0
   

Obama placed under Secret Service protection

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 May, 2007 11:40 pm
Erasing History: Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo

Report released by the U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC,
May 1999
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 03:48 am
Madeline Albright's state dept. in other words. Why not simply give us the url for Joseph Goebbels take on naziism?? Here, try this:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb23.htm

The world generally recognizes that there was nothing resembling ethnic cleansing or genocide going on in Kosovo prior to 1999. Reapolitik reasons for the NATO operation, at least according to some backers included:

  • Yugoslavia represenging a salient in an otherwise solid block of NATO territory; the idea was to dismember Yugoslavia to the point at which it could be turned.
  • George Soros wanting those Trepca mines in the nroth of Kosovo.
  • Fear of Albanians spilling over into NATO countries to a sufficient extent to destabilize them, particularly Italy. This fear was madethe worse by the known tendency of Albanians to "rabbit breed" their way to power. In other words, ensconce themselves in some little corner of of the other guy's country, do their thirteen-children-per-family thing for 20 years, and then try to break that little corner off into "Greater Albania". Albanians are universally hated for this.
  • A pipeline for caucasus oil needed to pass through Albanian territory and Albania's stated price tag for this was Kosovo. That MIGHT have seemed to make sense to somebody unaware that the Russians had an alternative plan for a pipeline which the major oil companies preferred at the time.
  • Milosevic having pulled Yugoslavia out of the IMF in 94.


And there might have been a couple of others like that, again, the Pentagon added it all up and it did not add up to a case and they told SlicKKK not to do it. Nonetheless SlicKKK had his own agendas at the time.

During the decade of the 90s NATO and KKKlintonista propaganda organs tried to paint Serbia and Serbs as the world's most major a$$holes, and as a tribe of murderous villains. As far as I have ever been able to tell doing my own research on the subject, all of the various claims we have read were fictitious. The worst case of all was that of the Bosnian Serb "death camp" at Trnopolja:

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/film/judgment.htm

The basic question you have to ask is, after that, what part of this bullshit am I supposed to go on believing?

Jared Israel's website continues to be the best source for information about NATO's conduct in the balkans during the 1990s:

http://www.tenc.net/
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 04:49 am
For reasons which a normal person would view as sufficiently obvious, only a very simple-minded person would attach any credibility to anything which the US state department might have ever had to say about Kosovo, particularly when Madeline Albright was Secretary of State.

Stratfor on the other hand is a known quantity. Their original paper indicating problems with the numbers of bodies to justify a claim of Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo prior to 1999 has become difficult to find on the net, nonetheless references to it are easy enough to find, e.g.

http://www.zmag.org/ZSustainers/ZDaily/1999-10/25herman.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15221

Moreover, anybody who read the news at the time will recognize much of what that Stratfor report had to say. The Portugese forensics team left in protest after turning up five or ten bodies in "mass grave" sites in which they'd been told they would find tens of thousands.

Quote:

By Jon E. Dougherty
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

An independent intelligence report issued by a U.S.-based firm says that ethnic Albanians "numbering only in the hundreds" have been found in mass graves after four months of investigation by, among others, the FBI.

The Stratfor report calls into question the validity of claims made by NATO and the Clinton administration as justification for launching an air war against Yugoslavia that ultimately led to renewed political tensions with Russia, and a bombed Chinese embassy.

"During its four-month war against Yugoslavia, NATO argued that Kosovo was a land wracked by mass murder," said the report. "Official estimates indicated that some 10,000 ethnic Albanians were killed in a Serb rampage of ethnic cleansing."

"Yet four months into an international investigation bodies numbering only in the hundreds have been exhumed," the report said, with the FBI having found "fewer than 200."

"Piecing together the evidence, it appears that the number of civilian ethnic Albanians killed is far less than was claimed," said the report.

The report noted that "new evidence could invalidate this view," but so far nowhere near the number of Albanians reported killed by Serb troops has "materialized on the scale used to justify the war." The report concluded the new evidence "could have serious foreign policy and political implications for NATO and alliance governments."

The U.S. State Department did not return phone calls seeking comment on the report. But Dave Miller, a spokesman for European affairs at the FBI, told WorldNetDaily the investigation in Kosovo consisted only of "laboratory support for the International Criminal Tribunal (ICT)."

"They requested that we look at a finite number of locations, and within those locations there were 124 bodies -- 100 of which have been identified" so far, he said. "The FBI was not sent there to conduct mass grave exhumations or to locate and find the missing populace of Kosovo." He added that the FBI's role was to "prove the charges contained in the ICT indictment."

The Stratfor report admitted that "the tribunal's primary aim is not to find all the reported dead. Instead, its investigators are gathering evidence to prosecute war criminals for four offenses: Grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, violations of the laws of war, genocide, and crimes against humanity."

"The tribunal believes that it will, however, be able to produce an accurate death count in the future, although it will not say when," according to Stratfor. However, they noted, "A progress report may be released in late October, according to tribunal spokesman Paul Risley."

Controversy about the actual numbers of ethnic Albanians killed by Serbian troops began on Oct. 11, when the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Republic of Yugoslavia reported that the Trepca mines in Kosovo, where 700 murdered ethnic Albanians were reportedly hidden, contained no bodies. "Three days later," the report said, "the U.S. Defense Department released its review of the Kosovo conflict, saying that NATO's war was a reaction to the ethnic cleansing campaign by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic." The Defense Department report called Milosevic's campaign "a brutal means to end the crisis on his terms."

However, the tribunal's findings and the Defense Department's assertion served to raise even more concerns about the actual number of "cleansed" Albanians.

"Four months after the war and the introduction of forensic teams from many countries, precisely how many bodies of murdered ethnic Albanians have been found?" Stratfor questioned. "This is not an exercise in the macabre, but a reasonable question, given the explicit aims of NATO in the war, and the claims the alliance made on the magnitude of Serbian war crimes."

"Indeed, the central justification for war was that only intervention would prevent the slaughter of Kosovo's ethnic Albanian population," Stratfor said, echoing policy statements issued by the Clinton administration and NATO.

On March 22, Stratfor reported, "British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons, 'We must act to save thousands of innocent men, women and children from humanitarian catastrophe, from death, barbarism and ethnic cleansing by a brutal dictatorship.'" The following day, when the NATO-led air strikes began, President Clinton told reporters, "What we are trying to do is to limit his (Milosevic's) ability to win a military victory and engage in ethnic cleansing and slaughter innocent people and to do everything we can to induce him to take this peace agreement."

In March, State Department spokesman James Rubin told reporters that NATO "did not need to prove that the Serbs were carrying out a policy of genocide because it was clear that crimes against humanity were being committed," said the Stratfor report. In June immediately following the end of the war, Clinton "again invoked the term, saying, 'NATO stopped deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide.'"

Since the war's end, Stratfor said, claims of Albanian dead have "swollen."

Before and during the conflict, though, Yugoslavia repeatedly denied that mass murder was occurring. Instead, Belgrade argued that the Kosovo Liberation Army falsified claims of mass murder in order to justify NATO intervention and the secession of Kosovo from Serbia. But "NATO rejected Belgrade's argument out of hand," said Stratfor.

"The question of the truth or falsehood of the claims of mass murder is much more than a matter of merely historical interest," concluded the report. "It cuts to the heart of the war -- and NATO's current peacekeeping mission in Kosovo."

"Certainly, there was a massive movement of Albanian refugees, but that alone was not the alliance's justification for war," said Stratfor.

In addition to questioning the number of ethnic Albanians allegedly killed by Serb forces, the report calls into dispute the methodology NATO and the U.S. used to determine that some 17,000 people who previously lived in Kosovo are still missing.

"There are undoubtedly many (Kosovar residents) missing," said the report, "but it is unclear whether these people are dead, in Serbian prisons -- official estimates vary widely -- or whether they have taken refuge in other countries."

So far tribunal investigators are a little more than a quarter of the way through investigating some 400 reported mass gravesites.
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 04:59 am
DTOM:

It isn't worth a second of your time to try to REASON with the unreasonable. They have a circular way of thinking...and they bring Clinton in every time because they can't, absolutely can't, bare to face facts.

Since it is off topic...I would just let Okie and Gungasnake blat away by themselves since they seem to enjoy each other's company. Laughing
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 05:21 am
If posting a url for Madeline Albright's justification of Kosovo is your idea of "reasoning", then yeah, you brilliant suckers are probably wasting your breath trying to "reason" with me.

http://www.socialistaction.org/news/199907/yugoslavia.html

Quote:

...George Kenney, a former State Department officer at the Yugoslavia desk, has reported that he heard from what he terms unimpeachable sources that State Department officials at Rambouillet told reporters during "deep background" briefings, that they had intentionally "set the bar too high" for Yugoslavia to be able to sign the Rambouillet agreement.

His source quotes the State Department official as saying, "the Serbs need some bombing and that's what they're going to get." If this is true, and that seems to be the case, then clearly the West arrived at Rambouillet not with the intention of exhausting all diplomatic possibilities, but with the intention that nothing remotely resembling diplomacy would even be allowed to arise....


http://www.fair.org/press-releases/victory.html

Quote:

There is strong evidence that the U.S. intentionally crafted this document to provoke a rejection from the Serbs. (See "What Reporters Knew About Kosovo Talks--But Didn't Tell," FAIR Media Advisory, 6/2/99.) A State Department official reportedly told journalists at Rambouillet (James Jatras, Cato Institute conference, 5/15/99; see also The Nation, 6/14/99): "We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They need some bombing, and that's what they are going to get."
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 12:01 pm
Vietnamnurse wrote:
DTOM:

It isn't worth a second of your time to try to REASON with the unreasonable. They have a circular way of thinking...and they bring Clinton in every time because they can't, absolutely can't, bare to face facts.

Since it is off topic...I would just let Okie and Gungasnake blat away by themselves since they seem to enjoy each other's company. Laughing


yeah, he does it to me everytime. Confused i got snookered by the "i can tolerate someone 20 degrees left or right of me" comment. thought i saw a glimmer of hope. but nope... 'twas but a wee mirage. :wink:
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 12:03 pm
btw, v.n., it seems that with people so hateful of democrats, any democrat running lose, obama may not be the only one in need of secret service coverage.
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 12:54 pm
DTOM: I am afraid of that also. No wonder Al Gore wrote a book called "The Assault on Reason." We live in times not dissimilar from other poisonous times in our history when reason was secondary to ideological madness.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 01:46 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
btw, v.n., it seems that with people so hateful of democrats, any democrat running lose, obama may not be the only one in need of secret service coverage.



Being stupid has always been dangerous; the secret service can't fix that.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 02:06 pm
gungasnake wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
btw, v.n., it seems that with people so hateful of democrats, any democrat running lose, obama may not be the only one in need of secret service coverage.



Being stupid has always been dangerous; the secret service can't fix that.


speaking from experience, eh?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 May, 2007 08:19 pm
Vietnamnurse wrote:
DTOM:

It isn't worth a second of your time to try to REASON with the unreasonable. They have a circular way of thinking...and they bring Clinton in every time because they can't, absolutely can't, bare to face facts.

Since it is off topic...I would just let Okie and Gungasnake blat away by themselves since they seem to enjoy each other's company. Laughing

Please have the honor to point out something that you disagree with, in terms of what I have said, and we can honestly debate it. In terms of the Clintons, we are still dealing with the Clintons. Gungasnake can handle his issues; I will handle mine. We happened to agree concerning the Clintons, but beyond that, I don't honestly know what all Gungasnake's opinions are. If you can't offer any actual evidence of anything to rebut the specifics of what has been said here, then please do not waste everybody's time with snide remarks about reasoning.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 06:16 am
At some point you have to recognize that you're dealing with some serious nincompoops here. Posting a url to Madeline Albright's justification for Kosovo for instance.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h3GPc_yMCE

Psychopaths like SlicKKK KKKlintler have a built in advantage over normal people inasmuch as normal people never expect or anticipate psychopathic behavior even after they've seen it a couple of times and therefore in THEORY at least, you'd expect that psychos would not ordinarily tolerate other psychos easily; in other words you'd figure that having other psychos around would dilute the advantage.

Nonetheless the KKKlintler regime was at least a partial disproof of the theory; there were a baker's dozen other psychos floating around in the regime, none worse in my estimation than Madeline Albright.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 10:09 am
You use stronger words than I would for Albright. I doubt if she was a psycho, but I think of her as simply extremely naive about the realities of foreign affairs. For instance, she apparently thinks people, such as the guy that heads up North Korea, are actually credible, believable, and trustworthy. Maybe you are right, gungasnake, I think you almost have to be a psycho to do that? I think people like her really want to believe their own idealism and liberal view of the world so they are just pre-disposed to ignore the realities of the world.

Liberals want to believe so badly that wars are out-dated, blah, blah, blah, and everybody can make love, not war, that they will succumb to almost anything that forwards that pipe dream. These are the flower children of the 60's that infested the Clinton administration.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 05:16 am
okie wrote:
You use stronger words than I would for Albright. I doubt if she was a psycho, but I think of her as simply extremely naive ....



The KKKlintler regime in my estimation was a psycho-rich environment. Both KKKlintlers, Janet Reno, Wesley Clark, Albright, Babbit, Carville, and a half dozen or so others at minimum.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 10:55:44