The Milosevic Case

[Carpathian Wolf]

Part 1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...55578968730263

Part 2

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...24793&q=&hl=en


Please watch both before commenting.

It is really eye opening and at the same time sickening. The ICTY is a joke.

[Platon]

And the serbs threw Slobo in to the hands of this fake trial....

Well.. this is yet another example of how easy it is to manipulate public opinion and starting wars. 9-11 is another good example..
- Whats next..?

[jankren]

So Slobo was innocent and Serbs were victims or what ...?

[Carpathian Wolf]

So Slobo was innocent and Serbs were victims or what ...?

Milosevic is innocent of genocide, ethnic cleansing and all that non sense. Many (Bosniaks, Croats, Germans, Americans) generally disagree with this. Most countries used to think the Serbs suddenly went on a mad genocidal killing spree because that is how CNN presented it but slowly more and more people are starting to see what actually happened.

The topic is very wide and far reaching so i'll give a very basic outline.

Basically Yugoslavia was a piece on the chess board the Americans wanted out of the way before they can move on to Russia. The Balkans always get stuck between two or more powers and this time around it is USA/west vs Russia. Western powers basically wanted to divide and conquor the area. Now some people might say that's a bit out dated, but now a days you conquor much differently. Economically, ideaologically, and so on and so forth. So what the west did was support all the crazies in Yugoslavia by taking advantage of the screwed up territorial definitions Tito made up.

So an Ustashe like Franko Tudgman was given weapons and money by the Germans and Croatia was recognized starting war between them and Yugoslavia. Next you had an Islamo Facist like Alija Izetbegovic in Bosnia who want's Bosnia to break away from Yugoslavia.

Now you think i'm using Ustashe and islamo facist in an insulting manner. Frank Tudgman is quoted saying "I'm glad my wife is neither a Serb or a Jew." And Alija, well you can just read his book "The Islamic Decleration" to see his point of view on nationalism and the role Islam plays in that.

Now some might say that each federation within Yugoslavia had the right to leave Yugoslavia, it is in the constitution. That is true, but the manner in which Croatia and Bosnia at the time went about it was incorrect. In Croatia in the Krajina region was overwhelmingly Serb majority. When the Croats broke away from Yugoslavia, the Krajina Serbs did not want to leave especially because of how the Croatians treated the Serbs as second class citizens. They had to have minority IDs something akin to what the Nazis did. So in Krajina the Serbs fought for their independence against tyranny while the Croatians fought to keep a land which was Serb majority for 500 years.

Next in Bosnia you had the election for president in which Abdic, a pro Yugoslavia Bosniak (Bosniak is the word for Bosnian Muslim. Bosnian is not an ethnicity but a nationality. Bosnia is made up of Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats, all of which living in Bosnia are to be considered Bosnian. Every Bosniak is a Bosnian but not every Bosnian is a Bosniak). Anyway Abdic was forced out of his presidency by a man called Alija Izetbegovic who had LOST the election. So it was a bit of a coup. The Serbs in Bosnia had their own leader by the name of Radovan Karadzic. Bosnia was a Bosniak majority, with a very large Serb minority (40 to 30 some percent along those lines) and some Croatians. As I said before every federation within Yugoslavia had the right to break away if there was a vote there. The Bosniaks and Croats knew the Serbs would not vote for independence so they held a secret vote without informing the Serbs. Even with this vote the Bosniaks and Croats did not manage to gain the percentage needed according to the constitution. But they broke away anyway and then they tried to tell the Serbs in Bosnia that they were suddenly part of a new country.

The west supported both of these two tyrannical regimes and painted the Serbs as the ones who were evil, who started the war and was killing people left and right.

That's a very basic over view and while I don't think Milosevic was a saint, he wasn't the devil the west presents him and by far he was much better then Tudgman and Izetbegovic.

And the serbs threw Slobo in to the hands of this fake trial....

Well.. this is yet another example of how easy it is to manipulate public opinion and starting wars. 9-11 is another good example..
- Whats next..?

Well you got Serbs in Serbia today who are very desperate not to be the bad guy anymore. I liken it to "white guilt" here in America except the Serbs didn't have the slaves so to speak, but are told constantly that they did. The government in Serbia is more or less in the pocket of the west regardless, and they stamp their foot about Kosovo just enough not to be dragged out into the streets.

[Viking Prince]

Basically Yugoslavia was a piece on the chess board the Americans wanted out of the way before they can move on to Russia.

There is a great deal I would challange in your post, but this is just too much to pass up. Perhaps you can document the logic of this statement.

I can find nothing to support the idea that the USA needed to break up Yugoslavia for any reason, let alone for an anti-Russian move.

[Juli26]

@Carpathian wolf
so you think that these are an invention:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Tchouk]

@Carpathian wolf
so you think that these are an invention:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"ZOMG! It's two pictures of piles of dead bodies! Now, I might not know anything about the bodies or the circumstances of death or, indeed, anything at all about the war-torn region where this grave may be located, but.... The shocking and provocative nature of these photos prove to my easily manipulated and gullible mind that everything happened exactly the way the media showing me those pictures describes it!!!!! Milosevic is hell's spawn and should be slowly cut to itty-bitty pieces for killing hundreds of millions of innocent people! Bombs away! "

I have just described the thought process of about 90% of all 'western', or indeed world, citizens.

Seriously, Juli26, that has no place in even a partially serious discussion, especially in answer to a post like the one Carpathian Wolf made.

[Nestor Drake]

"ZOMG! It's two pictures of piles of dead bodies! Now, I might not know anything about the bodies or the circumstances of death or, indeed, anything at all about the war-torn region where this grave may be located, but.... The shocking and provocative nature of these photos prove to my easily manipulated and gullible mind that everything happened exactly the way the media showing me those pictures describes it!!!!! Milosevic is hell's spawn and should be slowly cut to itty-bitty pieces for killing hundreds of millions of innocent people! Bombs away! "

I have just described the thought process of about 90% of all 'western', or indeed world, citizens.

Seriously, Juli26, that has no place in even a partially serious discussion, especially in answer to a post like the one Carpathian Wolf made.

What exactly is the difference between this media you are talking about and the clips posted in the first post? Both are just as likely to be brainwashing/revisionst propaganda, so how do you decide what to believe? For 99,9% of non-ex-Yugoslavs it all comes down to whether you are more of a conformist or anti-conformist, more conservative or more liberal etc. In essence, it all comes down to what you think (and by "think" I don't mean the essencialist, Cartesian concept of "thinking") your opinion will say about you. So how serious could such a discussion be?

[Baron Vlad Felix]

@Carpathian wolf
so you think that these are an invention:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

U.S. PROPAGANDA AND THE SO-CALLED RACAK "MASSACRE"!!!!
The so called Racak massacre was a trigger action which helped the US and NATO justify the criminal bombing war against Yugoslavia.
The Finnish report now documents in detail that there is virtually no evidence of any massacre at Racak. There was no massacre at Racak village. But there was a massacre that ensued of the people of Yugoslavia by NATO forces.

[Juli26]

because he was saying that that was an invention. Those pictures are from Racak and Serbenica and I posted those to show that Milosevic was not an angel.

[Tchouk]

because he was saying that that was an invention. Those pictures are from Racak and Serbenica and I posted those to show that Milosevic was not an angel.

Exactly the type of thinking I was talking about in my first post!

This is a conflict that spans many, many decades (you could argue centuries even) in a region with massive amounts of contention due to migration, conquest, religion - you name it.

And most people couldn't even point Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Serbia and others out on the map, much less know anything about the history of the region and all the myriad of factors involved in the conflict!!

"Duuuur... But I have a picture! That picture proves that my black/white 2d thinking is totally reasonable"

Both those pictures show one thing and one thing only: dead bodies. Presumably, from somewhere in a region wracked by war during many, many years. Where, how, why, when, who - all this is completely ignored by your post! Just dead bodies! How does this prove anything? I could just as well post this picture:



And claim that Milosevic is responsible for the extinction of the American Bison.

What exactly is the difference between this media you are talking about and the clips posted in the first post? Both are just as likely to be brainwashing/revisionst propaganda, so how do you decide what to believe? For 99,9% of non-ex-Yugoslavs it all comes down to whether you are more of a conformist or anti-conformist, more conservative or more liberal etc. In essence, it all comes down to what you think (and by "think" I don't mean the essencialist, Cartesian concept of "thinking") your opinion will say about you. So how serious could such a discussion be?

Not all that serious in the first place, and likely to degenerate into much yelling and no listening. But I think it should be at least above the level of "here is a shocking picture of dead people" - maybe a source at least? Like who took it and where? An article maybe?

[Nestor Drake]

Exactly the type of thinking I was talking about in my first post!

This is a conflict that spans many, many decades (you could argue centuries even) in a region with massive amounts of contention due to migration, conquest, religion - you name it.

Presumably, from somewhere in a region wracked by war during many, many years.

Yeah, it's exactly the type of thinking you were talking about. You are being just as stereotypical as those pictures. Please, don't be offended, I understand your point, I'm just trying to paint a wider picture.

I've underlined some of your words because they are showing that, even if you are able to see that those pictures without proper presentation are worthless as proof, you are at the same time presenting with the same sympthoms as "easily manipulated and gullible minded" people you were speaking of so poetically.

The myth about centuries of war, bloodshed and senseless killing that were going on at the Balkans for as long as anyone can remember, about savage people who ended up in civilized Europe only by mistake and whose petty, immature issues the world is forced to take care of or the myth about complicated region understanding of which is beyond one person's mental capacity, such myths are just the other side of the same coin.

The "easily manipulated and gullible minds" will be happy to take a side and than stick to it, preffering to see in the media pictures that would confirm their "opinion", but deciding to side with those who are declaring it all meaningless propaganda is just another way of being manipulated.

[Tchouk]

Yeah, it's exactly the type of thinking you were talking about. You are being just as stereotypical as those pictures. Please, don't be offended, I understand your point, I'm just trying to paint a wider picture.

I've underlined some of your words because they are showing that, even if you are able to see that those pictures without proper presentation are worthless as proof, you are at the same time presenting with the same symptoms as "easily manipulated and gullible minded" people you were speaking of so poetically.

The myth about centuries of war, bloodshed and senseless killing that were going on at the Balkans for as long as anyone can remember, about savage people who ended up in civilized Europe only by mistake and whose petty, immature issues the world is forced to take care of or the myth about complicated region understanding of which is beyond one person's mental capacity, such myths are just the other side of the same coin.

The "easily manipulated and gullible minds" will be happy to take a side and than stick to it, preferring to see in the media pictures that would confirm their "opinion", but deciding to side with those who are declaring it all meaningless propaganda is just another way of being manipulated.

OK, yes, you are right and I was embellishing and that's wrong. I got carried away.

Furthermore, I've never actually been there, especially during any conflicts so all my thinking is based on pure media "hearsay".

But I do think it's pretty safe to say that the region at and around the former Yugoslavia has seen internal, civil, armed conflict from between 1992-95 and 96-99. Just as it is safe to say that this same general region has been unstable and hotly contested (it can be argued that it was one of the big sparks that set of WWI, after all) for the past hundred years.

My opinion is not that of those myths you mention, although I would argue that this conflict is very hard to understand and judge objectively. Simply because I have tried to, and can't. And I would like to think I'm not the dullest of men. IMHO, too many interested empires/super-powers have had too much interest and influence in the region to ultimately say who caused what and who is to blame.

I may be wrong, though, and if you can illuminate me, I would truly be grateful.

I'm not really taking sides here. I don't have the evidence of Milosevic's guilt either way ( although "innocent until proven..." :hmmm:?), and would argue that no one does.

One can post as many pictures or arguments as one likes, but let's not forget that an (arguably biased to boot) international tribune, many years and hundreds of witnesses later, could not prove his guilt. Those pictures in that post are saying "poo on all that court stuff, I know he is guilty because, um, dead bodies!"

Ultimately, what I'm saying is this: Carpathian Wolf's link and post bring up a lot of good points. Points I would love for someone to argue and maybe refute them with at least a modicum of plausibility. And those pictures are a complete non-argument.

[Nestor Drake]

The whole idea of that linked interpretation was that Milosevic was not proved guilty. That is a very easy thing to prove considering that he died before a verdict was made. This is probably just the tip of an iceberg, in next 50 years we are bound to see and hear many such stories, that is unavoidable. All such points will go along the same lines, making use of the fact that people are much more inclined not to judge if the story is presented without them having anything at stake.

I've already said: taking one side and defending it blindly and taking no side on grounds that it is impossible to decide is basicly doing the same, because the latter option has a logically unprovable, but psychologically unavoidable implication that crime in question was nobody's or everbody's fault.

I've gotten myself into many discussions about Yugoslavia and its break-up on these boards and while doing so I have come to a conclusion that most people who are not personally involved into the issue are very keen to accept this implication because it needs no real proof, it is very appealing since it sounds as a reasonable, non-radical, neutral stance and it also has a kind of an ego-boosting dimension because it makes one feel that he or she is above all this nationalistic nonsense. It is natural behavior, I suppose.

As for history of the region, it is true that for the past hundred years and longer it has been a place of many conflicts, but if you would examine closely you would see that only the wars in the 90's were outside of European or world conflict-pattern, otherwise all conflicts were just a part of a wider picture. So explaining the 90's wars using historical uniqueness of the region as argument is the exact opposite of what logic commands.

Begining of WW I is a very good example actually, but of exactly the opposite of what is the usual point, that is that WW I started on the Balkans, ergo Balkans are the place to start wars at; it is actually a good example of how Balkans were always included into the European (mainstream) politics and were not some kind of there-be-dragons land of war and strife.

As far as understanding these conflicts goes you should first know how many of them were there and how they were or were not connected. Wars in Croatia and Bosnia were ended almost simultaniously (but the on in Croatia began earlier, in 1991) and were connected in many ways.

The war in Kosovo shares with them one same side - Serbian side, but otherwise the people in Croatia or Bosnia were just observers of what was going on in Kosovo in the same way Albanians were just observers of what was going on earlier in those two countries and in almost the same way anyone in the world was observer of what was going on on the teritorry of ex-Yugoslavia in both those periods.

This is a very basic outline, but not an unimportant one. Terms such as "Balkans wars" or "Yugoslav wars" tend to put together things that don't neccessarily belong together and are therefore fueling the general bad understanding of what happened as well as clearing the way for manipulation and propaganda.

As for empires / superpowers involved in the conflicts, you are better off not thinking about them than trying to explain anything using extreme geopolitics. Just look at their (USA, EU, UN) confusion when it all started, how they didn't know whom to support, who are all these nations anyway, where did they come from, weren't they all Yugoslav like 5 seconds ago?

That's a wrong way to go, what went on in Yugoslavia went on because of the people in Yugoslavia, outside influences were surely present but rarely crucial, except in the later fases when peace-arrangements were made.

As for Milosevic's guilt, I have got no doubt about it, but I've seen the war in Croatia from a perspective that leaves no doubts. It is understandable that you cannot take such a stance, but here's an interesting thing to consider: Milosevic always claimed that what happened outside of Serbia was not his doing, that he was not commanding it. However, he never tryed to hide that he is allied with Serbian leaders in both Bosnia and Croatia (when it comes to Kosovo he was obviously the top man) and even that he has certain power over them. It is ironic, but his act of signing peace-agreement in Dayton proves this very well. It wasn't Karadzic - who was officialy the political leader of Bosnian Serbs - or Mladic - their military leader - who signed that paper - it was Milosevic. And when he signed, the war stopped. Ironic as it is, but in stopping the war he proved his control over it and therefore his responsibility.

Hardly a proof, I know, but a thing to consider, I hope.

[Viking Prince]

Just three words --

Balkan halocaust denial?

[Carpathian Wolf]

There is a great deal I would challange in your post, but this is just too much to pass up. Perhaps you can document the logic of this statement.

I can find nothing to support the idea that the USA needed to break up Yugoslavia for any reason, let alone for an anti-Russian move.

Did you know that Bush senior used his political influence to blockade Yugoslavia from the World Bank? This was before the war started.

Here are some parts of a documentary which are really eye opening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwhuM...916DD6&index=9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIh8_...16DD6&index=10

Details clearly the US/German involvement.

Oh I almost forgot to mention, did you know there's a massive oil pipe line going from the caspian through the former Yugoslavia? Want to guess through where it goes through specifically? Kosovo.

@Carpathian wolf
so you think that these are an invention:

Yes actually.

Srebrenica:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kfjy...16DD6&index=14

Please watch that then continue to read.

It is interesting that the Muslims from Srebrenica as they fought their way north to Tuzla were armed not with standard AK-47s...but with western weapons such as German HKs.

I want you to read this http://www.srebrenica-report.com/

It is a report done by westerners including UN officers and other higher ups. Most interesting is the testimony of Slobodna Bosna, a Bosniak general who contradicts the "official story" that Serbs came in and just started executing people left and right.

As for Racak:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-muE...16DD6&index=21

Long story short in 2004 (IIRC) a team of UN officials stated that there was no massacre in Racak. They found that the evidence had been tampered with by the Albanian KLA. For example KLA soldiers that had been shot in fighting had been dressed in civilian clothes but the bullet holes did not match up with the clothes.

Juli if you want to show me proof of a war crime you have to show me something more clear such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nmBP...16DD6&index=15

That is clear. Can you show me something like that?

As for Milosevic's guilt, I have got no doubt about it, but I've seen the war in Croatia from a perspective that leaves no doubts. It is understandable that you cannot take such a stance, but here's an interesting thing to consider: Milosevic always claimed that what happened outside of Serbia was not his doing, that he was not commanding it. However, he never tryed to hide that he is allied with Serbian leaders in both Bosnia and Croatia (when it comes to Kosovo he was obviously the top man) and even that he has certain power over them. It is ironic, but his act of signing peace-agreement in Dayton proves this very well. It wasn't Karadzic - who was officialy the political leader of Bosnian Serbs - or Mladic - their military leader - who signed that paper - it was Milosevic. And when he signed, the war stopped. Ironic as it is, but in stopping the war he proved his control over it and therefore his responsibility.

Hardly a proof, I know, but a thing to consider, I hope.

War crimes against Croatians? As the Krajina officer in the documentary said "My God they try him for war crimes against Croats?" In short...what war crimes aganst Croats? Vukovar you mean? Where the city was half Serb half Croat and was taken over by Croatians. When the JNA came in and besieged it the Croatians did not allow the civilians to run away. That is effectivly using them as human shields. And with the advice of the Germans, the Croatians pulled a Srebrenica (Or the muslims pulled a vukovar) and retreated through Serbian lines absorbing massive casualties. The loss of Vukovar was on purpose as was Srebrenica only to say "oh look what the Serbs did!"

If Milosevic was guilty of any war crimes, no one has seen a shred of evidence of it. As for Srebrenica, and Racak, I think enough evidence has been provided to atleast put a large hole through the "official story."

Just three words --

Balkan halocaust denial?

Exactly it. The victims are made into tyrants and the tyrants into victims. And this comes from a person who was once confused which was which. I remember in 99 on CNN then news saying how in Belgrade civilians were being killed with the bombing and I said "Oh now they whine about civilian deaths? What about the hundreds of thousands of Albanians in Kosovo?"

Now years later I know that it wasn't really like that.

Some people find it odd that I have alot of interest in the topic. I've Romanian born, lived most of my life in America and I came here when I was young thinking "America is justice" but upon learning these sort of things it's really scary how far and deep lies and corruption can go. So far that by the end of media spun lies you can not tell day and night apart.

[Nestor Drake]

War crimes against Croatians? As the Krajina officer in the documentary said "My God they try him for war crimes against Croats?" In short...what war crimes aganst Croats? Vukovar you mean? Where the city was half Serb half Croat and was taken over by Croatians.

"Taken over by"? You mean taken over by like 3000 people actually living there?

Anyway, you should look at 1991 Yugoslav census and see how many villages with Croatian population were there in "Krajina". And how many more Croatians there were in cities and villages attacked by JNA. The myth about overwhelming Serbian majority in "Krajina" ( "" because nobody seems to know where Krajina actually is, when you ask you get those maps of Austria-Hungary, but Baranja (the north-eastern most part of Croatia) or southermost part around Dubrovnik has nothing to do with that just like dozens of other places that were supposed to be in "Krajina") is just an excuse for simple aggression and conquering.

For everything I said, my friend, I do not need youtube videos, journalist accounts, pictures or your stories...I am the only witness I need.

[Viking Prince]

@Carpathian Wolf --

All very interesting, but it does not address my question. I find nothing in the post to support the original idea that the USA needed to break up Yugoslavia for any reason, let alone for an anti-Russian move.

[Baron Vlad Felix]

@Carpathian Wolf --

All very interesting, but it does not address my question. I find nothing in the post to support the original idea that the USA needed to break up Yugoslavia for any reason, let alone for an anti-Russian move.

Because destabilization Europe!.......destruction of the pro-Russian Serbian regime!
with a great influence over Croatia's NDH lobby!

[Kiljan Arslan]

yeah it had nothing to do with the fact that the serbains were commiting ethnic cleansing. Or that was all lies committed by the vast western conspiracy right?