The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
Special Report: The Truth About Srebrenica 20 Years Later
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This past week the world was reminded that it has been 20 years since the events following the Bosnian Serb Army’s entry into Srebrenica and today I am posting a special report about this event which I personally consider of absolutely crucial importance in world history not only because of the large number of people who died in this event, but also because it served as the pretext for the first completely illegal war of aggression by the US/NATO which attacked the Bosnian Serbs in violation of the UN Charter. All the subsequence wars of aggression of the AngloZionist Empire (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc.) have their prototype in the war against the Bosnian-Serbs.

I can personally attest that doubts about what really happened (or not) in Srebrenica were voiced in, shall we say, “well informed circles” within days of the Bosnian-Serb conquest of the city. I cannot name these circles, but let’s just that that I am talking about people with direct access to classified information coming out of Bosnia. One thing was immediately established: that a large number of armed Bosnian-Muslim men had attempted a breakthrough from Srebrenica to Tuzla and that 1) manyhad been killed in *combat* with Bosnian-Serbs and many actually made it to Tuzla.

[Sidebar: Srebrenica had been declared a “safe area” by the UN. That meant two main things: first, the Bosnian-Muslims had to totally demilitarize the entire town while the Bosnian-Serbs had to stop attacking it, nevermind entering it. These UN “safe heavens” were intended for civilians only. In reality, however, the Bosnian-Muslims kept and entire Mountain Division in Srebrenica and they continued to reinforce it both by land and by air. To make things even worse, the Bosnian-Muslims constantly used Srebrenica as a safe base to attack the Bosnian-Serb positions around the town. At the beginning of the war, the Bosnian-Muslims had already burned down all the Bosnian-Serb villages around Srebrenica and massacred most of the civilians living they found in them (we are talking about several thousand civilians). The local Bosnian-Serbs had promised that one day they would take revenge for these massacres and some of them, indeed, do that when the Bosnian-Serbs entered Srebrenica. Needless to say, none of that was ever reported by the western corporate Ziomedia].

The other fact which all “well informed” folks knew is that there had been several “false flag” massacres in Sarajevo, in particular the so-called “Markale market massacres” (1994 and 1995) both of which were not attributable to the Bosnian-Serbs, something which UNPRFOR knew but could not say publicly.

While I am personally convinced that the official narrative about Srebrenica (a deliberate mass murder or even genocide organized by the Bosnian-Serbs) is false, I have also come to believe that this was not a “simple” false flag attack either. Srebrenica was a simultaneous combination of the following:

1. Combat operations between regular Bosnian-Serb forces and Bosnian-Muslim forces attempting to break out of Srebrenica.
2. The “spontaneous” execution of a number of civilians and POWs by Bosnian-Serbs seeking revenge.
3. The deliberate execution of a number of civilians and POWs ordered not by Bosnian-Serbs but by some Yugoslav (Federal) officials.
4. A deliberate PSYOP by the USA to grossly inflate the number of victims and blame the Bosnian-Serbs.

I have to say here that I only learned about point #3 very recently from a well-informed Serbian contact whom I fully trust. While I cannot corroborate his claim, it does ‘fit’ perfectly with what I know. This contact is currently reluctant to go into details or name names, but I am confident that the truth about this will come out fairly soon.

What is no less important about what Srebrenica was is to also spell out what it was not.

1. It was not a genocide even by the most inclusive definition of this word. First, the Bosnian-Serbs and Bosnian-Muslims are exactly the same ethnic group and what differentiates them is their religion. So any talk of “ethnic cleansing” is nonsensical in the Bosnian context.
2. It is quite obvious that neither Radovan Karadzic nor Ratko Mladic ever gave any orders to commit massacres. Had they wanted to issue such orders, they would have kept away from the scene and not done what Mladic did that day: bring in several bus loads of reporters and then go on TV to publicly promise the Bosnian-Muslim civilians that he personally guaranteed their safety. It is absolutely clear to me that Mladic and the Bosnian-Serbs walked into a trap carefully laid by the USA.
3. However, there is now evidence that orders did come from Belgrade to “deliver” a certain amount of innocent victims which, in turn, would provide the US/NATO with a pretext to intervene. Yes, you read that right. I am claiming that certain officials in Belgrade were working hand-in-hand with the US.

[Sidebar: To those who might doubt that (at least some elements in) Belgrade and Washington were covertly working together I would remind that the Yugoslav Federal authorities (Milosevic) did join the AngloZionist blockade against the Bosnian-Serbs and that when the US/NATO attacked the Bosnian-Serbs Miloseciv ordered the Yugoslav forces to move back and betray the Bosnian-Serbs who had trusted them {Note: I was told by a reader that while the betrayal did take place–in the form of a blockade–but there were no Yugoslav units holding the line in 1995. They had been withdrawn in 1992, when they suffered heavy casualties withdrawing from Sarajevo. This might be true – it has been 20 years and I write from memory.} Likewise, Milosevic also betrayed the Serbs in Kosovo when he ordered his military to retreat even though it had survived the NATO bombing almost completely unscathed]

ORDER IT NOW

The main problem in establishing the truth about what happened in Srebrenica is the literally everybody, including the USA, NATO, European countries, and even Russia under Eltsin and Yugoslavia under Milosevic, had a huge interest in sticking by the official story. All these forces wanted to end the war and the stubborn Bosnian-Serbs were not willing to surrender. So everybody needed a pretext for the US/NATO to directly attack the Bosnian-Serbs and this is what Srebrenica became: a buzzword to justify a completely illegal (and, I would argue, immoral) attack of a superpower and military alliance against a small, largely rural, religious minority which was guilty of not obeying the Hegemon’s orders when told to do so.

My hope is that 20 years later this might change and that the biggest change might come from the least expected side: the Muslim world.

Why?

A number of reasons:

First, while the AngloZionist Empire did pretend to act in defense of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo, it then turned to exactly the same set of PSYOPs to attack Muslim countries such as Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, etc. While initially it was the “Serbian Chetniks” who were on the receiving end of the “Empire of Kindness’” “responsibility to protect” (r2p) operations, but after Bosnia and Kosovo all the other “new Hitlers” were in Muslim nations. Do you remember the nonsense about “Gaddafi giving Viagra to his soldiers to rape opposition women”? Does that not remind you of “rape as a weapon of ethnic cleansing” of the Bosnian narrative? What about the Syrian “Houla massacre”? Is that not a “Markale massacre”? Now that the Muslims are themselves the victims of exactly the same old dirty tricks, they might be far more willing to question the official narrative about Srebrenica than before.

Second, a large number of Muslims did die in Srebrenica. Some in “legitimate” combat, but other were truly executed. The friends and relatives of these murdered Muslims will want to know who reallyordered these murders. While it might be comforting for them to see Karadzic and Mladic in jail at the Hague, they might not be so happy at the idea that the real culprits are still free, especially if some of these culprits include Bosnian-Muslim officials from the Sarajevo government.

The Timisoara massacre: it never happened and the original figure of 4,630 “massacre victims” was later brought down to a much smaller but official 93. The real figure is probably even much lower
The Timisoara massacre: it never happened and the original figure of 4,630 “massacre victims” was later brought down to a much smaller but official 93. The real figure is probably even much lower

The full and real story of Srebrenica has not emerged yet, but the good news is that it is finally being researched and questioned. Even more importantly, Muslims and Orthodox Christians have begun looking at these events together (see below). What is crucial at this point in time is to fully separate two issues:

a) The investigation of actual events on the ground, what really happened in Srebrenica and the establishment the full list of those responsible for the massacres of civilians and POWs regardless of where they were or are.

b) Analyzing the use which was made by the AngloZionist Empire of the events in Srebrenica.

These are different issues which should be addressed separately. Both of these issues, however, absolutely mandate that we all accept to question the official narrative (which, frankly, makes no sense at all) and the we pursue the truth, whatever it might be, and at all costs.

As part of this quest for the truth through an open and frank debate I am presenting you with a number of very important documents:

1) A “Srebrenica Factsheet” prepared by Stefan Karganovic and Aleksandar Pavic.

2) A report entitled “”Srebrenica Fifteen Years Later – The Question of Evidence” written by by George Bogdanich and Jonathan Rooper.

3) A report entitled “Srebrenica Narrative Responsibly Challenged” about a about a recent conference in Banja Luka on the topic “Can politically weaponized Srebrenica be turned into a peace-making tool?

4) The video of the address of Sheikh Imran Hussein to the Banja Luka Conference.

5) The video of the address of Professor Alexander Dugin to the Banja Luka Conference.

6) The video of an appeal to the Bosnian-Muslims by Sheikh Imran Hussein.

7) An analysis entitled “Reconciliation – the Empire’s way” by “S.P.” about the events surrounding the Russian veto at the UNSC of the “Srebrenica Genocide” Resolution submitted by the United Kingdom.

For those who have not seen them, I would like to also refer you to the following past articles concerning the war in Bosnia:

This is a lot to read, I understand that, however I do strongly believe that the topic is important enough to deserve a thorough and detailed analysis and discussion.

I also want to repeat here that while my personal position on what really happened in Srebrenica is pretty clear, I do invite those who will disagree with it, or with any of the documents presented here, to present their own evidence and analysis. While absolutely no ad hominems of any kind will be tolerated, I do encourage a vigorous and open ended debate on this, and any other, topic.

A lot of people put a lot of efforts presenting you with all this information and I hope that you will find it worthwhile and that you will make good use of it. To all those who helped prepare this report – my most heartfelt gratitude for all your time and efforts!

Srebrenica happened twenty years ago, but it is still used today as the primary weapon by those who want to oppose Muslims and Orthodox Christians. As long as we all accept to play by the “Chetniks vs Wahabis” playbook they will continue to divide and conquer us. Those who will insist against all evidence that this narrative is true ought to ask themselves who benefits from this dynamic. I submit that the real guilty party is the one which actually created all the conditions for Srebrenica to happen and who worked on this plan not in Pale or Sarajevo, but in Belgrade and Washington DC. I hope that the information below will contribute to establish this truth.

(Republished from The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 54 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Kiza says:

    Dear Saker,

    Please let me start with a very strong statement: your Serbian source is complete rubbish. The neoliberal Serbians currently leading Serbia and serving the West have developed this theory of Milosevic’s culpability. They blame Milosevic, the last Serbian who really resisted the West, for doing what they are doing themselves. They also have a theory of $1B stolen by Milosevic and his cronies, but never ever have they presented a grain of proof, it is all just the standard endless MSM BS insinuations.

    If you want a reliable non-biased source from Serbia proper, then talk with Mr. Stefan Karganovic.

    Here is my version of events, established by reading and talking with some Bosnian Serb Army soldiers. I do not claim this to be absolutely true, but it is as close as I could personally get to the truth.

    Yes, Srebrenica was a war crime. This is why it happened:
    1) The UN Safe Heaven of Srebrenica was never demilitarized by the Dutch blue helmets who were responsible for it; Naser Oric’s paramilitaries and one Bosnian Army Division were operating from it with total impunity.
    2) The West set up a US Safe Heaven of Srebrenica not to help the civilians then for the exact purpose to help Bosnian Muslims against the Bosnian Serbs.
    3) Oric’s paramilitaries killed close to 1,500 Serbian civilians in the villages surrounding the valley, mostly the elderly because their sons and daughters were in the Serbian Army; the favorite method of killing was slitting of throats like pigs are killed, which Muslims despise. The details of people killed have been submitted to the UN and the West, but have been totally ignored.
    4) When the Serbian Army finally entered Srebrenica after a lot of fighting, as you say, they did not touch the civilians and bused them out, but some of the captured soldiers, a mix of Bosnian Muslim Army and the Oric’s paramilitaries, were executed by the sons and daughters of the villagers killed by the Muslims before. This appears to have been enabled by the mid-level Bosnian Serb officers, Mladic and Karadzic were not involved at all. The term was: “now charge” as in “charge them a fee for your dead”. The exact number of executed is unknown, but it ranges between 400 and 1,500, roughly equal to the number of Serbian civilians killed.
    5) The theory of a US set up for this massacre to happen is not solid in my view. The real set up was to allow a UN Safe Heaven to be used as a base for military operations and crimes, which the US did, and the Dutch pretended that there were no Muslim soldiers and paramilitaries in their “zone”.
    6) There was no justification for this crime, revenge is not. There should have been a court-martial and then execution of the killers, not indiscriminate shooting (to paraphrase the famous US quip: kill them all and let Allah sort them out). The worst fact is that Naser Oric and his top circle escaped to Tuzla and used the Bosnian Muslim Army as a sacrificial pawn to get there safely.
    7) Although militarily superior, the Bosnian Serb Army was under attack from at least four quarters:
    a) Bosnian Muslim Army,
    b) The Mujahedin units which the US imported into Bosnia on US transport planes landing in Sarajevo,
    c) Western (retired) special forces (just like in Ukraine), mainly US and British,
    d) Western airforces.
    They probably did not have time for a court marshal, but this is still not an excuse for the massacre.
    8) This was like heaven sent to the Western R2P propagandists (US Democrats under Hillibillary, with Samantha Power as a field junior etc): it was turned into “8,000″ (a magical figure in opposition to a Hague Court report of about 1,000) “executed man and boys” (the propagandists really like this phrase “boys”).
    9) The Bosnian Muslims later reburied the dead from different parts of Bosnia into Srebrenica cemetery to make it into a shrine and put close to 8,000 names on the granite.

    Srebrenica is now a pure Western Legend based on a massacre typical in civil wars.
    Key question: Who started this war?
    Answer: US, UK and Germany (the same team as Ukraine).
    How: by scuttling the Lisbon agreement between Bosnian Muslims and Serbs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @krollchem
    It is important to step back and see the big picture concerning the Balkan wars

    Dr. Bob Allen of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has demonstrated in his report “Why Kosovo? The Anatomy of a Needless War”, that the IMF “shock and awe” neoliberal “reforms” were the main cause of the ethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia. The economic collapse resulted widespread economic hardship and elimination of transfer payments to the Yugoslavia republics which created condition for the succession movements:
    https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/why-kosovo

    The goals of the banker driven economic collapse of Yugoslavia was to definlandize it and buy up the remaining assets at fire sale prices.

    You will also recall that the US believed that there were about 200 billion barrels of light sweet crude in the Caspian Sea and the US deep state needed to control the oil export pipelines via Yugoslavia and the Danube waterway. Turns out that the USGS overestimated Caspian Sea oil reserves by a factor of 10x and much of the oil was corrosive high sulfur oil...

    See also “Wagons East—NATO oil trade route war”. It can be read at: http://intsse.com/wswspdf/en/articles/1999/06/comm-j23.pdf
    , @my2cents
    1. Srebernica was supposedly a safe zone in which it sent Dutchbat, consisting of basically unarmed troops. They landed in a warzone, were subsequently they hijacked and imprisoned by the Serbs.
    2. One member of Dutchbat died - Upon their return to the Netherlands 2 others being confronted with lies that THEY handed over 8000 Muslims to the Serbd who supposedly killed them committed suicide
    3. Very intense PUBLIC hearings live on Dutch television produced contradictory statements. The intention was to charge the leadership of Dutchbat with war crimes. Dutchbat was sued by Srebernica women for the deaths of their husbands/brothers/sons.
    4. When eventually a few members of Dutchbat decided to seek legal assistance in an effort to sue the U.N as well as the Dutch Government this whole story died down.

    It is my opinion based on the evidence I heard presented live on public tv that the Dutch Government knew the whole sordid story and that the whole televised hearing while an extremely painful hoax for the members of Dutchbat served some other purpose and that it was in response to foreign pressure. Anything to point the finger to someone else in order to cover up a war crime.

    Kiz's notion that Dutchbat was supposed to demilitarize the area is arrant nonsense.
    They were sent to a demilitarized zone, were unarmed, and their task was to keep the peace.
    None of that was so. Unarmed Dutchbat entered a war zone and became its victim. The U.N knew it, the Dutch Government knew it.
    One thing stands out in my mind, Dutchbat's leader called in for assistance and a number of French Aircraft took off but were called back. So WHO exactly directed this whole operation Hmm? And who wrote the script in which suddenly unarmed Dutchbat became the scapegoat. and stood accused of having killed 8000 Muslim men.

    This was a proxy war between the U.S and Russia....foreign paid/trained/armed mercenaries were there to create the havoc and kill indiscriminately. It's purpose was to Balkanize Yugoslavia
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /tsaker/special-report-the-truth-about-srebrenica-20-years-later/#comment-1010270
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. DH says:

    An eye opener, even for me who read Trijkovic at Chronicles Magazines. However:

    there is now evidence that orders did come from Belgrade to “deliver” a certain amount of innocent victims which, in turn, would provide the US/NATO with a pretext to intervene. Yes, you read that right. I am claiming that certain officials in Belgrade were working hand-in-hand with the US.

    That statement is not clearly substantiated in the article (maybe in some of the referenced links?)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. As I have been explaining ad naseum on the internet since at least 1996:

    1. Most of the Bosnian Muslims killed after the fall of Srebrenica and Zepa in the Drina Valley were killed in firefights as they tried to break out towards government lines to the West near Kladanj, Kalesija and Tuzla

    2. over 2,000 were summarily executed by VRS forces after surrendering

    3. executions were conducted as revenge for the massacres by the “Torbasi” (bag-carriers aka Naser Oric’s forces) of Serbs around Srebrenica and Bratunac, particularly Kravica

    4. Izetbegovic’s gov’t was long seeking to trade Srebrenica for Vogosca and Ilijas, two Serb-held suburbs of Sarajevo. This trade would have lifted the siege of the capital

    5. The intentional conflating of the casualties of the breakout and the executions after the fall of Srebrenica and Zepa served to help the cause of American interventionism in that country as it created a false genocide narrative. It suited both the USA/UK/France as well as the Izetbegovic regime while giving the Serbs what they wanted: The Drina River Valley (minus Gorazde).

    With all this in mind and with 20 years of its politicization and manipulation in media, in the courts, and elsewhere I ask Serbs this:

    Do you now understand the Croats a bit better when they for 50 years were lied about in respect to the scope and scale of events in NDH and in particular the lies about the role of the Catholic Church?

    Or will you double-down and continue to propagate bullshit like “700,000 Serb dead in Jasenovac alone”?

    Do you now understand how western media manipulates events to define history for its own purposes?

    ….or will you continue to spout the same garbage spewed by communists, Serbian ultranationalists, genocide hustlers like the Simon Wiesenthal Center, etc?

    Judging by Saker’s ugly writings on his site I am positive that the lesson of Srebrenica and the art of media/historical manipulation will be lost on him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    More naive questions are prompted in this objective outsider. Would/could 8000 men and boys over 14 be separated from the women, girls and younger children and herded off for slaughter with no apparent resistance? Well yes maybe if WW2 experience is anything to go by. But, on the assumption that a good number of the named or other Muslim combatant groups were in or about Srebrenica what did they do when air strikes failed to materialise and the Dutch let them down?

    BTW why haven't the Dutch been propagating some version of these stories to excuse themselves from some part of the shame they have been wearing? Didn't a Dutch government fall because of it?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. All this being entirely new to me (except the reminder that I formed the view from admittedly limited personal experience decades ago that being paranoid and conspiratorial went with being Yugoslav – not my impression at all of the young Serbs I now know) I look around for some entry level questions to help initial orientation. The first to come to mind concerns the several hundred Dutch troops in Srebrenica. Nearly all must have known many of the elements of the Saker’s and/or Kiza’s non mainstream accounts. There would be huge commercial (and professional journalistic) incentives to exploit anti-conventional accounts from Dutch soldiers or similarly respectable sources of a good thriller/corrupt police/Mafia type exposé…. So…. why have I heard no hint of that? That it is of no particular interest to me and involves no one I know or care about could be part of it of course but the weight of that factor can only be explored if these alternative versions do turn out to have validity.

    Are we now to hear alternative versions on Rwanda where there seems to be plenty of honest shame to be shared amongst French, Belgians, the US, Canadians and Catholic nuns?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. @Niccolo Salo
    As I have been explaining ad naseum on the internet since at least 1996:

    1. Most of the Bosnian Muslims killed after the fall of Srebrenica and Zepa in the Drina Valley were killed in firefights as they tried to break out towards government lines to the West near Kladanj, Kalesija and Tuzla

    2. over 2,000 were summarily executed by VRS forces after surrendering

    3. executions were conducted as revenge for the massacres by the "Torbasi" (bag-carriers aka Naser Oric's forces) of Serbs around Srebrenica and Bratunac, particularly Kravica

    4. Izetbegovic's gov't was long seeking to trade Srebrenica for Vogosca and Ilijas, two Serb-held suburbs of Sarajevo. This trade would have lifted the siege of the capital

    5. The intentional conflating of the casualties of the breakout and the executions after the fall of Srebrenica and Zepa served to help the cause of American interventionism in that country as it created a false genocide narrative. It suited both the USA/UK/France as well as the Izetbegovic regime while giving the Serbs what they wanted: The Drina River Valley (minus Gorazde).

    With all this in mind and with 20 years of its politicization and manipulation in media, in the courts, and elsewhere I ask Serbs this:

    Do you now understand the Croats a bit better when they for 50 years were lied about in respect to the scope and scale of events in NDH and in particular the lies about the role of the Catholic Church?

    Or will you double-down and continue to propagate bullshit like "700,000 Serb dead in Jasenovac alone"?

    Do you now understand how western media manipulates events to define history for its own purposes?

    ....or will you continue to spout the same garbage spewed by communists, Serbian ultranationalists, genocide hustlers like the Simon Wiesenthal Center, etc?

    Judging by Saker's ugly writings on his site I am positive that the lesson of Srebrenica and the art of media/historical manipulation will be lost on him.

    More naive questions are prompted in this objective outsider. Would/could 8000 men and boys over 14 be separated from the women, girls and younger children and herded off for slaughter with no apparent resistance? Well yes maybe if WW2 experience is anything to go by. But, on the assumption that a good number of the named or other Muslim combatant groups were in or about Srebrenica what did they do when air strikes failed to materialise and the Dutch let them down?

    BTW why haven’t the Dutch been propagating some version of these stories to excuse themselves from some part of the shame they have been wearing? Didn’t a Dutch government fall because of it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    You can't go by WWII because there was resistance, massive resistance. People don't hear about it as much, partly because we're just not as interested in the war in eastern Europe, partly because hush now, we don't want to wake the sleeping giant that is the culpability of Our Gallant Ally, Russia. Let it suffice to say we learned what the Nazis knew with the Vietcong, only on an infinitesimally smaller scale. The Nazis also had an awful lot of help controlling their prisoners, which again we can't talk about. Those that were easy weren't fighting back, unlike the Muslims in Serbia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. neutral1 says:

    Oric broke out of Srebenica to Tulsa fighting his way. Many of his soldiers were killed. Oric had murdered at least 2500 Serbians while hiding in Srebenica.
    years later some of those dead Muslims voted in the elections.
    Bottom line Never believe Muslims . they lie in order to appear victims.
    The mass graves only found 2500 dead. Where was the other 5500 supposedly dead Muslim bodies in Srebenice genocide?
    Oric killed women and children of Serbian origin.
    Serbs fought their way to Srebenica killing fighters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Bottom line Never believe Muslims . they lie in order to appear victims."

    Muslims sure lie.

    But, how about the Christians, the Jews. The lies of these groups have caused incredible suffering to millions of people.

    You neutral1, what religion are you? Surely, you are living proof that your faith group are also one of the biggest liars of this world.
    , @Niccolo Salo
    Oric was gone from Srebrenica long before the final moves of the VRS that resulted in its capture.

    Fun fact: Naser Oric served as Slobodan Milosevic's bodyguard prior to the war.

    , @Druid
    Never trust a Serb. They've been causing problems from their mountains since roman times
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. guest says:

    “the first completely illegal war of aggression by the US/NATO”

    Aside from being completely untrue, this smells of Nuremberg style, internationalist, legalistic mumble-jumbo. Who on earth ever talked about “wars of aggression” before they made believe Germany tried to conquer the world (seriously)? And what is the big, damn difference between the Kosovo War and all the fake reasons the U.S. pulled out of its ass to start a hundred wars–the bloody spot, Ft. Sumter, the Maine, “unrestricted submarine warfare,” Pearl Harbor, Tonkin Gulf, WMDs–or the uncountable ongoing wars it jumped into? The fact that this was officially a NATO thing? That makes it slightly worse from a New World Order perspective, but not legal mumbo-jumbo-ly speaking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    Just War Theory goes back a long way in the West. St Thomas Aquinas wrote about it, for example. Wars of aggression are the canonical example of unjust wars.

    Agree with you otherwise.

    , @Heros

    "Nuremberg style, internationalist, legalistic mumble-jumbo."
     
    The truth about Oradur-sur-Glane is that it was another yid rinse/repeat operation used as justification to deny the Wehrmacht of their Geneva Conventions rights. The church caught fire and burned so fast because Jewish terrorists had hidden weapons in the church rafters. When Churchil sent weapons to these terrorists to help fight for the allies during d-day, they kept them to use in a commie revolution.

    I ask myself why Saker has this massive genocidal hate for Germany and Germans. He will leave no stone unturned trying to find justice for his beloved commit-no-evil Slavs, even though he was raised and educated in Switzerland. He never stops trying to smear Germans as somehow being more culpable for WWII even though Stalin carved up Poland without any justification, yet Hitler had tried in vain to work with the allies to get the Poles to stop butchering and ethnically cleansing Germans from the Polish Corridor and Silesia.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. guest says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    More naive questions are prompted in this objective outsider. Would/could 8000 men and boys over 14 be separated from the women, girls and younger children and herded off for slaughter with no apparent resistance? Well yes maybe if WW2 experience is anything to go by. But, on the assumption that a good number of the named or other Muslim combatant groups were in or about Srebrenica what did they do when air strikes failed to materialise and the Dutch let them down?

    BTW why haven't the Dutch been propagating some version of these stories to excuse themselves from some part of the shame they have been wearing? Didn't a Dutch government fall because of it?

    You can’t go by WWII because there was resistance, massive resistance. People don’t hear about it as much, partly because we’re just not as interested in the war in eastern Europe, partly because hush now, we don’t want to wake the sleeping giant that is the culpability of Our Gallant Ally, Russia. Let it suffice to say we learned what the Nazis knew with the Vietcong, only on an infinitesimally smaller scale. The Nazis also had an awful lot of help controlling their prisoners, which again we can’t talk about. Those that were easy weren’t fighting back, unlike the Muslims in Serbia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @neutral1
    Oric broke out of Srebenica to Tulsa fighting his way. Many of his soldiers were killed. Oric had murdered at least 2500 Serbians while hiding in Srebenica.
    years later some of those dead Muslims voted in the elections.
    Bottom line Never believe Muslims . they lie in order to appear victims.
    The mass graves only found 2500 dead. Where was the other 5500 supposedly dead Muslim bodies in Srebenice genocide?
    Oric killed women and children of Serbian origin.
    Serbs fought their way to Srebenica killing fighters.

    “Bottom line Never believe Muslims . they lie in order to appear victims.”

    Muslims sure lie.

    But, how about the Christians, the Jews. The lies of these groups have caused incredible suffering to millions of people.

    You neutral1, what religion are you? Surely, you are living proof that your faith group are also one of the biggest liars of this world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Bill says:
    @guest
    "the first completely illegal war of aggression by the US/NATO"

    Aside from being completely untrue, this smells of Nuremberg style, internationalist, legalistic mumble-jumbo. Who on earth ever talked about "wars of aggression" before they made believe Germany tried to conquer the world (seriously)? And what is the big, damn difference between the Kosovo War and all the fake reasons the U.S. pulled out of its ass to start a hundred wars--the bloody spot, Ft. Sumter, the Maine, "unrestricted submarine warfare," Pearl Harbor, Tonkin Gulf, WMDs--or the uncountable ongoing wars it jumped into? The fact that this was officially a NATO thing? That makes it slightly worse from a New World Order perspective, but not legal mumbo-jumbo-ly speaking.

    Just War Theory goes back a long way in the West. St Thomas Aquinas wrote about it, for example. Wars of aggression are the canonical example of unjust wars.

    Agree with you otherwise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @neutral1
    Oric broke out of Srebenica to Tulsa fighting his way. Many of his soldiers were killed. Oric had murdered at least 2500 Serbians while hiding in Srebenica.
    years later some of those dead Muslims voted in the elections.
    Bottom line Never believe Muslims . they lie in order to appear victims.
    The mass graves only found 2500 dead. Where was the other 5500 supposedly dead Muslim bodies in Srebenice genocide?
    Oric killed women and children of Serbian origin.
    Serbs fought their way to Srebenica killing fighters.

    Oric was gone from Srebrenica long before the final moves of the VRS that resulted in its capture.

    Fun fact: Naser Oric served as Slobodan Milosevic’s bodyguard prior to the war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The US and it’s allies decided to dismantle the Yugoslav state. They calculated that the best way was to strike at it’s weak spot, the multi-ethnic-religious nature of the state. They found a vehicle for that in Alija Izetbegovic, a person with hardline Islamist views. In WWII he was affiliated with the Waffen SS Handschar Division, an outfit set up by Himmler, and later was jailed in ’83 by the communist authorities for what was considered the preaching of religious intolerance. Using him as a wedge along with Croatian separatists and lingering resentments left over from the war the fuse was lit.
    It’s doubtful anyone in Washington even knew that there was such a thing as a Bosnian Muslim, nor would they care about their well being, but it became a tool for them. They adopted them out of a fake humanitarian concern of theirs so that they could directly intervene. Are the people in the artificially created Bosnian state better off now? No, it’s a pathetic wasteland, an economic tar pit. The US and it’s partners just used those people, getting them killed, uprooted and impoverished so it’s aims could be met. The propaganda blitz that accompanied all this shows how it’s become such a highly professionalized industry that it’s now full-spectrum lying 24/7 that reaches every corner. The science of propaganda has reached it’s greatest height.
    Balkan people are quite contentious so expect a lot of acerbic comments, people disputing, contradicting and attacking everything, as well as the usual crew of crackpots and trolls.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Niccolo Salo
    "The US and it’s allies decided to dismantle the Yugoslav state. They calculated that the best way was to strike at it’s weak spot, the multi-ethnic-religious nature of the state. They found a vehicle for that in Alija Izetbegovic, a person with hardline Islamist views."

    This makes no sense and doesn't reflect timelines nor facts.

    Izetbegovic for one sided with the Macedonian leader during the Slovenian and Croatian secessions and conflicts in seeking an 'asymmetrical confederation' to keep Yugoslavia united.

    Futhermore, Izetbegovic publicly stated that "this is not our war" when the Serb-led JNA flattened the Croatian village of Ravno in Herzegovina (on its way towards Dubrovnik) in the Fall of 1991.

    As for the Americans, they were not seeking to break up Yugoslavia. Milosevic was viewed as a man that they could do business with and who had strong ties to Kissinger and Eagleburger during his days as a banker in New York City in the late 70s/early 80s for Beobanka, Yugoslavia's largest bank at that time. Milosevic used to regale people with the story of how he was in a conversation with Kissinger during those days and watched him 'jump to the ceiling' when Kissinger was informed by an aide that Rockefeller wanted to urgently speak to him. Milosevic was initially being portrayed in the media as a sort of Yugoslav Gorbachev, who would open up Yugoslavia to western business interests. When Milosevic began to veer off script, Western interests began to back Ante Markovic, a Yugoslav PM of Croatian ethnicity but Yugoslav orientation. He brought the rampant inflation under control but was moved out of power by Milosevic and Tudjman.

    The key date here is June 21, 1991 when James Baker arrived in Belgrade and bluntly stated that "Yugoslavia must stay together". This date was already after the brief conflict between the Slovenes and the JNA and only four days prior to the declaration of independence of both Slovenia and Croatia.

    Recall also that unlike Bosnia, whose independence was recognized by the Americans very quickly in 1992, the USA was one of the last major countries to recognize Croatia, waiting several months (all the way into 1992) after the EU recognized it due to the lead tandem of Germany and the efforts of the Vatican.

    What changed everything in the American policy to that point was the inability of the JNA to hold Yugoslavia together, instead pursuing a policy of "all Serbs in one state" which upset JNA Chief Kadijevic. He acquiesced to Milosevic's deal with Slovenian President Kucan to let them go and focus on amputating Croatia. Combine that with the actions of the JNA in Dubrovnik and the JNA/Chetnik actions in Vukovar along with the German fait accompli in December of 1991 and the USA's regional policy accepted Yugoslavia's collapse.

    The Americans then became the chief external driver of events in the ex-YU from that point on, exemplified by two key events:

    1. the removal of Fikret Abdic as President of Bosnia since he was a Bosnian Muslim who wasn't interested in conflict and his replacement with Alija Izetbegovic, a man with strong Islamist leanings.

    2. the quick recognition of the independence of Bosnia, in contrast to the very late recognition of Croatia and Slovenia by the USA in comparison to other states

    Without American meddling led by Ambassador Zimmerman, Bosnia would have been a triune republic that would not have suffered as much violence as it did, with Srebrenica the best example.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @anonymous
    The US and it's allies decided to dismantle the Yugoslav state. They calculated that the best way was to strike at it's weak spot, the multi-ethnic-religious nature of the state. They found a vehicle for that in Alija Izetbegovic, a person with hardline Islamist views. In WWII he was affiliated with the Waffen SS Handschar Division, an outfit set up by Himmler, and later was jailed in '83 by the communist authorities for what was considered the preaching of religious intolerance. Using him as a wedge along with Croatian separatists and lingering resentments left over from the war the fuse was lit.
    It's doubtful anyone in Washington even knew that there was such a thing as a Bosnian Muslim, nor would they care about their well being, but it became a tool for them. They adopted them out of a fake humanitarian concern of theirs so that they could directly intervene. Are the people in the artificially created Bosnian state better off now? No, it's a pathetic wasteland, an economic tar pit. The US and it's partners just used those people, getting them killed, uprooted and impoverished so it's aims could be met. The propaganda blitz that accompanied all this shows how it's become such a highly professionalized industry that it's now full-spectrum lying 24/7 that reaches every corner. The science of propaganda has reached it's greatest height.
    Balkan people are quite contentious so expect a lot of acerbic comments, people disputing, contradicting and attacking everything, as well as the usual crew of crackpots and trolls.

    “The US and it’s allies decided to dismantle the Yugoslav state. They calculated that the best way was to strike at it’s weak spot, the multi-ethnic-religious nature of the state. They found a vehicle for that in Alija Izetbegovic, a person with hardline Islamist views.”

    This makes no sense and doesn’t reflect timelines nor facts.

    Izetbegovic for one sided with the Macedonian leader during the Slovenian and Croatian secessions and conflicts in seeking an ‘asymmetrical confederation’ to keep Yugoslavia united.

    Futhermore, Izetbegovic publicly stated that “this is not our war” when the Serb-led JNA flattened the Croatian village of Ravno in Herzegovina (on its way towards Dubrovnik) in the Fall of 1991.

    As for the Americans, they were not seeking to break up Yugoslavia. Milosevic was viewed as a man that they could do business with and who had strong ties to Kissinger and Eagleburger during his days as a banker in New York City in the late 70s/early 80s for Beobanka, Yugoslavia’s largest bank at that time. Milosevic used to regale people with the story of how he was in a conversation with Kissinger during those days and watched him ‘jump to the ceiling’ when Kissinger was informed by an aide that Rockefeller wanted to urgently speak to him. Milosevic was initially being portrayed in the media as a sort of Yugoslav Gorbachev, who would open up Yugoslavia to western business interests. When Milosevic began to veer off script, Western interests began to back Ante Markovic, a Yugoslav PM of Croatian ethnicity but Yugoslav orientation. He brought the rampant inflation under control but was moved out of power by Milosevic and Tudjman.

    The key date here is June 21, 1991 when James Baker arrived in Belgrade and bluntly stated that “Yugoslavia must stay together”. This date was already after the brief conflict between the Slovenes and the JNA and only four days prior to the declaration of independence of both Slovenia and Croatia.

    Recall also that unlike Bosnia, whose independence was recognized by the Americans very quickly in 1992, the USA was one of the last major countries to recognize Croatia, waiting several months (all the way into 1992) after the EU recognized it due to the lead tandem of Germany and the efforts of the Vatican.

    What changed everything in the American policy to that point was the inability of the JNA to hold Yugoslavia together, instead pursuing a policy of “all Serbs in one state” which upset JNA Chief Kadijevic. He acquiesced to Milosevic’s deal with Slovenian President Kucan to let them go and focus on amputating Croatia. Combine that with the actions of the JNA in Dubrovnik and the JNA/Chetnik actions in Vukovar along with the German fait accompli in December of 1991 and the USA’s regional policy accepted Yugoslavia’s collapse.

    The Americans then became the chief external driver of events in the ex-YU from that point on, exemplified by two key events:

    1. the removal of Fikret Abdic as President of Bosnia since he was a Bosnian Muslim who wasn’t interested in conflict and his replacement with Alija Izetbegovic, a man with strong Islamist leanings.

    2. the quick recognition of the independence of Bosnia, in contrast to the very late recognition of Croatia and Slovenia by the USA in comparison to other states

    Without American meddling led by Ambassador Zimmerman, Bosnia would have been a triune republic that would not have suffered as much violence as it did, with Srebrenica the best example.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. KA says:

    I am not privy to the quality and sources of any information that will help me reach a correct conclusion. But using Muslim to aid and generate violence ropaganda and atrocities against Russsia or Soviet . ( or ny roadblocks crated by any ethnicity against Wrst ) is an scheme that has been tried successfully in the past.
    I am not surprised at all to learn it again.
    Having said that what was the problem for Serbs in letting Croat go .
    It is also true Serbs tried to play racial,religious and nationalistic cads against Muslim and Croatian. That policy is not the best recipie to avoid a disaster . Milsoveic gave up on multiethnicity years ago in 1989 .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Kiza says:

    Considering that Russia recently put a veto on a UNSC resolution submitted by UK (a party in the Bosnian war) to condemn “Genocide by Serbia”, the following would be an interesting question:
    Would Srebrenica be possible now?

    The answer is, most likely, no. When the war in Bosnia was raging, the West controlled Yeltsin’s neoliberal Russia and could create a safe heaven out of a Muslim Army military base of operations (Srebrenica), using UNSC. The Western Interventionists, yes they would have tried it, but the Russians would have probably prevented it. Please remember that Bosnian Serbian Army never harmed any of the Muslim civilians who were in Srebrenica, as stipulated by the UN Safe Heaven. They harmed only the Muslim Army Soldiers and Paramilitaries who were not supposed to exist in Srebrenica. The Western Propaganda then turns the “non-existent” Muslim soldiers into the magical “8,000 men and boys killed”.

    Finally, the modus operandi of the Western Interventions, the Neocolonialists, a.k.a The International Community has been set into a template. The Russians better learn from Serbia and Bosnia – Bosnia is Ukraine and Serbia is Russia. The West’s strategy is to attack the soft spot – the ethnically mixed area (Bosnia=Ukraine), to impose sanctions on the targeted party (Serbia=Russia), to exhaust its target, and finally to attack it militarily and using NGOs. Serbia was bombed for 78 days by the Western air forces and when this did not finish the job, then NGO regime change (color revolution) was applied. Considering that Russia has nuclear weapons, the Western Interventionists will have to skip the bombing campaign and go straight for NGO lead regime change.

    Russia is now in the crosshairs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Sean1 says:

    Blech, I stopped paying attention after the umpteenth “zio” and “AngloZion” reference. What was the point of the article? Jewbaiting? Yawn. Talking about what really happened? Allegedly, though it seemed like half a platform for potshots at the mainstream media; but you’re already writing for Unz…so was the point to test the echo chamber? Having to wade through all the derogatory crap detracts from what is an already interesting subject.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Complete bullsh*t. Since I’m a Croat & sometimes oppose anti-Semitic nonsense posted on Disqus, I may be accused of being partial. But, this stuff is a complete rubbish- when I saw Srđa Trifković’s name & AngloZionist paranoid tag, I knew it was worthless.

    Virtually the only correct info is that Naser Orić is a war criminal (whatever the verdict of the Haguaroo tribunal) and that he is guilty of murder of a number of Serb civilians. The most realistic assessment is ~ 350 people. As for Srebrenica, the current number of victims will probably stay, and there are confirmed over 4000 killings.

    This all is just sickening……

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Choose your own numbers. When facts are few, propaganda and conspiracy theory is a many.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Kiza says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Complete bullsh*t. Since I'm a Croat & sometimes oppose anti-Semitic nonsense posted on Disqus, I may be accused of being partial. But, this stuff is a complete rubbish- when I saw Srđa Trifković's name & AngloZionist paranoid tag, I knew it was worthless.

    Virtually the only correct info is that Naser Orić is a war criminal (whatever the verdict of the Haguaroo tribunal) and that he is guilty of murder of a number of Serb civilians. The most realistic assessment is ~ 350 people. As for Srebrenica, the current number of victims will probably stay, and there are confirmed over 4000 killings.

    This all is just sickening......

    Choose your own numbers. When facts are few, propaganda and conspiracy theory is a many.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Druid says:
    @neutral1
    Oric broke out of Srebenica to Tulsa fighting his way. Many of his soldiers were killed. Oric had murdered at least 2500 Serbians while hiding in Srebenica.
    years later some of those dead Muslims voted in the elections.
    Bottom line Never believe Muslims . they lie in order to appear victims.
    The mass graves only found 2500 dead. Where was the other 5500 supposedly dead Muslim bodies in Srebenice genocide?
    Oric killed women and children of Serbian origin.
    Serbs fought their way to Srebenica killing fighters.

    Never trust a Serb. They’ve been causing problems from their mountains since roman times

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. anarchyst says:

    The famous photo showing the “refugees” behind fences was a farce. Actually, it was the news media reporters and photographers that were behind fences.
    This “farce” is in the same mold as the famous Saigon, Vietnam photo showing the South Vietnamese general “executing” the “poor VC”. Of course, the news media failed to mention that this VC was responsible for the murder of the general’s family…an inconvenient fact…
    Never EVER trust the “mainstream media”…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. People can formulate their own conclusions on my first hand experience in Macedonia after the war. I have no political ax to grind nor conspiratorial view, all I can do is report. I am an American with roots and family in the ex-jugoslavia and was there many times visiting friends and family. A family member from Serbia in a very high military position left Serbia before the start of the war and took up residence in Skopje because he knew what was coming. He personally knew Milosovic and Mladic and said both were bought and paid men. More on that at the end. Here’s was I saw first hand. Sitting in a cafe in the center of Skpoje enjoying a nice pizza for lunch I was introduced to Radko Mladic…while he was one of the most wanted men in Europe. He was not hiding, was not alone, was not disguised and was sitting two tables away from a table of American embassy staff that included the US Ambassador to Macedonia, who I happen to have had the pleasure of meeting a few days before at an embassy event. I then met Mladic about 9 months after that in the entrance lobby of the apartment building that my ex-military Serbian relative lived in. It seems he also had an apartment in the same building. Again, no disguise, and most people in the building knew him. Over the week that I was in Skopje visiting I saw him several times having discussion on the balcony with a few guys in suits who did not look Balkan. Twice I noticed a black SUV parked near by that did not fit in with all the local cars that people drove. I learned a few months after that from my relative that Mladic freely moved about in Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. When I asked how that was possible, how someone supposedly so wanted could be out in the open, my well informed and connected relative said that both Mladic and Milosvic were “company men”, which was the first time I had ever heard that expression, and that they would both be taken down after they no longer served their purpose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Interesting.

    Serbs are, obviously, the big losers in the latest round in Balkans.
    Albanians, Bosnian Muslims and Croats, not necessarily in that order, are winners.

    If so, then, Mladic for example, working for the "company" was actually actively working against his people?
    That, I guess, makes him a BIG traitor.

    So...are you saying that Mladic is a traitor?

    One can really read....... something....... on this site for sure.
    , @silviosilver
    That is some imagination you have there. Perfectly in line with the paranoid Balkans conspiracy mentality. (Ask this fellow what really happened to former president Trajkovski. I'm sure he knows.)

    Господи какви фантазии ваѓаат некој луѓе, скрос влезени во некое холивудско филмче...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Heros says:
    @guest
    "the first completely illegal war of aggression by the US/NATO"

    Aside from being completely untrue, this smells of Nuremberg style, internationalist, legalistic mumble-jumbo. Who on earth ever talked about "wars of aggression" before they made believe Germany tried to conquer the world (seriously)? And what is the big, damn difference between the Kosovo War and all the fake reasons the U.S. pulled out of its ass to start a hundred wars--the bloody spot, Ft. Sumter, the Maine, "unrestricted submarine warfare," Pearl Harbor, Tonkin Gulf, WMDs--or the uncountable ongoing wars it jumped into? The fact that this was officially a NATO thing? That makes it slightly worse from a New World Order perspective, but not legal mumbo-jumbo-ly speaking.

    “Nuremberg style, internationalist, legalistic mumble-jumbo.”

    The truth about Oradur-sur-Glane is that it was another yid rinse/repeat operation used as justification to deny the Wehrmacht of their Geneva Conventions rights. The church caught fire and burned so fast because Jewish terrorists had hidden weapons in the church rafters. When Churchil sent weapons to these terrorists to help fight for the allies during d-day, they kept them to use in a commie revolution.

    I ask myself why Saker has this massive genocidal hate for Germany and Germans. He will leave no stone unturned trying to find justice for his beloved commit-no-evil Slavs, even though he was raised and educated in Switzerland. He never stops trying to smear Germans as somehow being more culpable for WWII even though Stalin carved up Poland without any justification, yet Hitler had tried in vain to work with the allies to get the Poles to stop butchering and ethnically cleansing Germans from the Polish Corridor and Silesia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie

    "He [Saker] never stops trying to smear Germans as somehow being more culpable for WWII even though Stalin carved up Poland without any justification, yet Hitler had tried in vain to work with the allies to get the Poles to stop butchering and ethnically cleansing Germans from the Polish Corridor and Silesia." -- Heros
     
    There are two relatively minor problems here: firstly, Nazi Abwehr was working in the Danzig Corridor and Silesia in conjunction with some of the German population in such areas, and thus the Polish government and military became legitimately involved in counter-infiltration in those areas, (but not really involving mass "butchering" of the German population), and, secondly, it was hardly Stalin alone who "carved up Poland."

    But the major problem with Heros' attack on Saker is the real history of the lead-up to WWII. It's phony history to make out that Hitler could in any way have misunderstood the clear intent of the Munich Agreement. Following is from the article ("World War II: Munich Agreement") at ThoughtCo -
    https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-ii-munich-agreement-2361475


    Having moved towards an expansionist policy in late 1937, Hitler began assessing the situation to the south and ordered his generals to begin making plans for an invasion of the Sudetenland. Additionally, he instructed Henlein to cause trouble. It was Hitler's hope that Henlein's supporters would foment enough unrest that it would show that the Czechoslovakians were unable to control the region and provide an excuse for the German Army to cross the border. Politically, Henlein's followers called for the Sudeten Germans to be recognized as an autonomous ethnic group, given self-government, and be permitted to join Nazi Germany if they so desired. In response to the actions of Henlein's party, the Czechoslovak government was forced to declare martial law in the region. Following this decision, Hitler began demanding that the Sudetenland immediately be turned over to Germany.

    As the crisis grew, a war scare spread across Europe, leading Britain and France to take an active interest in the situation, as both nations were eager to avoid a war for which they were not prepared.

    As such, the French government followed the path set by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who believed that the Sudeten Germans' grievances had merit. Chamberlain also thought that Hitler's broader intentions were limited in scope and could be contained. In May, both nations recommended to Czechoslovakian President Edvard Beneš that he give in to Germany's demands. Resisting this advice, Beneš instead ordered a partial mobilization of the army. As tensions grew through the summer, Beneš accepted a British mediator, Lord Runciman, in early August. Meeting with both sides, Runciman and his team were able to convince Beneš to grant the Sudeten Germans autonomy. Despite this breakthrough, the SdP were under strict orders from Germany not to accept any compromise settlements.

    In an attempt to calm the situation, Chamberlain sent a telegram to Hitler requesting a meeting with the goal of finding a peaceful solution.

    Traveling to Berchtesgaden on September 15, Chamberlain met with the German leader. Controlling the conversation, Hitler lamented the Czechoslovak persecution of Sudeten Germans and boldly requested that the region be turned over. Unable to make such a concession, Chamberlain departed, stating that he would have to consult with the Cabinet in London and requested that Hitler refrain from military action in the meantime. Though he agreed to this, Hitler continued military planning. As part of this, the Polish and Hungarian governments were offered part of Czechoslovakia in return for allowing the Germans to take the Sudetenland.

    Meeting with the Cabinet, Chamberlain was authorized to concede the Sudetenland and received support from the French for such a move. On September 19, the British and French ambassadors met with the Czechoslovak government and recommended ceding those areas of the Sudetenland where Germans formed more than 50% of the population. Largely abandoned by its allies, the Czechoslovakians were forced to agree. Having secured this concession, Chamberlain returned to Germany on the 22nd and met with Hitler at Bad Godesberg. Optimistic that a solution had been reached, Chamberlain was stunned when Hitler made new demands.

    Not happy with the Anglo-French solution, Hitler demanded that German troops be permitted to occupy the entirety of the Sudetenland, that non-Germans be expelled, and that Poland and Hungary be given territorial concessions. After stating that such demands were unacceptable, Chamberlain was told that the terms were to be met or military action would result.

    Having risked his career and British prestige on the deal, Chamberlain was crushed as he returned home. In response to the German ultimatum, both Britain and France began mobilizing their forces.

    Though Hitler was willing to risk war, he soon found that the German people were not. As a result, he stepped back from the brink and sent Chamberlain a letter guaranteeing the safety of Czechoslovakia if the Sudetenland were ceded to Germany. Eager to prevent war, Chamberlain replied that he was willing to continue talks and asked Italian leader Benito Mussolini to aid in persuading Hitler. In response, Mussolini proposed a four-power summit between Germany, Britain, France, and Italy to discuss the situation. The Czechoslovakians were not invited to take part.

    Gathering in Munich on September 29, Chamberlain, Hitler, and Mussolini were joined by French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier. Talks progressed through the day and into the night, with a Czechoslovakian delegation forced to wait outside. In the negotiations, Mussolini presented a plan which called for the Sudetenland to be ceded to Germany in exchange for guarantees that it would mark the end of German territorial expansion. Though presented by the Italian leader, the plan had been produced by the German government and its terms were similar to Hitler's latest ultimatum.

    Desiring to avoid war, Chamberlain and Daladier were willing to agree to this "Italian plan." As a result, the Munich Agreement was signed shortly after 1:00 a.m. on September 30.

    This called for German troops to enter the Sudetenland on October 1 with the movement to be completed by the 10th. Around 1:30 a.m., the Czechoslovak delegation was informed of the terms by Chamberlain and Daladier. Though initially unwilling to agree, the Czechoslovakians were forced to submit when informed that should a war occur they would be held responsible.

    As a result of the agreement, German forces crossed the border on October 1 and were warmly received by the Sudeten Germans while many Czechoslovakians fled the region. Returning to London, Chamberlain proclaimed that he had secured "peace for our time." While many in the British government were pleased with the result, others were not. Commenting on the meeting, Winston Churchill proclaimed the Munich Agreement "a total, unmitigated defeat." Having believed that he would have to fight to claim the Sudetenland, Hitler was surprised that Czechoslovakia's erstwhile allies readily abandoned the country in order to appease him.

    Quickly coming to contempt Britain and France's fear of war, Hitler encouraged Poland and Hungary to take parts of Czechoslovakia. Unconcerned about retaliation from the western nations, Hitler moved to take the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. This was met with no significant response from either Britain or France. Concerned that Poland would be Germany's next target for expansion, both nations pledged their support in guaranteeing Polish independence. Going further, Britain concluded an Anglo-Polish military alliance on August 25. This was quickly activated when Germany invaded Poland on September 1, starting World War II.
     

    That's the real history, and Germans who try to present it differently and make out that Germany was the victim are as ridiculous and unworthy of serious consideration as are Zionists who present their version of the formation of Israel, the Six Day War, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. peterAUS says:
    @Aleksander the Great
    People can formulate their own conclusions on my first hand experience in Macedonia after the war. I have no political ax to grind nor conspiratorial view, all I can do is report. I am an American with roots and family in the ex-jugoslavia and was there many times visiting friends and family. A family member from Serbia in a very high military position left Serbia before the start of the war and took up residence in Skopje because he knew what was coming. He personally knew Milosovic and Mladic and said both were bought and paid men. More on that at the end. Here's was I saw first hand. Sitting in a cafe in the center of Skpoje enjoying a nice pizza for lunch I was introduced to Radko Mladic...while he was one of the most wanted men in Europe. He was not hiding, was not alone, was not disguised and was sitting two tables away from a table of American embassy staff that included the US Ambassador to Macedonia, who I happen to have had the pleasure of meeting a few days before at an embassy event. I then met Mladic about 9 months after that in the entrance lobby of the apartment building that my ex-military Serbian relative lived in. It seems he also had an apartment in the same building. Again, no disguise, and most people in the building knew him. Over the week that I was in Skopje visiting I saw him several times having discussion on the balcony with a few guys in suits who did not look Balkan. Twice I noticed a black SUV parked near by that did not fit in with all the local cars that people drove. I learned a few months after that from my relative that Mladic freely moved about in Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. When I asked how that was possible, how someone supposedly so wanted could be out in the open, my well informed and connected relative said that both Mladic and Milosvic were "company men", which was the first time I had ever heard that expression, and that they would both be taken down after they no longer served their purpose.

    Interesting.

    Serbs are, obviously, the big losers in the latest round in Balkans.
    Albanians, Bosnian Muslims and Croats, not necessarily in that order, are winners.

    If so, then, Mladic for example, working for the “company” was actually actively working against his people?
    That, I guess, makes him a BIG traitor.

    So…are you saying that Mladic is a traitor?

    One can really read……. something……. on this site for sure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Um, ya might wanna start using an EDITOR. The whole article is shot through with stupid typos. The typos, besides constantly breaking the reader’s consumption of the content, SERIOUSLY degrade any possible confidence in the content.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. To The Saker: I volunteer to proofread and offer suggested edits on your columns — at no cost except that it would be great to meet you someday and maybe get a signed copy of your next book. I have extensive experience writing and editing. Feel free to contact me by e-mail, and I’ll be glad to provide my name, phone number, and resume.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I’m acquainted with a woman who was a resident of Sarajevo when the warfare broke out. Product of a mixed marriage, she had a Yugo self-identification rather than with a particular group. She told me that one day a CNN truck parked in back of her building and the video crew set up shop near the local mosque just down the street and waited. Sometime later some shells hit the mosque and the crew took it all in. It was then reported as a wanton Serbian attack against a house of worship. It was all scripted. She’s stated that she saw many false flag events and that they had a local saying, something to the effect of ‘hoping you don’t get visited by CNN’ since bad things were sure to follow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. @Heros

    "Nuremberg style, internationalist, legalistic mumble-jumbo."
     
    The truth about Oradur-sur-Glane is that it was another yid rinse/repeat operation used as justification to deny the Wehrmacht of their Geneva Conventions rights. The church caught fire and burned so fast because Jewish terrorists had hidden weapons in the church rafters. When Churchil sent weapons to these terrorists to help fight for the allies during d-day, they kept them to use in a commie revolution.

    I ask myself why Saker has this massive genocidal hate for Germany and Germans. He will leave no stone unturned trying to find justice for his beloved commit-no-evil Slavs, even though he was raised and educated in Switzerland. He never stops trying to smear Germans as somehow being more culpable for WWII even though Stalin carved up Poland without any justification, yet Hitler had tried in vain to work with the allies to get the Poles to stop butchering and ethnically cleansing Germans from the Polish Corridor and Silesia.

    “He [Saker] never stops trying to smear Germans as somehow being more culpable for WWII even though Stalin carved up Poland without any justification, yet Hitler had tried in vain to work with the allies to get the Poles to stop butchering and ethnically cleansing Germans from the Polish Corridor and Silesia.” — Heros

    There are two relatively minor problems here: firstly, Nazi Abwehr was working in the Danzig Corridor and Silesia in conjunction with some of the German population in such areas, and thus the Polish government and military became legitimately involved in counter-infiltration in those areas, (but not really involving mass “butchering” of the German population), and, secondly, it was hardly Stalin alone who “carved up Poland.”

    But the major problem with Heros’ attack on Saker is the real history of the lead-up to WWII. It’s phony history to make out that Hitler could in any way have misunderstood the clear intent of the Munich Agreement. Following is from the article (“World War II: Munich Agreement”) at ThoughtCo -

    https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-ii-munich-agreement-2361475

    Having moved towards an expansionist policy in late 1937, Hitler began assessing the situation to the south and ordered his generals to begin making plans for an invasion of the Sudetenland. Additionally, he instructed Henlein to cause trouble. It was Hitler’s hope that Henlein’s supporters would foment enough unrest that it would show that the Czechoslovakians were unable to control the region and provide an excuse for the German Army to cross the border. Politically, Henlein’s followers called for the Sudeten Germans to be recognized as an autonomous ethnic group, given self-government, and be permitted to join Nazi Germany if they so desired. In response to the actions of Henlein’s party, the Czechoslovak government was forced to declare martial law in the region. Following this decision, Hitler began demanding that the Sudetenland immediately be turned over to Germany.

    As the crisis grew, a war scare spread across Europe, leading Britain and France to take an active interest in the situation, as both nations were eager to avoid a war for which they were not prepared.

    As such, the French government followed the path set by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who believed that the Sudeten Germans’ grievances had merit. Chamberlain also thought that Hitler’s broader intentions were limited in scope and could be contained. In May, both nations recommended to Czechoslovakian President Edvard Beneš that he give in to Germany’s demands. Resisting this advice, Beneš instead ordered a partial mobilization of the army. As tensions grew through the summer, Beneš accepted a British mediator, Lord Runciman, in early August. Meeting with both sides, Runciman and his team were able to convince Beneš to grant the Sudeten Germans autonomy. Despite this breakthrough, the SdP were under strict orders from Germany not to accept any compromise settlements.

    In an attempt to calm the situation, Chamberlain sent a telegram to Hitler requesting a meeting with the goal of finding a peaceful solution.

    Traveling to Berchtesgaden on September 15, Chamberlain met with the German leader. Controlling the conversation, Hitler lamented the Czechoslovak persecution of Sudeten Germans and boldly requested that the region be turned over. Unable to make such a concession, Chamberlain departed, stating that he would have to consult with the Cabinet in London and requested that Hitler refrain from military action in the meantime. Though he agreed to this, Hitler continued military planning. As part of this, the Polish and Hungarian governments were offered part of Czechoslovakia in return for allowing the Germans to take the Sudetenland.

    Meeting with the Cabinet, Chamberlain was authorized to concede the Sudetenland and received support from the French for such a move. On September 19, the British and French ambassadors met with the Czechoslovak government and recommended ceding those areas of the Sudetenland where Germans formed more than 50% of the population. Largely abandoned by its allies, the Czechoslovakians were forced to agree. Having secured this concession, Chamberlain returned to Germany on the 22nd and met with Hitler at Bad Godesberg. Optimistic that a solution had been reached, Chamberlain was stunned when Hitler made new demands.

    Not happy with the Anglo-French solution, Hitler demanded that German troops be permitted to occupy the entirety of the Sudetenland, that non-Germans be expelled, and that Poland and Hungary be given territorial concessions. After stating that such demands were unacceptable, Chamberlain was told that the terms were to be met or military action would result.

    Having risked his career and British prestige on the deal, Chamberlain was crushed as he returned home. In response to the German ultimatum, both Britain and France began mobilizing their forces.

    Though Hitler was willing to risk war, he soon found that the German people were not. As a result, he stepped back from the brink and sent Chamberlain a letter guaranteeing the safety of Czechoslovakia if the Sudetenland were ceded to Germany. Eager to prevent war, Chamberlain replied that he was willing to continue talks and asked Italian leader Benito Mussolini to aid in persuading Hitler. In response, Mussolini proposed a four-power summit between Germany, Britain, France, and Italy to discuss the situation. The Czechoslovakians were not invited to take part.

    Gathering in Munich on September 29, Chamberlain, Hitler, and Mussolini were joined by French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier. Talks progressed through the day and into the night, with a Czechoslovakian delegation forced to wait outside. In the negotiations, Mussolini presented a plan which called for the Sudetenland to be ceded to Germany in exchange for guarantees that it would mark the end of German territorial expansion. Though presented by the Italian leader, the plan had been produced by the German government and its terms were similar to Hitler’s latest ultimatum.

    Desiring to avoid war, Chamberlain and Daladier were willing to agree to this “Italian plan.” As a result, the Munich Agreement was signed shortly after 1:00 a.m. on September 30.

    This called for German troops to enter the Sudetenland on October 1 with the movement to be completed by the 10th. Around 1:30 a.m., the Czechoslovak delegation was informed of the terms by Chamberlain and Daladier. Though initially unwilling to agree, the Czechoslovakians were forced to submit when informed that should a war occur they would be held responsible.

    As a result of the agreement, German forces crossed the border on October 1 and were warmly received by the Sudeten Germans while many Czechoslovakians fled the region. Returning to London, Chamberlain proclaimed that he had secured “peace for our time.” While many in the British government were pleased with the result, others were not. Commenting on the meeting, Winston Churchill proclaimed the Munich Agreement “a total, unmitigated defeat.” Having believed that he would have to fight to claim the Sudetenland, Hitler was surprised that Czechoslovakia’s erstwhile allies readily abandoned the country in order to appease him.

    Quickly coming to contempt Britain and France’s fear of war, Hitler encouraged Poland and Hungary to take parts of Czechoslovakia. Unconcerned about retaliation from the western nations, Hitler moved to take the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. This was met with no significant response from either Britain or France. Concerned that Poland would be Germany’s next target for expansion, both nations pledged their support in guaranteeing Polish independence. Going further, Britain concluded an Anglo-Polish military alliance on August 25. This was quickly activated when Germany invaded Poland on September 1, starting World War II.

    That’s the real history, and Germans who try to present it differently and make out that Germany was the victim are as ridiculous and unworthy of serious consideration as are Zionists who present their version of the formation of Israel, the Six Day War, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Emblematic
    A war between Germany and Poland is not a World War. World War II began when Britain declared war on Germany.
    , @Heros

    "That’s the real KOSHER history"
     
    The foundation for WWII was laid at Versailles where Germany, against all allied promises when the Armistice was signed, was stripped of vital farmland in West Prussia and virtually starved to death in a horrendous series of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 1919 was called the Turnip winter and millions were deliberately starved to death by illegal blockades, but it was no where close to what the Zio-allies would do the next time.

    Chechoslovakia was in reality 4 separate groups of people in Sutenland, Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia. It was an artificial construct created to guarantee another war and to reward Benes and other traitors to Austria. The fact that the "Chechs" had to ethnically cleanse and genocide the Sudeten Germans, and that Slovakia broke away the first chance she had is proof enough of the war crimes of the allies.

    Western Poland, likewise, was carved out of land occupied for centuries by German speaking majorities and was a deliberate and successful attempt to punish and starve Germany. After the second world war even more critical land was stolen from Germany and given to Poland, who promptly committed war crimes against Germans on a scale that would make Attila the Hun blush, and it is ironic that the Germans were ones called "Huns".

    America is guilty of so much genocide, one does not even know where to start. Yet Americans love soaking up their yid-propaganda movies about "just war", and when an American parks his ass in front of the TV he turns his brain off.

    This is what the Zio-allies did to Germany after the war. Russia, the US and England really lost all rights to exist among civilized nations afterwards, but of course in reality we are living on planet Israel.

    https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/09/16/histories-most-terrifying-peace-allied-run-concentration-camps/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. MarkinPNW says:

    “War is a Racket;” Major General Smedley Butler, USMC (twice awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor).

    “All Wars are Bankers’ Wars”; Michael Rivero.

    With this introduction, my understanding of what happened to Yugoslavia actually comes from research and postings at an old website; polyconomics.com run be the late political economist Jude Wanniski, and also from Antiwar.com in the 1990′s.

    Basically Wanniski showed that the bankers, through the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and World Bank did a deliberate Perkins type of economic hit on the Yugoslav economy because they apparently did not like Yugoslavia’s “Market Socialism” – not capitalist enough. All the various nationalities and ethnicities were apparently willing to co-operate when times were good even if they did not like each other, but when their economies were deliberately destroyed, all their resentments over past conflicts and genocides came to the fore in violent conflict.

    Later events seem to show that one thing the internationl bankers were after was Kosovo’s mineral wealth, especially gold, that they could not exploit as long as Market Socialism policy insisted on mineral wealth of the country being for Yugoslavia’s people and government and not for the foreign international bankers. Thus the need to destroy the prosperity and peace of Yugoslavia to get control of Kosovo’s minerals.

    Perhaps the real losers were all of the different groups of the former Yugoslavia; Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Kosovians, Orthodox, Catholic, Muslim, whatever; and the winners are the Bankers of the west who, in deliberately destroying the peace and prosperity of Yugoslavia, got control their natural resources, such as the Gold of Kosovo.

    Hmmm, maybe much like how these bankers now try to use economic war and ethnic conflict to dismember and destroy the countries of the former Soviet Union and to get control of their resources (stirring up conflict between Russians, Ukrainians, Chechens, Baltic States, etc.).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. @Aleksander the Great
    People can formulate their own conclusions on my first hand experience in Macedonia after the war. I have no political ax to grind nor conspiratorial view, all I can do is report. I am an American with roots and family in the ex-jugoslavia and was there many times visiting friends and family. A family member from Serbia in a very high military position left Serbia before the start of the war and took up residence in Skopje because he knew what was coming. He personally knew Milosovic and Mladic and said both were bought and paid men. More on that at the end. Here's was I saw first hand. Sitting in a cafe in the center of Skpoje enjoying a nice pizza for lunch I was introduced to Radko Mladic...while he was one of the most wanted men in Europe. He was not hiding, was not alone, was not disguised and was sitting two tables away from a table of American embassy staff that included the US Ambassador to Macedonia, who I happen to have had the pleasure of meeting a few days before at an embassy event. I then met Mladic about 9 months after that in the entrance lobby of the apartment building that my ex-military Serbian relative lived in. It seems he also had an apartment in the same building. Again, no disguise, and most people in the building knew him. Over the week that I was in Skopje visiting I saw him several times having discussion on the balcony with a few guys in suits who did not look Balkan. Twice I noticed a black SUV parked near by that did not fit in with all the local cars that people drove. I learned a few months after that from my relative that Mladic freely moved about in Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. When I asked how that was possible, how someone supposedly so wanted could be out in the open, my well informed and connected relative said that both Mladic and Milosvic were "company men", which was the first time I had ever heard that expression, and that they would both be taken down after they no longer served their purpose.

    That is some imagination you have there. Perfectly in line with the paranoid Balkans conspiracy mentality. (Ask this fellow what really happened to former president Trajkovski. I’m sure he knows.)

    Господи какви фантазии ваѓаат некој луѓе, скрос влезени во некое холивудско филмче…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. ” In reality, however, the Bosnian-Muslims kept and entire Mountain Division in Srebrenica and they continued to reinforce it both by land and by air. To make things even worse, the Bosnian-Muslims constantly used Srebrenica as a safe base to attack the Bosnian-Serb positions around the town. At the beginning of the war, the Bosnian-Muslims had already burned down all the Bosnian-Serb villages around Srebrenica and massacred most of the civilians living they found in them (we are talking about several thousand civilians). The local Bosnian-Serbs had promised that one day they would take revenge for these massacres and some of them, indeed, do that when the Bosnian-Serbs entered Srebrenica. Needless to say, none of that was ever reported by the western corporate Ziomedia]. ”

    I’m Dutch, since it happened of course a lot was said in the Netherlands about Szrebreniza.
    One investigation after another, lawsuits against the Dutch state, some with success.

    It is difficult for me to imagine that none of the Dutch soldiers who were there, a very inadequate number, with no more weapons than jeeps, rifles, side arms and some machine guns, never would have said anything about a Bosnian Muslim Mountain Division.
    Never saw any picture of such a Mountain Division.

    Then there is the question of why this Mountain Division did nothing whan the Serb tanks came, I do suppose such a division does have anti tank weapons.

    The idea with Dutch politicians, and some of the military, was that just the presence of Dutch soldiers would be protection.
    The more clever military have warned, that 80.000 men with heavy weapons would be needed to defend the enclave, a town at the bottom of a valley, surrounded by hills, hills not held by our Dutch.

    What was not reported in western media that in September or so last year Milosevitch posthumously was declared innocent of all accusations.
    If he died in the The Hague prison because heart surgery was deliberately denied to him ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    anything about a Bosnian Muslim Mountain Division.
     
    Pure nonsense.

    Now, that was/is a mountainous region and there was enough personnel there to form such a division (plenty of Muslims inside the enclave).
    A lot of those people had basic infantry weapons (an AK with a couple of magazines etc).
    For an average person that's enough and The Message is always about an average person.

    That a Mountain Division is something totally different than, say, 5000 men with AKs and such doesn't register with average person. Including an average media person; most of them hate military and have no clue how all that works.

    BTW, the local warlord was Naser Oric, a capable police special forces officer from former Yugoslavia. Capable to organize that bunch of civilians in some sort of local militia and lead a couple of hundreds of those Muslims every now and then in raids on similar Serb settlements around the enclave.
    Medieval Balkans warfare with AKs, hand grenades, a couple of hand held rocket launchers and GPMG here and there.

    The idea with Dutch politicians, and some of the military, was that just the presence of Dutch soldiers would be protection.
     
    As a ground force; a part of overall military capability in the region.

    The more clever military have warned, that 80.000 men with heavy weapons would be needed to defend the enclave, a town at the bottom of a valley, surrounded by hills, hills not held by our Dutch.
     
    Nonsense.
    Blue helmets weren't there to fight an organized Balkans armed force. They were there to repel some local warlord and even in that case it was about air strikes, not ground combat.
    Dutch relied on airforce support which didn't come in time and force.
    POLITICS at the time.

    Dutch battalion there was just a little pawn in a big game of geopolitics being played then and there.
    They couldn't have done anything more.

    The all blame is on.....ah, well...that is a bit COMPLICATED.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. peterAUS says:
    @jilles dykstra
    " In reality, however, the Bosnian-Muslims kept and entire Mountain Division in Srebrenica and they continued to reinforce it both by land and by air. To make things even worse, the Bosnian-Muslims constantly used Srebrenica as a safe base to attack the Bosnian-Serb positions around the town. At the beginning of the war, the Bosnian-Muslims had already burned down all the Bosnian-Serb villages around Srebrenica and massacred most of the civilians living they found in them (we are talking about several thousand civilians). The local Bosnian-Serbs had promised that one day they would take revenge for these massacres and some of them, indeed, do that when the Bosnian-Serbs entered Srebrenica. Needless to say, none of that was ever reported by the western corporate Ziomedia]. "

    I'm Dutch, since it happened of course a lot was said in the Netherlands about Szrebreniza.
    One investigation after another, lawsuits against the Dutch state, some with success.

    It is difficult for me to imagine that none of the Dutch soldiers who were there, a very inadequate number, with no more weapons than jeeps, rifles, side arms and some machine guns, never would have said anything about a Bosnian Muslim Mountain Division.
    Never saw any picture of such a Mountain Division.

    Then there is the question of why this Mountain Division did nothing whan the Serb tanks came, I do suppose such a division does have anti tank weapons.

    The idea with Dutch politicians, and some of the military, was that just the presence of Dutch soldiers would be protection.
    The more clever military have warned, that 80.000 men with heavy weapons would be needed to defend the enclave, a town at the bottom of a valley, surrounded by hills, hills not held by our Dutch.

    What was not reported in western media that in September or so last year Milosevitch posthumously was declared innocent of all accusations.
    If he died in the The Hague prison because heart surgery was deliberately denied to him ?

    anything about a Bosnian Muslim Mountain Division.

    Pure nonsense.

    Now, that was/is a mountainous region and there was enough personnel there to form such a division (plenty of Muslims inside the enclave).
    A lot of those people had basic infantry weapons (an AK with a couple of magazines etc).
    For an average person that’s enough and The Message is always about an average person.

    That a Mountain Division is something totally different than, say, 5000 men with AKs and such doesn’t register with average person. Including an average media person; most of them hate military and have no clue how all that works.

    BTW, the local warlord was Naser Oric, a capable police special forces officer from former Yugoslavia. Capable to organize that bunch of civilians in some sort of local militia and lead a couple of hundreds of those Muslims every now and then in raids on similar Serb settlements around the enclave.
    Medieval Balkans warfare with AKs, hand grenades, a couple of hand held rocket launchers and GPMG here and there.

    The idea with Dutch politicians, and some of the military, was that just the presence of Dutch soldiers would be protection.

    As a ground force; a part of overall military capability in the region.

    The more clever military have warned, that 80.000 men with heavy weapons would be needed to defend the enclave, a town at the bottom of a valley, surrounded by hills, hills not held by our Dutch.

    Nonsense.
    Blue helmets weren’t there to fight an organized Balkans armed force. They were there to repel some local warlord and even in that case it was about air strikes, not ground combat.
    Dutch relied on airforce support which didn’t come in time and force.
    POLITICS at the time.

    Dutch battalion there was just a little pawn in a big game of geopolitics being played then and there.
    They couldn’t have done anything more.

    The all blame is on…..ah, well…that is a bit COMPLICATED.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Svigor says:

    Leave off with the “unnecessary” “quotation marks” “all over the fucking place.” “You” are misusing them, and the “English” “language.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Svigor says:

    Blech, I stopped paying attention after the umpteenth “zio” and “AngloZion” reference. What was the point of the article? Jewbaiting? Yawn. Talking about what really happened? Allegedly, though it seemed like half a platform for potshots at the mainstream media; but you’re already writing for Unz…so was the point to test the echo chamber? Having to wade through all the derogatory crap detracts from what is an already interesting subject.

    Take note: Jew doesn’t give a shit about the “Anglo” part of the “AngloZionist” reference. He only objects to the “Zionist” part. Even though the Anglo part is worse, as it refers to an entire ethnicity, not just a certain ideological subset.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. @Grandpa Charlie

    "He [Saker] never stops trying to smear Germans as somehow being more culpable for WWII even though Stalin carved up Poland without any justification, yet Hitler had tried in vain to work with the allies to get the Poles to stop butchering and ethnically cleansing Germans from the Polish Corridor and Silesia." -- Heros
     
    There are two relatively minor problems here: firstly, Nazi Abwehr was working in the Danzig Corridor and Silesia in conjunction with some of the German population in such areas, and thus the Polish government and military became legitimately involved in counter-infiltration in those areas, (but not really involving mass "butchering" of the German population), and, secondly, it was hardly Stalin alone who "carved up Poland."

    But the major problem with Heros' attack on Saker is the real history of the lead-up to WWII. It's phony history to make out that Hitler could in any way have misunderstood the clear intent of the Munich Agreement. Following is from the article ("World War II: Munich Agreement") at ThoughtCo -
    https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-ii-munich-agreement-2361475


    Having moved towards an expansionist policy in late 1937, Hitler began assessing the situation to the south and ordered his generals to begin making plans for an invasion of the Sudetenland. Additionally, he instructed Henlein to cause trouble. It was Hitler's hope that Henlein's supporters would foment enough unrest that it would show that the Czechoslovakians were unable to control the region and provide an excuse for the German Army to cross the border. Politically, Henlein's followers called for the Sudeten Germans to be recognized as an autonomous ethnic group, given self-government, and be permitted to join Nazi Germany if they so desired. In response to the actions of Henlein's party, the Czechoslovak government was forced to declare martial law in the region. Following this decision, Hitler began demanding that the Sudetenland immediately be turned over to Germany.

    As the crisis grew, a war scare spread across Europe, leading Britain and France to take an active interest in the situation, as both nations were eager to avoid a war for which they were not prepared.

    As such, the French government followed the path set by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who believed that the Sudeten Germans' grievances had merit. Chamberlain also thought that Hitler's broader intentions were limited in scope and could be contained. In May, both nations recommended to Czechoslovakian President Edvard Beneš that he give in to Germany's demands. Resisting this advice, Beneš instead ordered a partial mobilization of the army. As tensions grew through the summer, Beneš accepted a British mediator, Lord Runciman, in early August. Meeting with both sides, Runciman and his team were able to convince Beneš to grant the Sudeten Germans autonomy. Despite this breakthrough, the SdP were under strict orders from Germany not to accept any compromise settlements.

    In an attempt to calm the situation, Chamberlain sent a telegram to Hitler requesting a meeting with the goal of finding a peaceful solution.

    Traveling to Berchtesgaden on September 15, Chamberlain met with the German leader. Controlling the conversation, Hitler lamented the Czechoslovak persecution of Sudeten Germans and boldly requested that the region be turned over. Unable to make such a concession, Chamberlain departed, stating that he would have to consult with the Cabinet in London and requested that Hitler refrain from military action in the meantime. Though he agreed to this, Hitler continued military planning. As part of this, the Polish and Hungarian governments were offered part of Czechoslovakia in return for allowing the Germans to take the Sudetenland.

    Meeting with the Cabinet, Chamberlain was authorized to concede the Sudetenland and received support from the French for such a move. On September 19, the British and French ambassadors met with the Czechoslovak government and recommended ceding those areas of the Sudetenland where Germans formed more than 50% of the population. Largely abandoned by its allies, the Czechoslovakians were forced to agree. Having secured this concession, Chamberlain returned to Germany on the 22nd and met with Hitler at Bad Godesberg. Optimistic that a solution had been reached, Chamberlain was stunned when Hitler made new demands.

    Not happy with the Anglo-French solution, Hitler demanded that German troops be permitted to occupy the entirety of the Sudetenland, that non-Germans be expelled, and that Poland and Hungary be given territorial concessions. After stating that such demands were unacceptable, Chamberlain was told that the terms were to be met or military action would result.

    Having risked his career and British prestige on the deal, Chamberlain was crushed as he returned home. In response to the German ultimatum, both Britain and France began mobilizing their forces.

    Though Hitler was willing to risk war, he soon found that the German people were not. As a result, he stepped back from the brink and sent Chamberlain a letter guaranteeing the safety of Czechoslovakia if the Sudetenland were ceded to Germany. Eager to prevent war, Chamberlain replied that he was willing to continue talks and asked Italian leader Benito Mussolini to aid in persuading Hitler. In response, Mussolini proposed a four-power summit between Germany, Britain, France, and Italy to discuss the situation. The Czechoslovakians were not invited to take part.

    Gathering in Munich on September 29, Chamberlain, Hitler, and Mussolini were joined by French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier. Talks progressed through the day and into the night, with a Czechoslovakian delegation forced to wait outside. In the negotiations, Mussolini presented a plan which called for the Sudetenland to be ceded to Germany in exchange for guarantees that it would mark the end of German territorial expansion. Though presented by the Italian leader, the plan had been produced by the German government and its terms were similar to Hitler's latest ultimatum.

    Desiring to avoid war, Chamberlain and Daladier were willing to agree to this "Italian plan." As a result, the Munich Agreement was signed shortly after 1:00 a.m. on September 30.

    This called for German troops to enter the Sudetenland on October 1 with the movement to be completed by the 10th. Around 1:30 a.m., the Czechoslovak delegation was informed of the terms by Chamberlain and Daladier. Though initially unwilling to agree, the Czechoslovakians were forced to submit when informed that should a war occur they would be held responsible.

    As a result of the agreement, German forces crossed the border on October 1 and were warmly received by the Sudeten Germans while many Czechoslovakians fled the region. Returning to London, Chamberlain proclaimed that he had secured "peace for our time." While many in the British government were pleased with the result, others were not. Commenting on the meeting, Winston Churchill proclaimed the Munich Agreement "a total, unmitigated defeat." Having believed that he would have to fight to claim the Sudetenland, Hitler was surprised that Czechoslovakia's erstwhile allies readily abandoned the country in order to appease him.

    Quickly coming to contempt Britain and France's fear of war, Hitler encouraged Poland and Hungary to take parts of Czechoslovakia. Unconcerned about retaliation from the western nations, Hitler moved to take the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. This was met with no significant response from either Britain or France. Concerned that Poland would be Germany's next target for expansion, both nations pledged their support in guaranteeing Polish independence. Going further, Britain concluded an Anglo-Polish military alliance on August 25. This was quickly activated when Germany invaded Poland on September 1, starting World War II.
     

    That's the real history, and Germans who try to present it differently and make out that Germany was the victim are as ridiculous and unworthy of serious consideration as are Zionists who present their version of the formation of Israel, the Six Day War, etc.

    A war between Germany and Poland is not a World War. World War II began when Britain declared war on Germany.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Heros says:
    @Grandpa Charlie

    "He [Saker] never stops trying to smear Germans as somehow being more culpable for WWII even though Stalin carved up Poland without any justification, yet Hitler had tried in vain to work with the allies to get the Poles to stop butchering and ethnically cleansing Germans from the Polish Corridor and Silesia." -- Heros
     
    There are two relatively minor problems here: firstly, Nazi Abwehr was working in the Danzig Corridor and Silesia in conjunction with some of the German population in such areas, and thus the Polish government and military became legitimately involved in counter-infiltration in those areas, (but not really involving mass "butchering" of the German population), and, secondly, it was hardly Stalin alone who "carved up Poland."

    But the major problem with Heros' attack on Saker is the real history of the lead-up to WWII. It's phony history to make out that Hitler could in any way have misunderstood the clear intent of the Munich Agreement. Following is from the article ("World War II: Munich Agreement") at ThoughtCo -
    https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-ii-munich-agreement-2361475


    Having moved towards an expansionist policy in late 1937, Hitler began assessing the situation to the south and ordered his generals to begin making plans for an invasion of the Sudetenland. Additionally, he instructed Henlein to cause trouble. It was Hitler's hope that Henlein's supporters would foment enough unrest that it would show that the Czechoslovakians were unable to control the region and provide an excuse for the German Army to cross the border. Politically, Henlein's followers called for the Sudeten Germans to be recognized as an autonomous ethnic group, given self-government, and be permitted to join Nazi Germany if they so desired. In response to the actions of Henlein's party, the Czechoslovak government was forced to declare martial law in the region. Following this decision, Hitler began demanding that the Sudetenland immediately be turned over to Germany.

    As the crisis grew, a war scare spread across Europe, leading Britain and France to take an active interest in the situation, as both nations were eager to avoid a war for which they were not prepared.

    As such, the French government followed the path set by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who believed that the Sudeten Germans' grievances had merit. Chamberlain also thought that Hitler's broader intentions were limited in scope and could be contained. In May, both nations recommended to Czechoslovakian President Edvard Beneš that he give in to Germany's demands. Resisting this advice, Beneš instead ordered a partial mobilization of the army. As tensions grew through the summer, Beneš accepted a British mediator, Lord Runciman, in early August. Meeting with both sides, Runciman and his team were able to convince Beneš to grant the Sudeten Germans autonomy. Despite this breakthrough, the SdP were under strict orders from Germany not to accept any compromise settlements.

    In an attempt to calm the situation, Chamberlain sent a telegram to Hitler requesting a meeting with the goal of finding a peaceful solution.

    Traveling to Berchtesgaden on September 15, Chamberlain met with the German leader. Controlling the conversation, Hitler lamented the Czechoslovak persecution of Sudeten Germans and boldly requested that the region be turned over. Unable to make such a concession, Chamberlain departed, stating that he would have to consult with the Cabinet in London and requested that Hitler refrain from military action in the meantime. Though he agreed to this, Hitler continued military planning. As part of this, the Polish and Hungarian governments were offered part of Czechoslovakia in return for allowing the Germans to take the Sudetenland.

    Meeting with the Cabinet, Chamberlain was authorized to concede the Sudetenland and received support from the French for such a move. On September 19, the British and French ambassadors met with the Czechoslovak government and recommended ceding those areas of the Sudetenland where Germans formed more than 50% of the population. Largely abandoned by its allies, the Czechoslovakians were forced to agree. Having secured this concession, Chamberlain returned to Germany on the 22nd and met with Hitler at Bad Godesberg. Optimistic that a solution had been reached, Chamberlain was stunned when Hitler made new demands.

    Not happy with the Anglo-French solution, Hitler demanded that German troops be permitted to occupy the entirety of the Sudetenland, that non-Germans be expelled, and that Poland and Hungary be given territorial concessions. After stating that such demands were unacceptable, Chamberlain was told that the terms were to be met or military action would result.

    Having risked his career and British prestige on the deal, Chamberlain was crushed as he returned home. In response to the German ultimatum, both Britain and France began mobilizing their forces.

    Though Hitler was willing to risk war, he soon found that the German people were not. As a result, he stepped back from the brink and sent Chamberlain a letter guaranteeing the safety of Czechoslovakia if the Sudetenland were ceded to Germany. Eager to prevent war, Chamberlain replied that he was willing to continue talks and asked Italian leader Benito Mussolini to aid in persuading Hitler. In response, Mussolini proposed a four-power summit between Germany, Britain, France, and Italy to discuss the situation. The Czechoslovakians were not invited to take part.

    Gathering in Munich on September 29, Chamberlain, Hitler, and Mussolini were joined by French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier. Talks progressed through the day and into the night, with a Czechoslovakian delegation forced to wait outside. In the negotiations, Mussolini presented a plan which called for the Sudetenland to be ceded to Germany in exchange for guarantees that it would mark the end of German territorial expansion. Though presented by the Italian leader, the plan had been produced by the German government and its terms were similar to Hitler's latest ultimatum.

    Desiring to avoid war, Chamberlain and Daladier were willing to agree to this "Italian plan." As a result, the Munich Agreement was signed shortly after 1:00 a.m. on September 30.

    This called for German troops to enter the Sudetenland on October 1 with the movement to be completed by the 10th. Around 1:30 a.m., the Czechoslovak delegation was informed of the terms by Chamberlain and Daladier. Though initially unwilling to agree, the Czechoslovakians were forced to submit when informed that should a war occur they would be held responsible.

    As a result of the agreement, German forces crossed the border on October 1 and were warmly received by the Sudeten Germans while many Czechoslovakians fled the region. Returning to London, Chamberlain proclaimed that he had secured "peace for our time." While many in the British government were pleased with the result, others were not. Commenting on the meeting, Winston Churchill proclaimed the Munich Agreement "a total, unmitigated defeat." Having believed that he would have to fight to claim the Sudetenland, Hitler was surprised that Czechoslovakia's erstwhile allies readily abandoned the country in order to appease him.

    Quickly coming to contempt Britain and France's fear of war, Hitler encouraged Poland and Hungary to take parts of Czechoslovakia. Unconcerned about retaliation from the western nations, Hitler moved to take the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. This was met with no significant response from either Britain or France. Concerned that Poland would be Germany's next target for expansion, both nations pledged their support in guaranteeing Polish independence. Going further, Britain concluded an Anglo-Polish military alliance on August 25. This was quickly activated when Germany invaded Poland on September 1, starting World War II.
     

    That's the real history, and Germans who try to present it differently and make out that Germany was the victim are as ridiculous and unworthy of serious consideration as are Zionists who present their version of the formation of Israel, the Six Day War, etc.

    “That’s the real KOSHER history”

    The foundation for WWII was laid at Versailles where Germany, against all allied promises when the Armistice was signed, was stripped of vital farmland in West Prussia and virtually starved to death in a horrendous series of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 1919 was called the Turnip winter and millions were deliberately starved to death by illegal blockades, but it was no where close to what the Zio-allies would do the next time.

    Chechoslovakia was in reality 4 separate groups of people in Sutenland, Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia. It was an artificial construct created to guarantee another war and to reward Benes and other traitors to Austria. The fact that the “Chechs” had to ethnically cleanse and genocide the Sudeten Germans, and that Slovakia broke away the first chance she had is proof enough of the war crimes of the allies.

    Western Poland, likewise, was carved out of land occupied for centuries by German speaking majorities and was a deliberate and successful attempt to punish and starve Germany. After the second world war even more critical land was stolen from Germany and given to Poland, who promptly committed war crimes against Germans on a scale that would make Attila the Hun blush, and it is ironic that the Germans were ones called “Huns”.

    America is guilty of so much genocide, one does not even know where to start. Yet Americans love soaking up their yid-propaganda movies about “just war”, and when an American parks his ass in front of the TV he turns his brain off.

    This is what the Zio-allies did to Germany after the war. Russia, the US and England really lost all rights to exist among civilized nations afterwards, but of course in reality we are living on planet Israel.

    https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/09/16/histories-most-terrifying-peace-allied-run-concentration-camps/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. H.S. says:

    Canadian soldiers remember the horrors of MEDAK pocket, Serbs burned alive, the corporation (MPRI, now Engilitycorp) used to train mercenaries against the Serbs:

    ”Ghosts of Medak Pocket”:

    The European Union has been created to establish a peace and prosperous area for ALL EU members, not just for an elite, and to permit reconciliation between France and Germany, and essentially, to promote womens’ and workers’ rights for all EU members.

    The EU was not created to support the independence of a narco-human trafficking state, Kosovo, and to support NAZISM.

    ”Kosovo demonstration in Toronto ”:

    Canada, the US and UK MUST REVOKE Kosovo’s independence.

    ”Media reports have revealed that as early as 1998, the central intelligence agency assisted by the British Special Armed Services were arming and training Kosovo Liberation Army members in Albania to foment armed rebellion in Kosovo. The KLA terrorists were sent back into Kosovo to assassinate Serbian mayors, ambush Serbian policemen and do everything possible to incite murder and chaos. The hope was that with Kosovo in flames NATO could intervene and in so doing, not only overthrow Slobodan Milosevic the Serbian strong man, but more importantly, provide the aging and increasingly irrelevant military organization [NATO] with a reason for its continued existence. ”

    From James Bisset, former Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria

    We Created a Monster:

    http://www.savekosovo.org/default.asp?p=6&sp=8

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Retired Canadian general, Lewis MacKenzie:

    “It didn’t take long for the Bosnian Muslims to realize that the UN was in no position to live up to its promise to “protect” Srebrenica. With some help from outsiders, they began to infiltrate thousands of fighters and weapons into the safe haven. As the Bosnian Muslim fighters became better equipped and trained, they started to venture outside Srebrenica, burning Serb villages and killing their occupants before quickly withdrawing to the security provided by the UN’s safe haven. These attacks reached a crescendo in 1994 and carried on into early 1995 after the Canadian infantry company that had been there for a year was replaced by a larger Dutch contingent.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Seraphim says:

    A question left somehow out is the massive support of the Islamic world (Sunni and Shia alike) for the Bosnian Muslims, abetted underhand by the US, which was by all accounts an act of aggression by foreign countries against Orthodox Serbia which happened concomitantly with the Islamic aggressions in Chechnya and Tajikistan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Pretty much.

    But that would go against Polit.....I mean Kremlin, current agenda of being cozy with Iran and Turkey.
    And Saker's "Russians and Muslims together against Zionazis" meme too.

    You gotta keep with the program here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. peterAUS says:
    @Seraphim
    A question left somehow out is the massive support of the Islamic world (Sunni and Shia alike) for the Bosnian Muslims, abetted underhand by the US, which was by all accounts an act of aggression by foreign countries against Orthodox Serbia which happened concomitantly with the Islamic aggressions in Chechnya and Tajikistan.

    Pretty much.

    But that would go against Polit…..I mean Kremlin, current agenda of being cozy with Iran and Turkey.
    And Saker’s “Russians and Muslims together against Zionazis” meme too.

    You gotta keep with the program here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Pretending to say "Politburo" instead of "the Kremlin" isn't humorous, and such snark is no substitute for evidence and reasoning.

    As for the Saker, I greatly enjoy and learn from his material, but I find any notion of alliance with Muslims to be terminally naïve.
    , @Seraphim
    Pretty much so indeed. I would nevertheless make a distinction.
    Kremlin's agenda is a political one and its aim is to neutralize the jihad against Russia. Its policy is to 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'. It has to reckon with the restive Muslim population of Russia, ready to act as the fifth column of the other implacable enemy, the 'Zionists' and their vassals the Anglo-Americans.
    Saker's meme is an ideological one, based on the fanciful Duginist 'Evrasian' kabbalistic National-Bolshevism. One cannot be but puzzled by the relentless promotion of such a pathetic figure like Imran Hosein, an advocate of the most anti-Christian 'eschatological prophecies' of Islam, deceptively sugar coated in the pseudo 'quranic prophecy' of a 'Muslim-Orthodox' alliance (in which the Orthodox are the admirers of Islam and they would do its bidding!).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    If it were the US that had some conflict somewhere then the typical response would be to just bomb and level the place, killing everyone. Then they’d claim the bombing was a surgical one and that only terrorists died with perhaps some collateral damage. We’d never hear about how many were killed since the US doesn’t do body counts when it’s the actor. If they do it from the air then it doesn’t count. Anybody care to tally how many people have been killed by US bombings?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    How about Nam and its body counts?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @peterAUS
    Pretty much.

    But that would go against Polit.....I mean Kremlin, current agenda of being cozy with Iran and Turkey.
    And Saker's "Russians and Muslims together against Zionazis" meme too.

    You gotta keep with the program here.

    Pretending to say “Politburo” instead of “the Kremlin” isn’t humorous, and such snark is no substitute for evidence and reasoning.

    As for the Saker, I greatly enjoy and learn from his material, but I find any notion of alliance with Muslims to be terminally naïve.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Seraphim says:
    @peterAUS
    Pretty much.

    But that would go against Polit.....I mean Kremlin, current agenda of being cozy with Iran and Turkey.
    And Saker's "Russians and Muslims together against Zionazis" meme too.

    You gotta keep with the program here.

    Pretty much so indeed. I would nevertheless make a distinction.
    Kremlin’s agenda is a political one and its aim is to neutralize the jihad against Russia. Its policy is to ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer’. It has to reckon with the restive Muslim population of Russia, ready to act as the fifth column of the other implacable enemy, the ‘Zionists’ and their vassals the Anglo-Americans.
    Saker’s meme is an ideological one, based on the fanciful Duginist ‘Evrasian’ kabbalistic National-Bolshevism. One cannot be but puzzled by the relentless promotion of such a pathetic figure like Imran Hosein, an advocate of the most anti-Christian ‘eschatological prophecies’ of Islam, deceptively sugar coated in the pseudo ‘quranic prophecy’ of a ‘Muslim-Orthodox’ alliance (in which the Orthodox are the admirers of Islam and they would do its bidding!).

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Kremlin’s agenda is a political one and its aim is to neutralize the jihad against Russia. Its policy is to ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer’. It has to reckon with the restive Muslim population of Russia, ready to act as the fifth column of the other implacable enemy, the ‘Zionists’ and their vassals the Anglo-Americans.
     
    Well...I agree.
    Not quite sure that would work, though.
    Or, to be honest, it will work for the current team in Kremlin (their hold on power) but it will not, most likely, work for Russia.

    Saker’s meme is an ideological one, based on the fanciful Duginist ‘Evrasian’ kabbalistic National-Bolshevism. One cannot be but puzzled by the relentless promotion of such a pathetic figure like Imran Hosein, an advocate of the most anti-Christian ‘eschatological prophecies’ of Islam, deceptively sugar coated in the pseudo ‘quranic prophecy’ of a ‘Muslim-Orthodox’ alliance (in which the Orthodox are the admirers of Islam and they would do its bidding!).
     
    Muslim-Orthodox alliance. What an expression.
    I actually believe that there are plenty of Orthodox Christians who believe that. Funny people. What a belief.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. peterAUS says:
    @Seraphim
    Pretty much so indeed. I would nevertheless make a distinction.
    Kremlin's agenda is a political one and its aim is to neutralize the jihad against Russia. Its policy is to 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'. It has to reckon with the restive Muslim population of Russia, ready to act as the fifth column of the other implacable enemy, the 'Zionists' and their vassals the Anglo-Americans.
    Saker's meme is an ideological one, based on the fanciful Duginist 'Evrasian' kabbalistic National-Bolshevism. One cannot be but puzzled by the relentless promotion of such a pathetic figure like Imran Hosein, an advocate of the most anti-Christian 'eschatological prophecies' of Islam, deceptively sugar coated in the pseudo 'quranic prophecy' of a 'Muslim-Orthodox' alliance (in which the Orthodox are the admirers of Islam and they would do its bidding!).

    Kremlin’s agenda is a political one and its aim is to neutralize the jihad against Russia. Its policy is to ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer’. It has to reckon with the restive Muslim population of Russia, ready to act as the fifth column of the other implacable enemy, the ‘Zionists’ and their vassals the Anglo-Americans.

    Well…I agree.
    Not quite sure that would work, though.
    Or, to be honest, it will work for the current team in Kremlin (their hold on power) but it will not, most likely, work for Russia.

    Saker’s meme is an ideological one, based on the fanciful Duginist ‘Evrasian’ kabbalistic National-Bolshevism. One cannot be but puzzled by the relentless promotion of such a pathetic figure like Imran Hosein, an advocate of the most anti-Christian ‘eschatological prophecies’ of Islam, deceptively sugar coated in the pseudo ‘quranic prophecy’ of a ‘Muslim-Orthodox’ alliance (in which the Orthodox are the admirers of Islam and they would do its bidding!).

    Muslim-Orthodox alliance. What an expression.
    I actually believe that there are plenty of Orthodox Christians who believe that. Funny people. What a belief.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. I am very, very sorry. But this time I do have to disagree with Saker.
    If forensic on corpses did prove that some of Muslims were executed and did not die in combat, than it was a war crime. Regardless even if opposition did the same thing.
    It absolutely does not make a difference who issued the order. The commanders of the units that did the executions were responsible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Seraphim says:

    @plenty of Orthodox Christians who believe that

    There might be plenty of nominal Orthodox Christians who believe that.
    Not the real Orthodox Christians for whom such an idea is the sign of apostasy, of denial of Christ, but indeed how many real Orthodox Christians are in the whole world? “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Lk 18:8).

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Yes, and not just "real" Orthodox or "real" Christians or "real" Catholics, either. An atheist or anyone else would be foolish to ever trust or try to "ally with" Muslims, for any purpose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Seraphim
    @plenty of Orthodox Christians who believe that

    There might be plenty of nominal Orthodox Christians who believe that.
    Not the real Orthodox Christians for whom such an idea is the sign of apostasy, of denial of Christ, but indeed how many real Orthodox Christians are in the whole world? “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Lk 18:8).

    Yes, and not just “real” Orthodox or “real” Christians or “real” Catholics, either. An atheist or anyone else would be foolish to ever trust or try to “ally with” Muslims, for any purpose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. bluedog says:
    @anonymous
    If it were the US that had some conflict somewhere then the typical response would be to just bomb and level the place, killing everyone. Then they'd claim the bombing was a surgical one and that only terrorists died with perhaps some collateral damage. We'd never hear about how many were killed since the US doesn't do body counts when it's the actor. If they do it from the air then it doesn't count. Anybody care to tally how many people have been killed by US bombings?

    How about Nam and its body counts?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. krollchem says:
    @Kiza
    Dear Saker,

    Please let me start with a very strong statement: your Serbian source is complete rubbish. The neoliberal Serbians currently leading Serbia and serving the West have developed this theory of Milosevic's culpability. They blame Milosevic, the last Serbian who really resisted the West, for doing what they are doing themselves. They also have a theory of $1B stolen by Milosevic and his cronies, but never ever have they presented a grain of proof, it is all just the standard endless MSM BS insinuations.

    If you want a reliable non-biased source from Serbia proper, then talk with Mr. Stefan Karganovic.

    Here is my version of events, established by reading and talking with some Bosnian Serb Army soldiers. I do not claim this to be absolutely true, but it is as close as I could personally get to the truth.

    Yes, Srebrenica was a war crime. This is why it happened:
    1) The UN Safe Heaven of Srebrenica was never demilitarized by the Dutch blue helmets who were responsible for it; Naser Oric's paramilitaries and one Bosnian Army Division were operating from it with total impunity.
    2) The West set up a US Safe Heaven of Srebrenica not to help the civilians then for the exact purpose to help Bosnian Muslims against the Bosnian Serbs.
    3) Oric's paramilitaries killed close to 1,500 Serbian civilians in the villages surrounding the valley, mostly the elderly because their sons and daughters were in the Serbian Army; the favorite method of killing was slitting of throats like pigs are killed, which Muslims despise. The details of people killed have been submitted to the UN and the West, but have been totally ignored.
    4) When the Serbian Army finally entered Srebrenica after a lot of fighting, as you say, they did not touch the civilians and bused them out, but some of the captured soldiers, a mix of Bosnian Muslim Army and the Oric's paramilitaries, were executed by the sons and daughters of the villagers killed by the Muslims before. This appears to have been enabled by the mid-level Bosnian Serb officers, Mladic and Karadzic were not involved at all. The term was: "now charge" as in "charge them a fee for your dead". The exact number of executed is unknown, but it ranges between 400 and 1,500, roughly equal to the number of Serbian civilians killed.
    5) The theory of a US set up for this massacre to happen is not solid in my view. The real set up was to allow a UN Safe Heaven to be used as a base for military operations and crimes, which the US did, and the Dutch pretended that there were no Muslim soldiers and paramilitaries in their "zone".
    6) There was no justification for this crime, revenge is not. There should have been a court-martial and then execution of the killers, not indiscriminate shooting (to paraphrase the famous US quip: kill them all and let Allah sort them out). The worst fact is that Naser Oric and his top circle escaped to Tuzla and used the Bosnian Muslim Army as a sacrificial pawn to get there safely.
    7) Although militarily superior, the Bosnian Serb Army was under attack from at least four quarters:
    a) Bosnian Muslim Army,
    b) The Mujahedin units which the US imported into Bosnia on US transport planes landing in Sarajevo,
    c) Western (retired) special forces (just like in Ukraine), mainly US and British,
    d) Western airforces.
    They probably did not have time for a court marshal, but this is still not an excuse for the massacre.
    8) This was like heaven sent to the Western R2P propagandists (US Democrats under Hillibillary, with Samantha Power as a field junior etc): it was turned into "8,000" (a magical figure in opposition to a Hague Court report of about 1,000) "executed man and boys" (the propagandists really like this phrase "boys").
    9) The Bosnian Muslims later reburied the dead from different parts of Bosnia into Srebrenica cemetery to make it into a shrine and put close to 8,000 names on the granite.

    Srebrenica is now a pure Western Legend based on a massacre typical in civil wars.
    Key question: Who started this war?
    Answer: US, UK and Germany (the same team as Ukraine).
    How: by scuttling the Lisbon agreement between Bosnian Muslims and Serbs.

    It is important to step back and see the big picture concerning the Balkan wars

    Dr. Bob Allen of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has demonstrated in his report “Why Kosovo? The Anatomy of a Needless War”, that the IMF “shock and awe” neoliberal “reforms” were the main cause of the ethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia. The economic collapse resulted widespread economic hardship and elimination of transfer payments to the Yugoslavia republics which created condition for the succession movements:

    https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/why-kosovo

    The goals of the banker driven economic collapse of Yugoslavia was to definlandize it and buy up the remaining assets at fire sale prices.

    You will also recall that the US believed that there were about 200 billion barrels of light sweet crude in the Caspian Sea and the US deep state needed to control the oil export pipelines via Yugoslavia and the Danube waterway. Turns out that the USGS overestimated Caspian Sea oil reserves by a factor of 10x and much of the oil was corrosive high sulfur oil…

    See also “Wagons East—NATO oil trade route war”. It can be read at: http://intsse.com/wswspdf/en/articles/1999/06/comm-j23.pdf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Hsg. So. says:

    The real agenda of US-NATO behind Kosovo’s independence:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. my2cents says:
    @Kiza
    Dear Saker,

    Please let me start with a very strong statement: your Serbian source is complete rubbish. The neoliberal Serbians currently leading Serbia and serving the West have developed this theory of Milosevic's culpability. They blame Milosevic, the last Serbian who really resisted the West, for doing what they are doing themselves. They also have a theory of $1B stolen by Milosevic and his cronies, but never ever have they presented a grain of proof, it is all just the standard endless MSM BS insinuations.

    If you want a reliable non-biased source from Serbia proper, then talk with Mr. Stefan Karganovic.

    Here is my version of events, established by reading and talking with some Bosnian Serb Army soldiers. I do not claim this to be absolutely true, but it is as close as I could personally get to the truth.

    Yes, Srebrenica was a war crime. This is why it happened:
    1) The UN Safe Heaven of Srebrenica was never demilitarized by the Dutch blue helmets who were responsible for it; Naser Oric's paramilitaries and one Bosnian Army Division were operating from it with total impunity.
    2) The West set up a US Safe Heaven of Srebrenica not to help the civilians then for the exact purpose to help Bosnian Muslims against the Bosnian Serbs.
    3) Oric's paramilitaries killed close to 1,500 Serbian civilians in the villages surrounding the valley, mostly the elderly because their sons and daughters were in the Serbian Army; the favorite method of killing was slitting of throats like pigs are killed, which Muslims despise. The details of people killed have been submitted to the UN and the West, but have been totally ignored.
    4) When the Serbian Army finally entered Srebrenica after a lot of fighting, as you say, they did not touch the civilians and bused them out, but some of the captured soldiers, a mix of Bosnian Muslim Army and the Oric's paramilitaries, were executed by the sons and daughters of the villagers killed by the Muslims before. This appears to have been enabled by the mid-level Bosnian Serb officers, Mladic and Karadzic were not involved at all. The term was: "now charge" as in "charge them a fee for your dead". The exact number of executed is unknown, but it ranges between 400 and 1,500, roughly equal to the number of Serbian civilians killed.
    5) The theory of a US set up for this massacre to happen is not solid in my view. The real set up was to allow a UN Safe Heaven to be used as a base for military operations and crimes, which the US did, and the Dutch pretended that there were no Muslim soldiers and paramilitaries in their "zone".
    6) There was no justification for this crime, revenge is not. There should have been a court-martial and then execution of the killers, not indiscriminate shooting (to paraphrase the famous US quip: kill them all and let Allah sort them out). The worst fact is that Naser Oric and his top circle escaped to Tuzla and used the Bosnian Muslim Army as a sacrificial pawn to get there safely.
    7) Although militarily superior, the Bosnian Serb Army was under attack from at least four quarters:
    a) Bosnian Muslim Army,
    b) The Mujahedin units which the US imported into Bosnia on US transport planes landing in Sarajevo,
    c) Western (retired) special forces (just like in Ukraine), mainly US and British,
    d) Western airforces.
    They probably did not have time for a court marshal, but this is still not an excuse for the massacre.
    8) This was like heaven sent to the Western R2P propagandists (US Democrats under Hillibillary, with Samantha Power as a field junior etc): it was turned into "8,000" (a magical figure in opposition to a Hague Court report of about 1,000) "executed man and boys" (the propagandists really like this phrase "boys").
    9) The Bosnian Muslims later reburied the dead from different parts of Bosnia into Srebrenica cemetery to make it into a shrine and put close to 8,000 names on the granite.

    Srebrenica is now a pure Western Legend based on a massacre typical in civil wars.
    Key question: Who started this war?
    Answer: US, UK and Germany (the same team as Ukraine).
    How: by scuttling the Lisbon agreement between Bosnian Muslims and Serbs.

    1. Srebernica was supposedly a safe zone in which it sent Dutchbat, consisting of basically unarmed troops. They landed in a warzone, were subsequently they hijacked and imprisoned by the Serbs.
    2. One member of Dutchbat died – Upon their return to the Netherlands 2 others being confronted with lies that THEY handed over 8000 Muslims to the Serbd who supposedly killed them committed suicide
    3. Very intense PUBLIC hearings live on Dutch television produced contradictory statements. The intention was to charge the leadership of Dutchbat with war crimes. Dutchbat was sued by Srebernica women for the deaths of their husbands/brothers/sons.
    4. When eventually a few members of Dutchbat decided to seek legal assistance in an effort to sue the U.N as well as the Dutch Government this whole story died down.

    It is my opinion based on the evidence I heard presented live on public tv that the Dutch Government knew the whole sordid story and that the whole televised hearing while an extremely painful hoax for the members of Dutchbat served some other purpose and that it was in response to foreign pressure. Anything to point the finger to someone else in order to cover up a war crime.

    Kiz’s notion that Dutchbat was supposed to demilitarize the area is arrant nonsense.
    They were sent to a demilitarized zone, were unarmed, and their task was to keep the peace.
    None of that was so. Unarmed Dutchbat entered a war zone and became its victim. The U.N knew it, the Dutch Government knew it.
    One thing stands out in my mind, Dutchbat’s leader called in for assistance and a number of French Aircraft took off but were called back. So WHO exactly directed this whole operation Hmm? And who wrote the script in which suddenly unarmed Dutchbat became the scapegoat. and stood accused of having killed 8000 Muslim men.

    This was a proxy war between the U.S and Russia….foreign paid/trained/armed mercenaries were there to create the havoc and kill indiscriminately. It’s purpose was to Balkanize Yugoslavia

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Srebernica was supposedly a safe zone in which it sent Dutchbat, consisting of basically unarmed troops.
     
    Not unarmed of course, but, definitely not with a full complement of weaponry.
    Makes no difference really.

    Even if they had been fully manned with the full weapon complement (including CAMOUFLAGED, not white APCs) they wouldn't have been any match for Serb forces.

    UNPROFOR wasn't there to enforce anything; they were there to, effectively, monitor. Weapons and equipment were for mobility and self-protection from local marauders, not even from local militia.
    In essence from stray fire and a group of drugged/drunken/out of control locals. Anything above that...NO.
    as

    their task was to keep the peace.
     
    Peacekeepers, not peace enforcers. People do like to forget that.

    So WHO exactly directed this whole operation Hmm?
     
    The highest authority, at the time and place, was Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
    He, ultimately, had the power.

    But, still, I wouldn't be too hard on him.
    The situation on the ground wasn't that simple and even more complicated it was on a political level.

    The ultimate responsibility for the war crime there was/is with the Serb military leadership.
    Even Serbs admit that.
    They just dispute the number of victims and WHO was, exactly, responsible for it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. peterAUS says:
    @my2cents
    1. Srebernica was supposedly a safe zone in which it sent Dutchbat, consisting of basically unarmed troops. They landed in a warzone, were subsequently they hijacked and imprisoned by the Serbs.
    2. One member of Dutchbat died - Upon their return to the Netherlands 2 others being confronted with lies that THEY handed over 8000 Muslims to the Serbd who supposedly killed them committed suicide
    3. Very intense PUBLIC hearings live on Dutch television produced contradictory statements. The intention was to charge the leadership of Dutchbat with war crimes. Dutchbat was sued by Srebernica women for the deaths of their husbands/brothers/sons.
    4. When eventually a few members of Dutchbat decided to seek legal assistance in an effort to sue the U.N as well as the Dutch Government this whole story died down.

    It is my opinion based on the evidence I heard presented live on public tv that the Dutch Government knew the whole sordid story and that the whole televised hearing while an extremely painful hoax for the members of Dutchbat served some other purpose and that it was in response to foreign pressure. Anything to point the finger to someone else in order to cover up a war crime.

    Kiz's notion that Dutchbat was supposed to demilitarize the area is arrant nonsense.
    They were sent to a demilitarized zone, were unarmed, and their task was to keep the peace.
    None of that was so. Unarmed Dutchbat entered a war zone and became its victim. The U.N knew it, the Dutch Government knew it.
    One thing stands out in my mind, Dutchbat's leader called in for assistance and a number of French Aircraft took off but were called back. So WHO exactly directed this whole operation Hmm? And who wrote the script in which suddenly unarmed Dutchbat became the scapegoat. and stood accused of having killed 8000 Muslim men.

    This was a proxy war between the U.S and Russia....foreign paid/trained/armed mercenaries were there to create the havoc and kill indiscriminately. It's purpose was to Balkanize Yugoslavia

    Srebernica was supposedly a safe zone in which it sent Dutchbat, consisting of basically unarmed troops.

    Not unarmed of course, but, definitely not with a full complement of weaponry.
    Makes no difference really.

    Even if they had been fully manned with the full weapon complement (including CAMOUFLAGED, not white APCs) they wouldn’t have been any match for Serb forces.

    UNPROFOR wasn’t there to enforce anything; they were there to, effectively, monitor. Weapons and equipment were for mobility and self-protection from local marauders, not even from local militia.
    In essence from stray fire and a group of drugged/drunken/out of control locals. Anything above that…NO.
    as

    their task was to keep the peace.

    Peacekeepers, not peace enforcers. People do like to forget that.

    So WHO exactly directed this whole operation Hmm?

    The highest authority, at the time and place, was Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
    He, ultimately, had the power.

    But, still, I wouldn’t be too hard on him.
    The situation on the ground wasn’t that simple and even more complicated it was on a political level.

    The ultimate responsibility for the war crime there was/is with the Serb military leadership.
    Even Serbs admit that.
    They just dispute the number of victims and WHO was, exactly, responsible for it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. H.S. says:

    NEVER forget: Serbs dismembered and burned alive, the corporation (MPRI, now Engilitycorp) used to train mercenaries against the Serbs. Never.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NaqIYPnJZ4

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. H.S. says:

    ”The ICTY Tribunal in Hague serves 3 purposes as a propaganda tool firstly, to demonise and discredit the Yugoslav government and its leaders, secondly to justify the Nato aggression against Yugoslavia and thirdly to cover up the war crimes committed by Nato leaders and military officers. Russia must use the residual mechanism to replace the Nato supported prosecutor, appoint a truly independent prosecutor, review all the cases “tried” under Nato agents Arbour, Del Ponte and Brammertz, and lay charges against Nato for the war crimes it committed in the wars to break up Yugoslavia. The ICTY and ICTR are fascist tribunals because they serve western corporate-military interests and they operate outside all civilized norms of law. No one can get a fair trial at these kangaroo courts. Defence lawyers can only try to use them to show the truth of the wars and disrupt the attempt by Nato to stage these show trials. Russia and China must use their influence to stop the abuses that take place on a daily basis at these tribunals and try to establish a real international justice serving the interests of the people of all the world not just the USA and its puppets. ”

    Christopher Black
    International Criminal Lawyer

    https://mightynose.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/nato-and-hague/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. peterAUS says:

    Well….well……wonders of Internet.

    Apparently….even Serbs themselves agree that there were around 3500 killed Muslims AFTER the collapse of the defense there.

    Now…..apparently again….of those, around 1000 were killed in Srebrenica itself and those 2500 were those trying to flee towards Tuzla region.

    They also agree on 4 primary and 32 secondary mass graves in Srebrenica where those killed were buried.

    What they don’t agree on is that was a planned genocide.
    They insist it was a (mass, admittedly) revenge killing done by local Serbs who had lost their own family members in previous fighting from ’92 to ’95.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?