankly all Yugoslav people are good people, that is they are genuine, good people and strong workers. For the west, they are European people also and solid allies as long as one is okay with them.
#15221247
noemon wrote:The first was when the US decided to openly arm the separatist Muslims in Bosnia sometime around 1992/93, the excuse used by the US at the time was that Serbia was running "death concentration camps".


:eh:

More like put a blind eye on arms shipments from various Muslim countries. So what, somebody had to arm them against the Serbian aggressors.

noemon wrote:The second seminal moment was the US bombing of Serbia in 1995, the excuse used at the time was the shelling of Sarajevo by Yugoslav forces. Srebrenica had not come to the limelight yet.


Yes, to stop the Serbs. And massacres happened before that.

noemon wrote:The third seminal moment was the bombing of Serbia in 1999, the excuse used at the time was Serbia's refusal to sign an unconditional surrender, the total occupation of its entire territory and to bear the cost of that occupation:


"Total occuption of its entire territory" my ass. Can you read?

noemon wrote:The bad part was not just that NATO bombed civilians and civilian infrastructure in Serbia but that it flattened Pristina, the capital of Kossovo, killing more Albanians in the process than Serbia itself during the entire war.


Am I supposed to believe this nonsense? :lol:

I was only opposed to the bombing of civilian infrastructure in Serbia. That was a shit move to avoid an intervention of NATO ground forces in Kosovo.
#15221253
Rugoz wrote:More like put a blind eye on arms shipments from various Muslim countries. So what, somebody had to arm them against the Serbian aggressors.


The US had an arms embargo on Bosniak Muslims that was lifted and the US moved to direct military support.

Rugoz wrote:"Total occuption of its entire territory" my ass. Can you read?


I can indeed:

wiki article on the accords wrote:Among other things, the accords called for 30,000 NATO peacekeeping troops in Kosovo; an unhindered right of passage for NATO troops on Yugoslav territory; and immunity for NATO and its agents to Yugoslav law.[1]


Rugoz wrote:Am I supposed to believe this nonsense? :lol:


I definitely do. You can do as you please.

https://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics.p ... &yyyy=2011
#15221288
Sandzak wrote:Reliable sources not one random guy who decalers himself a journalist.

...

Reliable source ? Journalist ? What ? LOL !

Mainstream media lies us in ever war ever. Reliable source ? Yeesh !

The only source which lies even more often than mainstream media is governments.

Oh, and secret services. Which are part of the government, really, especially in the USA.

How good a source is depends upon the quality of the evidence they can provide. And ultimately there of course never is 100% reliability.
#15221293
noemon wrote:The US had an arms embargo on Bosniak Muslims that was lifted and the US moved to direct military support.


Are you talking about the Bosnian army? If not, no idea where you get your information from.

noemon wrote:I can indeed:


It doesn't say occupation, that's your interpretation.

From a NATO press conference at the National Press Club Monday with spokesman Jamie Shea:

Q: The Rambouillet Accords, appendix B in particular . . . called for the occupation of all of Yugoslavia. . . . Unrestricted passage throughout [its] air space, territorial waters, rail, airports, roads, bridges, ports without payment, the electromagnetic spectrum and so on. Was not the Rambouillet accord, which [Slobodan] Milosevic refused to sign, in fact, a desire to occupy all of Yugoslavia and not just simply Kosovo?

Mr. Shea: No, absolutely not. . . . We were looking . . . to be able to deploy an international security force, and that means, of course, being able to deploy the assets for that security force. . . .

At the moment, all of our predeployed elements in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have come in by the Greek port of Thessaloniki. And for that, obviously, one has to have an agreement with the Yugoslav government to be able to have access to those roads, those rail systems, the air space for the business of setting up an international security presence, and therefore NATO personnel who may have had at the time . . . to transit temporarily through Yugoslavia will have had to enjoy those kinds of immunities. . . .


https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 7974c1dad/

Also, Serbia did not reject the accords because of this appendix.

noemon wrote:I definitely do. You can do as you please.

https://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics.p ... &yyyy=2011


Your source says literally nothing of the sort. Pristina isn't mentioned once. :lol:

And your source writes (yesterday) about the "special military operation" in Ukraine and the "liberation of Izyum". Pure Russian propganda drivel, like wtf? :lol:
#15221294
Rugoz wrote:Are you talking about the Bosnian army?


Evidently. Since I said the Bosniak Muslim army.

It doesn't say occupation, that's your interpretation.


30000 NATO troops with free access to all of Yugoslav territory and all their costs to be paid by Yugoslavia.

I see you are turning into a troll that requires spoon-feeding and is now playing semantics. Dissapointing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 7974c1dad/

Also, Serbia did not reject the accords because of this appendix.


Except that Milosevic explicitly did because of this extremely arrogant and hubristic demand.

What sane leader would sign an accord for his entire country to be occupied by 30k troops and for the country to pay for the occupation?

Even Kissinger criticised the NATO demands and called them out for what they were:

Henry Kissinger wrote:The Rambouillet text, which called on Serbia to admit NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia, was a provocation, an excuse to start bombing. Rambouillet is not a document that an angelic Serb could have accepted. It was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form.[9]

— Henry Kissinger, The Daily Telegraph, 28 June 1999


Your source says literally nothing of the sort. Pristina isn't mentioned once.


source wrote:Around 6,000 civilians were injured, of whom 2,700 were children. The military and police had 5,173 injured. NATO's losses have never been made public.

More than half of the casualties from NATO attacks were among the Kosovo Albanians, although the western officials had claimed the intervention was necessary to protect them and named it “Merciful Angel”.


And your source writes (yesterday) about the "special military operation" in Ukraine and the "liberation of Izyum". Pure Russian propganda drivel, like wtf? :lol:


Post any article from that source and demonstrate how it is Russian propaganda. Quoting Russian and Western statements verbatim is not "propaganda" but the exact opposite.

Reuters call it special military operation.

It has already been established that western media did not even care being filmed by Serbian crews while editing propaganda images because they "rightly" believed western media would drown out Serbian media esepcially back in the 90's when social media had not happened yet and all information was dominated by the major news channels, it has also been established by UN officials that the west exaggerated the casualties by a factor of 4. So this needs to be accounted for when talking about "media coverage" of the Yugoslav war when the US had declared the "end of history" and itself as the sole hegemon.
#15221297
noemon wrote:Evidently. Since I said the Bosniak Muslim army.


So what's the problem. :eh:

noemon wrote:30000 NATO troops with free access to all of Yugoslav territory and all their costs to be paid by Yugoslavia.

I see you are turning into a troll that requires spoon-feeding and is now playing semantics. Dissapointing.

Except that Milosevic explicitly did because of this extremely arrogant and hubristic demand.


- It says nothing about "costs to be paid by Yugoslavia", only about being free of taxation of fees.
- You're quoting an appendix totally out of context and are calling me a troll? The whole accord is clearly about Kosovo and a peacekeeping force in Kosovo.
- The Serbian side rejected a peacekeeping force in Kosovo altogether. Negotiatiors didn't even get to the point where appendix B would be an issue. In fact appendix B was copied more or less directly from the Dayton agreement:
http://www.ohr.int/dayton-peace-agreeme ... -annex-1a/

It's explained here:
https://www.freitag.de/autoren/norbert- ... ambouillet

noemon wrote:Post any article from that source and demonstrate how it is Russian propaganda. Quoting Russian and Western statements verbatim is not "propaganda" but the exact opposite.


In 1999, it was estimated that 488–527 Yugoslav civilians died as a result of NATO bombing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_ ... h_analysis

Not 2,500 or that half of those were Kosovo Albanians (which makes no bloody sense in the first place). Your source is a Serbian/Russian propagana rag.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Sharon only got away the relative modest settleme[…]

Who needs a wall? We have all those land mines ju[…]

Puffer Fish, as a senior (and olde) member of this[…]

As someone that pays very close attention to Amer[…]