http://balkanstudies.org/articles/otto-von-habsburg-controversy-chronicles

Otto von Habsburg: A Controversy at "Chronicles"

By Jaclyn Ryan
Monday, 8 Aug 2011

 

As an aficionado of serious-minded geopolitical and historical pieces, I recently found myself engrossed in a controversy over at Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. The saga originated with a July 18 piece by Srdja Trifkovic, Otto von Habsburg's Ambiguous Legacy (also published on this site two days later).

 

In this article the recently deceased—God rest his soul—"Father of the multinational European Parliament" was taken to task in terms of his attitude toward Islam and its related groups and personas. In contrast to Dr. Trifkovic's usually lengthy pieces, this short debrief—minus "malice or rancor"—was aimed at balancing majestic obituary praises for the late Archduke.

 

James Bogle, a former British Calvary officer and present-day barrister of the Middle Temple in London, strongly protested the "coloured article" by chiding Dr. Trifkovic with his July 28, 2011 rebuttal Archduke Otto: Responding to Dr.Trifkovic. The long, bitter piece attempted to dissect, analyze, and repudiate all points in Dr. Trifkovic's article based on: a) broken source links, and b) quotes taken out of context.

The "Dynasty" plot thickens …

Both articles produced comments from illustrious readers on both sides of the feud with sparks morphing into one large bonfire due to Mr. Bogle's curt attacks not solely on Dr. Trifkovic, but the readers—not a strategic move for a person who should be swaying and winning an audience at Chronicles.

Trifkovic counter-attacked Bogle's rebuttal with the July 29, 2011 Otto von Habsburg: The Facts, only to receive Bogle's return fire on August 1, 2011 with Archduke Otto—The Smears, which was immediately flanked by Trifkovic's "The Habsburgs and the Balkans: A Rich, Uneven Tapestry.

In the midst of the saga, unassuming readers became caught in the crossfire with mortars and land mine hits from an increasingly defensive Bogle. As an observer of many political and ideological debates, I enjoy a fair and intelligent argument as much as the next person—that is until an author goes rogue on commenters with insulting and "offensively ludicrous" statements.

The nail in the coffin—no pun intended—was delivered when Chronicles editor Dr. Thomas Fleming abruptly, yet eloquently, closed the "unprofitable" discussion when it became evident that:

"Debunking links, however, is not the same as debunking an argument, and you have not done that. Indeed, I should say you have not even attempted to make an argument but have contented yourself with personal attacks on Dr. Trifkovic and his ethnic background. That is why you lost, hands down, even with conservative Catholics who at first welcomed your participation and are now shaking their heads. Even a very well-known Catholic apologist has made this remark. What may work in an English courtroom will not work in a civil debate on our website."

Of course, Dr. Fleming did the right thing, as most logical people abide by the motto that "The louder the talk; the weaker the argument." However, most geopolitical and historical observers would agree to Dr. Fleming's most poignant observation:

"You say you have seriously studied these matters. I don't think you realize how much you are claiming. It is very hard to study the history of the Eastern Empire and its offshoots. First there is the problem of language. When Runciman was studying the Byzantine Empire, one had to have pretty good Greek and Latin, but also–when Bury set him to work–one of the South Slavic languages."

And

Most of what is available in English is pretty poor stuff, though John Fine's studies of the Medieval Balkans are quite good, but little of the Serbian material has been translated and most of that quite poorly.

In light of the above quotes, one will most likely agree with and commend Dr. Trifkovic's civilized and reserved approach to engaging Mr. Bogle out of sheer professional diplomacy. Being no stranger to Chronicles, he knew readers were enlightened to such issues, and allowing Mr. Bogle—a person clearly uneducated on the intricacies of Balkan and European History—free forum reign, he was bound to seal his own fate. However, long-term Chronicles readers—armed with logical, yet comprehensive responses to Mr. Bogle's attacks—could probably compare Dr. Fleming's abrupt cut-off to a severe weather warning breaking into the final minutes of the World Cup.

Mr. Bogle's mission to savor the last word with impugning responses is regrettable and not professional behavior becoming of an author who seeks to have his position taken seriously. With that in mind, there were several preposterous positions asserted by Mr. Bogle that should not remain unchallenged—even by a commoner. They are as follows:

"Archduke Otto was a proponent of the peaceful co-existence of all members of the three great monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Thus—the claim that he was "an enthusiastic supporter of the jihadist side" was, is and remains exactly what I claimed it was: ludicrous. More so—it is offensively ludicrous."

For the sake of argument, let us assume this statement is correct. Perhaps Archduke Otto truly believed a peaceful co-existence—regardless of the difficulty—could be achieved. However, for a direct descendant of all Royal European Roman Catholic families who became the political leader of the International pan-European Union, as well as the Christian Democrat (Bavaria) to the European Parliament, to espouse this view would be difficult for most logical people to swallow. Moreover, since Archduke Otto was fluent in seven languages, he could not claim ignorance in comprehending history from various cultural perspectives, hence one being the ever-increasing threat of Islamic dominance.

Archduke Otto "hated Hitler, who hated him in return," as much as he despised Communists. Given these sentiments, how is Islamic fundamentalism different from these factions? Muslim fascination with Nazism is well documented, as are numerous Muslim SS divisions—especially the 13^th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Hadschar (1^st Bosnian).

Even more concerning was Archduke Otto's view on Muslims and Christians in Europe. He asserted "if you go into the higher intellectual communities, the Muslims know much about us, and we know nothing about the Muslims . . .that is reality . . . with these Muslims we can get very far . . .I like them . . . I admire with them [sic] first of all that they believe in God. We believe we are so great that we don't have to believe in him, and that is one of our basic weaknesses . . . don't have to forget [sic] that the prophet Muhammad came from a Christian foundation . . ."

"Is this a jest?" Actually, we know quite a bit about Islam, its origination, and Muslims. The insinuation that "we [assuming everyone but Muslims] believe we are so great that we don't have to believe in him . . ." was one of the most insulting, preposterous, and generalized statements from the lips of a Catholic, moreover the descendent of an empire boasting a rich history of battling Islamic conquest.

If one were to analyze the historical changing landscape, Islam has been, and remains, a constant threat to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. Countries featuring any resemblance of "co-existence" also reveal that the constant instigator and trouble-child has always been Islam.

Therefore, Bogle's praise for Archduke Otto's pursuit of a "peaceful co-existence" is "incoherent." Complete "Poppycock." The Three Faiths Forum premise is simply too difficult to stomach and blatantly dismissing the historical facts of Islamic dominance will only result in their pan-Islamic "picnic" for the West.

"Otto von Habsburg meets Bosnian president Alija Izetbegovic in April 1997.Eh? How does this "prove" that he was "an enthusiastic supporter of the Jihadist side"? It is ludicrous."

What is "ludicrous" is the fact that Archduke Otto would even meet with Alija Izetbegović—the author of the Islamic Declaration with pro-Nazi ties to the Hadschar Division.

Technically, Archduke Otto—given his royal heritage, understanding of monarchies, and their adherence to bloodline, political alignment, and historical relevance—should know that Alija Izetbegović descended from Ottoman aristocrats. After Serbia's independence from the Ottomans, his family hightailed to Bosnia. It is also well known that Alija Izetbegović was a fierce critic of Kemalism.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is an example of similar loyalties. Originally elected as what people believed to be a moderate, we now witness an ever-increasing threat to secularism. A constant denier of the Armenian Genocide, Erdoğan's lineage stems from the Ottomans. Moreover, Mustafa Cerić has made it clear to Prime Minister Erdoğan that "Turkey is our Mother. That's how it was always, and it will remain like that." It is no secret that Cerić is striving for Turkey's acceptance to the EU. In light of the above and the practice of Taqiyya—as well as numerous other patterns of behavior—it is unconceivable that pan-Islamists and pan-Europeans can forge a successful, peaceful co-existence.

"Moreover, Archduke Otto actually criticises Western leaders for their indecision and ends by saying what few would disagree with: "If one really wants to have peace, the only possibility is for democracy, both internationally and nationally. That means the right of self-determination of peoples. Without such being implemented, this area in Kosovo will not have peace and the region would remain a crisis centre in Europe."

This is a touchy-feely statement and sounds great, but it is flawed. Since Archduke Otto was an early enthusiast of European integration, I fail to see how Kosovo, moreover a forced union of European nations, equates to peace, democracy, and the "right of self-determination of peoples." For instance, the parallels between the EUs one-market system and Nazism are striking. Moreover, Rodney Atkinson's book "Europe's Full Circle" provides a list of Nazi-proposed policies that are disturbingly similar to the present EU. Of course, not every EU proponent has malicious intent. Many probably believe they are contributing to a greater good. However, by doing so, they advertently ignore the history of the re-gifter. Whenever complete power is seduced from the people to a select few, it wreaks totalitarianism. Therefore, forgive me if I find Archduke Otto's position contradictory.

"For centuries, the ruling Habsburgs defended the Continent against the expansion of the Turkish Ottoman Empire," indeed; but they never did it alone. All Christians came together to fight a common enemy—the same strategy Dr. Trifkovic has been advocating for years.

"Now Mr. von Habsburg makes it clear that all nations bordering the Mediterranean Sea, including those in North Africa and the Middle East, have a place in his broad vision for tomorrow's Europe. Malta and Cyprus are already knocking at Brussels' doors . . . . Some may label von Habsburg as a nostalgic dreamer trying to resuscitate the spirit of the Holy Roman Empire, the Habsburg hereditary title. But those who understand the Mediterranean phenomenon know how closely linked are the populations of its coasts, dating back to the ancient Greeks and Phoenicians."

It only makes one wonder whether this "broad vision for tomorrow's Europe" solely belongs to Archduke Otto or is it the will of the European Union, NATO, UN, Council of Foreign Relations, International Monetary Fund, and other spin-offs?

Of course, hereditary links tend to bond populations, but adding an all-in-one religious, political, and governmental faction breeds tragic results.

Due to his well-known distaste for nationalism, Archduke Otto formally renounced his dynastic claims. However, to be fair, one could argue that people from all nations have become increasingly hostile toward royal monarchies—an inevitable trend logical people knew would evolve in a modern, global-centric society—and renouncing his throne could have been a brilliant publicity stunt. Fact being, the appearance may have changed, but the controllers of the monetary purse strings remain dispersed across Royal bloodlines.

"Let us not forget how the war in 1914 really started, shall we? Serb nationalist terrorists assassinated the Archduke Franz-Ferdinand, the heir to the imperial throne, and did so in cold blood for the sake of the same spurious ultra-nationalism that has led, time and again, directly to bloody war in Europe."

Yes, let us not forget how WWI really started. To state that Serb terrorists' assassination of Archduke Franz-Ferdinand was the cause of WWI is shallow. A spark perhaps; but not the cause.

The causes of WWI well precede 1914 and are extremely complex—too complex for a blog. Mr. Bogle cites "ultra-nationalism" as a key factor to the conflict—true, to a degree—but what about the "imperialism" that caused "ultra-nationalism" uprise? What about European rise of militarism and arms—especially between Germany and Great Britain? Let us not forget the mutual defense alliances, which were forged well-before Archduke Ferdinand's assassination.

Even more thought-provoking is the Habsburg Ultimatum against the Kingdom of Serbia—essentially, an arrogant imperialist power issuing demands to a sovereign nation—or else. Today, they simply invade and use the International Criminal Tribunal (ICT-"pick a country") to hunt anyone they believe impedes their imperialistic interests. Therefore, to insinuate that ultra-nationalism was the main cause of WWI would be stretching it. Through an in-depth historical dissection, one may find him/herself actually empathizing with the Serbs who have been repeatedly clubbed like a piñata throughout the course of history. In today's PC society, we call it "bullying," and the behavior is repeating itself across other parts of the world.

"Let me conclude by repeating that I, too, have some misgivings about the post-war tribunals and am concerned that Serbs and their leaders be treated justly and fairly. I hope I would wish the same for any member of the human race, even my enemies."

This statement was contradictory to a comment response where Mr. Bogle wrote:

"Finally, if all the ICTY convictions against Serbs are "Mickey Mouse" then please explain why Biljana Plavsic accepted her guilt and her 11-year sentence? Was she lying?"

Coming from an attorney, this seems rather naïve. So, in essence, backroom politics, bullying, and plea deals are non-existent? If Mr. Bogle has misgivings about the post-war tribunals and concern for just and fair treatment, then I believe he answered his own question.

Serbs have been hunted down and presented as media trophies by the ICTY. For an attorney to initially give credence to the ICTY's verdict of Biljana Plavsic, yet later discredit Dr. Trifkovic's testimony, begs for a library visit (no links are broken there) to research the ICTY's creators and proponents. Most people—even Dr. Trifkovic—never stated that "War Crimes" did not occur. It was a war. However, what gives the United Nations (UN) the right to contrive a court system that overrides national sovereignty? Are the people of one's country too dumb to try and convict? How would the U.S. or Great Britain feel about their leaders being hunted, convicted, and placed on public display by an international court vs. his or her own judicial system? You cannot have it both ways Mr. Bogle.

Throughout history, tyrants are known for having an illustrious record of creating new laws, courts, and politically incorrect stigmas.

"Dr. Trifkovic has been an ally and defender of numerous Serb leaders, some of whom, like Biljana Plavsic and Milomir Stakic, have since been convicted of war crimes at the Hague tribunal, and for these and other reasons Dr. Trifkovic was refused entry into Canada in February 2011. Guilty by association?"

In light of the previous comments, this is the coup de grâceof ICTY ignorance, and clearly demonstrates a simplistic understanding (intentional or unintentional) of deep-rooted geopolitical politics, influential lobbying, and the power of deceitful publicity. Therefore, if the above position rests solely on Mr. Bogle's "guilty by association" claim, then technically, he lost the Archduke Otto Habsburg argument from the start.

An even more stunning claim: "Nationhood, love of country and patriotism are important but they are not so important that they take precedence over justice, peace, and mercy—or, indeed, truth."

That is good advice Mr. Bogle, which also explains why justice-seeking, peaceful, and truth-seeking people from numerous countries and cultural backgrounds—especially within Canada—protested the Canadian government's ban of Dr. Trifkovic and more importantly, the opposition to free speech.

[As a comment response]: "I accept your point that we must vigilant in the face of Taqiyya but your argument seems to be that there must be a permanent policy of war against Muslims at all times. Is that really your view? Or do you, as most rational people do, consider that Islamic terrorism should be firmly contained but Muslims who are willing to live in peace should remain unmolested (so long as they do not threaten the peace). Are you really saying that even Muslims who agree to remain peaceful should nevertheless be deprived of civil rights?"

Perhaps you are confused with Dar al-Harb ("House of War")—Islam's perpetual war against Christians and infidels. However, a Christian would be a fool not to possess a permanent reluctance toward Muslim intent or actions.

Of course, Islamic terrorism should be firmly contained, but viable solutions by logical people (even former Muslims) results in the PC police trashing them as intolerant islamophobes; therefore, containment will not happen. Where is the mass public outrage by peaceful Muslims following terrorist attacks? Yes, there are Muslims who are willing to "live in peace," but since attorneys are only taught to present factual material (remember, no back-room politics or deals exist), one could technically argue that they are not true Muslims, as this is not what the Koran teaches. The key difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam is a merged political, government, and religious system that cannot be separated Mr. Bogle.

Therefore, every peaceful Muslim should, of course, be provided civil rights—as long as his/her beliefs (specifically referencing the United States for the sake of argument) do not conflict with the U.S. Constitution, our Bill of Rights, or in the case of immigration, violate the Oath of Allegiance—which would be a treasonous act.

While we are on the topic of technicalities:

[Re Dr. Trifkovic's claims that Eastern Orthodox clerics were not invited to attend the Archduke's funeral]: "Wrong! Not only were they invited, but they attended . . . " and [Re Dr. Trifkovic's assertion that they were not awarded the honour of reading a homily or saying a prayer]: "The answer is simple: Most Orthodox clergy themselves refuse so to do! . . . The funeral organisers did not press them precisely because they respected the Orthodox clergy's wishes."

Hallelujah! I am happy this is settled. Frankly, it is refreshing to see some Christians still uphold their beliefs. Technically speaking, Catholics—as viewed by the original teachings of the Church (Pre-Vatican II)—are not encouraged to attend, speak, or participate in any form of a non-Catholic ceremony, moreover, be in acceptance of any religion outside the one true Church. This would have been considered as heretical as Pope John Paul II entering a Mosque or giving President Bill Clinton Holy Communion. Certainly, a descendant from the Holy Roman Catholic Empire realized this. And no—I am not a Serb or Orthodox Christian, but a former Catholic.

[As a comment response]: "You seem to argue that a government may be overthrown simply because some of its citizens think it is "imperialist and colonialist." By what right do citizens claim to overthrow the lawful government?

So technically, Mr. Bogle would view the American Revolution as wrong?

In the United States, it is our right and duty to question and overthrow an unlawful government. Who deems a government lawful? The people? Corrupt monarchs or politicians? Religious groups? When is it acceptable to overthrow a government? The patriots of the American Revolution would be branded "terrorists" by today's media and government standards.

 

The United States Constitution has provided citizens of various cultures and denominations a relatively peaceful existence. However, political correctness and Muslims who are adept at playing the game, have coerced gullible (and corrupt) politicians and attorneys into manipulating and circumventing our Constitution and state laws to advance their 100-year plan.

Balkan and European history are as fascinating as it is sad and triumphant. The continent has not been a child's playground, but rather an amusement park to political, religious, and economic hegemonies that have cut, merged, and pasted its peoples. Mastery of such a confusing history is extremely difficult; perhaps even impossible. However, disregard for such history—willingly or inadvertently—is more unfortunate, as it provides keen insight into the motives, strategies, and outcome of our geopolitical future.

 

Not all contributors to Balkanstudies.com focus upon Serbia nor does each one agree on all issues. However, Dr. Trifkovic and all contributors to The Lord Byron Foundation have played a pivotal role in advancing such knowledge—not out of spite or favoritism toward a particular culture and religion—but out of passion for historical learning, human decency, and the basic principles of right and wrong. Based on his asserted principles—and despite disagreement—I would think Mr. Bogle is in unison with such standards.

---

Jaclyn Ryan is a Cleveland, Ohio-based small business owner, community hospice volunteer, and Christian who combines a B.A. in History with master's coursework in strategic analysis and believes in the founding principles of the USA.

The West’s Rube Goldberg Schemes in the Balkans Come Apart

 

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/the-west%E2%80%99s-rube-goldberg-schemes-the-balkans-come-apart-5715   The West's Rube Goldberg Schemes in the Balkans Come Apart  The National Interest      Ted Galen Carpenter        August 5, 2011 Tensions and violence are again on the rise in the Balkans. The latest incident, which Morton Abramowitz and James Hooperdocument in depressing detail, was a dust-up between government forces and angry Serbs in northern Kosovo. That episode follows on the heels of renewed efforts by Bosnian Serbs to prepare the ground for a new secessionist bid amid the continuing political disarray in the faux country of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The admission that instability and violence have returned to the region must be an especially bitter pill for Abramowitz to swallow, since he was one of the more vocal proponents of the U.S-NATO interventions in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s. But only the most optimistic (or the most obtuse) analysts can deny the mounting evidence that the West's grand nation-building plans in the Balkans have failed. The twin notions that such Rube Goldberg political entities as Bosnia and Kosovo would prove stable and economically viable, and that ethnic hatreds would subside when the European Union dangled the carrot of eventual EU membership, were always naïve. The EU, facing its own daunting economic woes, now has a fundamental choice. It can persist with the policies initially adopted in the 1990s and resign itself to indefinite peacekeeping and economic life-support missions in the two dysfunctional entities it created, or it can adopt a radically different course and cut its losses. The latter approach would involve promoting (and possibly imposing) a comprehensive settlement based on significant territorial adjustments and mutual diplomatic concessions. The broad outlines of such a settlement would mean allowing the Bosnian Serbs to secede and perhaps merge their Republika Srpska with Serbia, and allowing Belgrade to re-establish sovereignty over the pre-dominantly Serb portion of Kosovo north of the Ibar River. In return, Serbia would need to recognize the independence of a downsized Kosovo. Such an initiative would require EU policy makers to overcome their allergy to partitioning Bosnia and Kosovo. Partitions are never perfect solutions, but they are sometimes better than the alternatives. And given the ongoing fiascos in Bosnia and Kosovo, partition would almost certainly be better than the status quo in those cases. For the United States, the policy choice should be easier.Abramowitz and Hooper exemplify a national narcissism that is all too common in the American foreign policy community. They casually assume the need for a U.S. leadership role without making the case why that should be necessary. As I've written elsewhere, Washington needs to do a much better job setting foreign policy priorities. It should focus on dealing with developments that have the clear potential to threaten America's security or pose a major threat to the stability of the international system. Parochial quarrels in the Balkans do not come even within hailing distance of reaching the proper threshold for U.S. action. The Obama administration should inform its European allies that the ongoing mess in the Balkans is the EU's problem to handle. If necessary, the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon should block phone calls and e-mails coming from EU capitals. That way, policy makers wouldn't have to listen to pleas from whining European officials seeking to entangle the United States once more in that chronically quarrelsome region. More by Ted Galen Carpenter

 

NATO is a security threat

NATO is a security threat

04.08.2011 | 20:13

NATO is a threat not only to international security but also poses a direct risk to the internal security of its member states, for in carrying out its policy, it breaks international law, commits war crimes and panders to the whims of the corporate lobbies who benefit from its operations, leaving in its wake feelings of hatred and revenge.

 Mankind has taken thousands of years of wars, fights, squabbles, settlements, resolutions and treaties, agreements and disagreements, flare-ups and flashpoints, peace talks and ceasefires to try to arrive at a point whereby the international community exists de facto, whereby something called international law reigns supreme and is implemented, whereby there is one set of weights and measures for crisis management and the implementation of policy.

 The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) could and should have been a starting point towards the precept that frontiers were inviolable, a process which was reiterated time and time again, and broken time and time again, until the Helsinki Final Act in 1975 which was a public reiteration of the principles underlying the UN Charter, signed in 1945 heralding the end of the most horrific war humankind had suffered, involving the most horrific practices of barbarity ranging from racism and genocide to horrific human rights abuses and culminating in a double act of nuclear terrorism.

 As a counter-measure, Westphalia was the beginning, the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act (notice the word "Final") committed the international community to the basic principles underpinning guidelines for a community of brothers and sisters to cohabit the same planet, share the same seas, seasoned by the salt of sailors' tears from the four corners of the Earth. These principles were, namely:

 Active support for the UNO and its principles and purposes; enhancement of the role and effectiveness of the UNO as a forum for international law formulation and implementation; respect for the principle of international peace, debate and dialogue before military action; the promotion of a peaceful solution for crisis management; respect for the sovereignty of nations and inviolability of frontiers; non-interference in internal affairs; the condemnation of aggression, of aggressive separatism and violence in general.

 Taken one stage further, and based upon these precepts, the cherry on this cake of diplomatic correctness was the development fund created by less than one per cent of the GDP of developed countries - the message being development, before deployment.

 And the question is, did we grasp the chance? No, we did not. And why not? NATO. As it has become patently obvious, taking as a starting point the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the support for the KLA terrorist organization, the abuses committed in Afghanistan, the illegal invasion of Iraq and the horrific human rights abuses committed there, culminating now in the five-month bombing campaign against Libya, NATO is not a peaceful defensive organization.

 Indeed, it is a belligerent offensive military organism which goes looking for wars if none exist, against targets that do not affect the security of its member states. It is an organization which violates human rights, violates the UN Charter, violates international law and violates the Geneva Conventions with countless acts of despicable cowardice, for example deploying Depleted Uranium in Kosovo, in Iraq and now in Libya (pending investigation), strafing civilian structures with military hardware, and now, just weeks ago, the destruction of the Libyan water pipeline to "break the backs" of the civilians. Now it does not get much more evil than that, does it?

 In which international lawbook is any of this sanctioned? It is not, and therefore these are war crimes. Why are the leaders of NATO not sitting in the dock at The Hague? Because international law does not exist.

 And if international law does not exist, NATO is sowing dangerous precedents and is constituting not only its own obvious threat to international security, but also poses a direct risk to the internal security of its member states, for it creates the notion that if NATO can murder children in Libya (such as the precision-bombing of Colonel Gaddafi's son's home, occasioning the murder of Saif-al-Arab al-Qathafi and three babies, Muammar al-Qathafi's grandchildren), then a strike can be carried out in the capital city or elsewhere in the countries perpetrating this outrage. If one is called an air strike, why should the other not be cause a land strike? And if NATO can only mumble the word "regret" when it slaughters kids and bombs schools and hospitals, then why should everyone get so hysterical when the same thing happens on home soil? Just say the word: "Regret".

 The calls for revenge are ringing out in the international community and curiously, it is not from the Libyans themselves who are only asking for peace and to get on with their lives solving their own problems in their unique system of government, the Jamahiriya, which they were doing before a clique of crusading intruders came along, this time led by France and of course the UK and USA with a 100% presence in all conflicts. Why, the last five Prime Ministers of the UK have been involved in six wars!

 The injustice of this attack on Libya, where the Libyan Armed Forces were simply responding to the threat posed by thousands of opportunists and terrorists armed by NATO and supported by Al-Qaeda has created a tsunami of outrage which has reached far and wide and is more likely to cause a breach to security than Libya ever was, for Tripoli's threat outside its frontiers was zero.

 The crescendo, for those of us with our ears to the ground, is deafening. While it would not be surprising that the cloistered NATO figures perpetrating their daily acts of terrorism with nonchalance are oblivious to all around them, there are currents under way for a renegotiation of contracts, locking companies from NATO countries out of the developing world.

 The solution is as simple or as complicated as anyone wants to make it. If NATO is too proud to admit that its bombing campaign is getting nowhere in military terms, that it supported the wrong side and is defending Al-Qaeda elements among the TNC and that it is evident that the population of Libya by and large is very much with Colonel Gaddafy and against the "rebels" (after all, only NATO supports terrorists), then on the other hand legal steps are being taken to ensure that those responsible for the acts of murder, attempted murder and wanton criminal damage will be arrested and will stand trial.

 There will be financial compensation to pay in damages, of course, there will be legal compensation to pay the owners of properties and the victims of human casualties, because you cannot just breeze into a sovereign state and bomb its facilities with impunity. This time, NATO's taxpayers will decide who is to pay for its crimes and those responsible for them (NATO commanders and those politicians responsible for policy) will stand trial as the criminals and murderers they are. Perhaps they will be allowed to reside in their countries of birth after having served a suitable prison sentence - such a decision is up to their people.

 Maybe after justice is done, we can go back to our discussion about Westphalia and Helsinki and the UN Charter. If not, there is a second option: Scrap the UN as a legal body, using it merely as a humanitarian organization to distribute food, channel aid, ensure human rights, gender equality, combat homophobia and name world heritage sites, which in itself is already a lot.

 Fundamentally, form a new world order based upon a universal Declaration of Principles which are upheld in the same court of law for all members, where the same set of weights and measures apply to all equally, where there is accountability for crimes, and where real crisis management instruments are applied, without resorting to violence.

 If the USA, UK, France and that clique of sycophantic vultures called NATO are unable to abide by these principles, then they should be locked out of this new world order and forced to stew in the squalor of their own making, while the new international community gets on together as an international society of brothers and sisters living happily along the shores of our common lake, the seas, under the international motto "tears taste of salt, whoever sheds them" and singing an international anthem whose refrain is "The smile inside the eyes of a child lights a fire in my heart".

 For NATO, the same mottoes would be "today a child, tomorrow a terrorist so blast the bastard's face off him"; "the darker the skin, the worse the person" and "We are oblivious to your tears and screams, burn you mother f.....er, burn!" Does anyone want NATO in the international community? No, I thought not.

 Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru

http://www.moscowtopnews.com/

Russian Ambassador: NATO Assists Warmongering Kosovo Separatists

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=08&dd=04&nav_id=75761

Tanjug News Agency/Večernje Novosti
August 4, 2011

Russian ambassador in strong criticism of intl. missions

BELGRADE: Russian Ambassador to Serbia Aleksandr Konuzin on Thursday once again addressed the issue of the current crisis unfolding in Kosovo.

He qualified NATO's decision to deploy more soldiers in Kosovo as "yet another proof that the whole Kosovo issue is an anti-Serb campaign".

"It is difficult to understand the logic of NATO partners. Over a number of months KFOR has been systematically reducing its contingent saying that the situation in the province is stabilizing. The mission ignored the warnings that the situation is not like that," Konuzin said for the Thursday edition of the Belgrade-based daily Večernje Novosti.

"When Priština took the unilateral military action to isolate Kosovo from central Serbia, using the special police units ROSU, KFOR aided them by moving the members of the units to the north of the province by helicopters," the Russian ambassador said.

"The war-mongering statements by Hashim Thaci about his intent to proceed with attempts to violently regain control over the territory north of the Ibar River have caused no concern among the international security presence. An identical inert reaction ensued even when the security forces in Priština have raised the combat readiness to the highest level," he said.

"They got alarmed only when the unarmed Serbian civilians, who reacted to the illegal and dangerous operations by Priština, took to the roads in order to protect their families, and also their houses from theft and robbery," said Konuzin.

"The Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX), which is active in the province, seeing that lawlessness was growing, at first distanced itself from any action and then took the side of Priština. Furthermore, EULEX has the authority to annul decisions that threaten security and public order. In other words, another huge anti-Serb campaign is underway," concluded Konuzin.

Serbia accuses West of Kosovo bias

Published 03 August 2011

1Share

Comments4

Serbian Prime Minister Mirko Cvetvovic has accused Western powers of bias in the stand-off between ethnic Serbs and Kosovars, which has continued into its ninth night as Serbs blocked two border crossings between Serbia and Kosovo.

Cvetkovic said yesterday (2 August) that Serbia was not responsible for "the new situation" in Serbian-populated northern Kosovo, blaming tensions on the administration in Pristina and international institutions in the former Serbian province.

Since violence erupted on 26 July, two border crossings between Serbia and Kosovo have been blocked by ethnic Serbs. The EU and Western powers have strongly condemned the attacks of both Kosovar and ethnic Serbian forces. The stand-off has its origin in a mutual goods-importation ban between Kosovo and Serbia.

As quoted by the Serbian press, Cvetkovic called on international representatives in Kosovo to start talks with the Serbian government, and said that NATO-led KFOR forces and the EU law enforcement mission EULEX should remain neutral and should not side with any party.

The prime minister said that the refusal of KFOR and EULEX to talk with the legitimate representatives of Serbia and – and the fact that they have halted food convoys – was evidence of bias. This could lead to a humanitarian disaster, he insisted.

KFOR is reported not to allow imports by trucks since it is unable to control their cargoes.

NATO deputy spokesperson Carmen Romero rejected the accusation of bias, according to EurActiv's Bulgarian partner, Dnevnik. KFOR forces remain neutral, guaranteeing security according to their UN mandate, she added.

Similarly, when asked by EurActiv, Michael Mann, spokesperson for the EU's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, said EULEX was unbiased and that EU mediator Robert Cooper was in the region, conveying the same message to both sides is that it critical to return to dialogue and resolve underlying issues without delay.

According to the Serbian website B92, only passenger vehicles are allowed to enter Kosovo at the two blocked crossing points of Jarinje and Brnjak, whilst goods from central Serbia still cannot be delivered to the province.

Belgrade backs the barricades

Another website, EmPortal, claimed that the Serbian Minister for Kosovo, Goran Bogdanovic, yesterday called on his compatriots in northern Kosovo to maintain barricades at the crossing points. "We plead with you to continue showing up in force to demonstrate our will and goals in a peaceful way and not to allow the state of Kosovo to take hold here," the minister was quoted as saying.

Meanwhile NATO stated that it was sending more troops to reinforce KFOR, following a decision by the Allied Joint Force Command in Naples at the request of the mission's commander General Erhard Buehler.

A battalion of some 700 soldiers, stationed in NATO bases in Germany, will reportedly be sent to Kosovo, according to Beta, the EurActiv partner agency in Serbia.

A NATO's spokesperson insisted that the deployment of additional troops should not be interpreted as a sign that the situation in Kosovo was worsening.

In the meantime, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman advised Serbia to act in a way that would help the EU making "soon" a decision on Belgrade's EU candidacy.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/serbia-accuses-west-kosovo-bias-news-506889

Why does the WEST support Kosovo's main industry- organ trade?

01.08.2011

 

In the wake of international criticism over human rights reports concerning Kosovo province ('independent state' wanna-be) , Dick Marty's report on Human Organ Trafficking was the most shocking of all. Big fish are involved in this horrible atrocity, such as Kosovo's Prime Minister Hashim Tachi, a former guerrilla leader. Tachi's inner circle oversaw a KLA gang that murdered and abducted Serbs to sell their kidneys and other body parts on the black market.

His KLA- Kosovo Liberation Army, which started as a terrorist organization, ended up in the lawless province of Kosovo, as a regular force, revamped into ROSU- special police. This paramilitary terrorist organization is closely linked to Al Qaeda, allegedly through men such as Al Qadi, CIA agent and close acquaintance and money launderer of Osama Bin Laden (ex-CIA agent himself who worked under the code name 'Tim Osman' ).

The KLA helped with the founding of Al Qaeda training camps in Kosovo, Bosnia and Raska district for a joint fight against Serbs. Other than that, many of the mujahedeens trained there (quiz question- find the link with Hashim Tachi..) were caught in the

One of the other alleged big names in Organ Trafficking is Xhavit Haliti, a former head of logistics for the KLA who is now a close ally of the prime minister and a senior parliamentarian in his ruling PDK party. He is alleged to be highly involved in prostitution, weapons and drugs smuggling. Black-listed in many countries, this Albanian serves as political and financial adviser to the P.M. Tachi .

One of the lesser known facts about Haliti and Tachi - Haliti is allegedly "linked" with the grisly murder of Ali Uka- Ali Uka, a reporter in Tirana, who supported the independence movement, but criticized it in print, and who was brutally disfigured with a bottle and a screwdriver in 1997. His roommate at the time was Hashim Thachi.

"The government of Kosovo continues to support the strengthening of the rule of law in Kosovo, and we look forward to the cooperation of our international partners in ensuring that criminality has no place in Kosovo's development," said the Prime Minister, Hashim Tachi, who has been strongly backed by NATO powers.

It is hard to believe that head of a "mafia-like" network responsible for smuggling weapons, drugs and human organs during and after the 1998-99 Kosovo war, will be ready to drop his most profitable industry branch - Human Organ trafficking. Having no regular industry, Kosovo province, under the Albanian rule, has no other means of survival besides funding from US Lobbyists for Kosovo's 'independence.'

It is widely known in the Balkans that KLA, Albania and Hashim Tachi have been racketeered by Western powers for the NATO and political help they get. One of the most recent examples is the Serbian northern province of Vojvodina. Although for no apparent reason (other than to make Serbia as small and weak as possible) western countries, mainly USA, UK, Germany and Hungary are lobbying for Vojvodina's independence.

If you take a closer look, you will find out that Vojvodina province is a vast peaceful and fertile plain, the Serbian rich pantry, hence the reason for diplomatic and economic robbery. KLA's weapons, drug,and human organ trafficking money, via command of Western powers, is laundered through the purchase of hundreds of thousands of acres in Vojvodina.

Most of the Vojvodina territory is bought with KLA's dirty money through official Croatian companies. At the same time, Monsanto is knocking at the door of the Serbian corrupt Parliament with their GMO food intended for acquisition by Vojvodina's farms.

As things stand, Serbs obviously can't expect justice from the international community. Their organs will be sold to fund Monsanto and other neo-imperialistic needs of western companies.

Dickering about Kosovo's 'independence' will be used to make more money from drugs, weapons and human trafficking, to further dismembering of Serbia. Up until recently, only Serbs were aware of these terrible crimes. Will anyone else, except the brave Dick Marty, take an interest in them?


Lisa Karpova with A 4P

Pravda.Ru

http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/01-08-2011/118629-Why_does_WEST_supporf_organ_trade-0/

Libya, where NATO loses its way

31.07.2011

 

It is by now patently obvious that in Libya, NATO has violated every rule in the book, has violated international law, has broken the Geneva Conventions, has breached diplomatic conventions, has insulted the United Nations Organization and fundamentally, has even violated its own charter. Why? In three letters, oil.

NATO is the most despicable type of syphilitic whore that ever appeared on the international stage, a mutation of the worst kind which sprang out of the defensive agreement among nations quaking in their boots at the military supremacy of the Soviet Union, a mutation which turned what was supposed to be a defensive alliance into a supra-national monster. NATO is not a defensive military alliance, it is not only offensive in nature but is also fundamentally criminal in character.

To begin with, we have to disassociate NATO from politics, if we want to give an iota of credibility to the politicians that people elect in NATO member states. If we do not disassociate NATO from the political class in countries whose foreign policy NATO controls, the harder you look, the more sinister it gets.

For a start, NATO was supposed to be a defensive military alliance protecting its member states from attack from the Soviet Union. Those of us on the other side of the curtain always had a good laugh at this because not only were the military forces of the Soviet Union essentially defensive in nature but also, in each and every war games exercise, the USSR thrashed the crap out of NATO, as indeed the Russian Federation would today. The aperitif was the Georgia campaign in 2008. Who started it and who ran screaming with its tail between its legs? Whose military advisors were on the ground, whose mercenaries came back home in body bags?

When the countries composing the USSR decided to go their separate ways, NATO lied and said it would not encroach to the East if the Warsaw Pact was dissolved. Several times. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved and what did NATO do? It encroached to the East. The first round of lies belongs to NATO.

NATO, we saw then, was obviously not a defensive organization, which was already more than apparent given the millions of dollars it spent in terrorist operations and in supporting terrorist factions and fascist dictatorships around the world. So since 1990 we have seen more and more where NATO was going and what NATO is. It morphed into the armed whore of the lobbies which control the capitalist system across the globe: the banking lobby, the weapons lobby, the drugs lobby, the energy lobby.

Within a decade of the voluntary dissolution of the USSR (catered for in its Constitution) and the ensuing dissolution of the Warsaw Pact (in good will), NATO had already started the foundation of the European base of the international heroin trade: Kosovo. Between 80 and 90 per cent of the European heroin trade comes through Kosovo, from Turkey, from Afghanistan. The common link in all these theatres of activity is - you got it - NATO!

In Afghanistan, the production of heroin has risen by forty (40) times, since NATO started fighting the forces it created back in the 1980s (Mujaheddin) to fight the socially progressive government, destroying the society which guaranteed children's rights, women's rights and the freedoms people do not have today.

So we see now where NATO stands: alongside terrorists (the KLA was a terrorist organization, the Mujaheddin became the Taleban) and overseeing the heroin trade which by the way is worth billions of dollars a year.

It does not matter to NATO how many families it destroys in the process. It never did. Through the manipulation of fear (creating successive "thems" to justify the "us") NATO managed to control public opinion and maintain itself on the political agenda of its member states, without ever having been elected yet controlling their foreign policy (how Constitutional is that?).

Until Iraq, NATO managed to mastermind a certain image of credibility for those who bought the Soviet Threat bullshit story. After Iraq, it didn't. The mass murder of Iraqi civilians, the torture, the illegal detention of persons, rape, disrespect for human life, the deployment of military hardware against civilian structures... you name it, NATO did it.

And now, Libya. It was patently obvious from the start that this was yet another NATO operation, this time not for drugs but for oil and much more: Muammar al-Qathafi's stance on forging African unity through the African Union so that African nations could stand on their own feet and not be systematically raped by ex- and neo-colonialist powers meant that the banking lobby missed out, the energy lobby missed out, the weapons lobby missed out.

The name of the game is to destroy the African Union and substitute it with AFRICOM. The many humanitarian projects and programmes sponsored and financed by Muammar al-Qathafi do not matter to NATO because NATO is not interested in the welfare of Africans, it simply wants to control Africa's resources.

And the sinister way in which NATO implements policy makes it the most hated organization on the planet. And here we see whether the politicians of the NATO member states have anything to say to save their necks. Whether or not they will ever answer these questions (as yet sent but not replied to) is a measure of their arrogance and an indicator as to who not to elect next time around.

Under which international laws was the Libyan water pipeline a target?

Under which laws was it legitimate to target a factory supplying water pipes to repair the system?

Under which laws was it legitimate to target a house with precision weaponry - and we are speaking of laser technology and telecommunications systems responding from ten kilometres in the sky, so it was no accident - in which Muammar al-Qathafi was outside feeding the animals and his son and three grandchildren were murdered?

Under which laws is it legitimate to support and arm terrorists in an internal conflict?

Under which laws is it permitted to strafe hospitals?

Under which laws is it allowed to strike civilian structures such as the electricity grid?

Under NATO's laws, yes. Because NATO does not answer to any international legal organism, indeed it has already stated there is no organism controlling its actions. Under the laws of the member states of NATO, no. And under international law, no.

But then again NATO does not operate under international law. It is a criminal organization run by criminals. So we repeat the question: where do the politicians come into this? If they support NATO, they are criminals. If not, then why are they members?

In which case ladies and gentlemen, in your wonderful western democracies, you have two alternatives: vote for your political representatives who support NATO and become guilty by association or else vet who is running for office by asking them their opinion on foreign policy and by doing the right thing and setting the appropriate legal measures into force punishing those involved in this criminal act of murder and holding them responsible for their crimes.

Do you support the terrorists in Libya? Yes? Then you are supporting child murderers and so...no vote. No action = guilt by association, meaning the citizens of these NATO states sit in silence while their armed forces commit acts of murder daily, in support of thousands of armed terrorists. Is THAT what your countries stand for? Apparently, it is.

 

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/31-07-2011/118622-libya_nato-0/

Serbia and the New World Order

31.07.2011

 

There is no doubt that in the massive wave of popular outrage against NATO's support for terrorists in Libya, a spontaneous international movement of decent people from all walks of life from the four corners of the Earth, the people of Serbia have opened their hearts speaking out in the name of justice. It is time for us to do the same for Serbia.

Twelve years ago I had the honour to speak out in the name of justice against the murderous terrorists of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)/Ushtria Çlirimtare e Kosoves (UÇK in Albanian). It is time for us to do the same for Serbia, because while NATO commits its outrage in Libya, slaughtering children, precision-bombing homes, targeting civilian structures with military hardware, the Serbian people are being sold out by their own politicians.

The recent decision by the "Kosovo authorities" brought matters to the fore. (Kosovo is an illegal state because under international law, it is part of Serbia - how would the countries that recognised it like it if the heart of their country was torn out and given to a neighbour?) The "Kosovo authorities" in Pristina, the capital of this Serbian province, decided not to import any more Serbian products.

 The Serbs took to the streets in protest, and while the NATO forces under KFOR either looked on or went away, the Albanian "Prime Minister" of Kosovo (he may as well call himself King of Saturn, the legitimacy is the same), Hashim Thaçi, sent the ROSU special police units, which began opening fire on unarmed Serbian civilians (1).

What is more ominous is the declaration of the by now hated Serbian President, Boris Tadic, who since 2004 has done absolutely nothing for his people except sell their interests down the river and bow to the demands of large Western corporations, selling their jobs and souls and futures to those whose only desire in life is to destroy Serbia and break the spirit of its brave people. In an interview with the German daily newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine, he allegedly stated that the Serbian idea of ​​creating a Greater Albania is considered dangerous but the Serbian people could live with that if there was an agreed solution.

Added to this was his demonstration of pig-faced arrogance: The more they ( people ) hate me, I'm more sure that I'm doing the better job. Now his latest contribution is that he is trying to destroy the arms factory in Kragujevac.

How can a President of Serbia acquiesce to one of the greatest outrages in modern history, namely the violation of every fibre of international law creating a mafia state (which controls 80 to 90 per cent of the European drugs trade) in the heart of the Balkans, namely the illegal state of Kosovo, the soul of the Serbian nation?

The answer to that question is "easily", because since Milosevic was illegally kidnapped and illegally detained at The Hague, it appears that the general guidelines for Serbian politicians is the more corrupt and the worse for the people and the future of the country, the better it is.

There are obvious reasons for this, since western corporations are already starting to eye up the fertile plains of Vojvodina, which Monsanto would no doubt love to use as a base to launch a multi-million dollar GM crop business right in the heart of Europe. This would involve, of course, the eventual separation of Vojvodina as well, and there are rumours that Hungary, Germany and who else? the UK and USA are already active in this process.

Therefore the attempts by Tadic to control and muzzle Serbia's media make sense for a person who is beginning to realise how hated he is. What do his paymasters say about this, those who spend half a century bleating about Freedom of Expression? Nothing, of course. What do you expect from leaders of countries that drop precision bombs on family homes in Libya?

The recent sacking of the chief editor of Alo magazine was part of this process - he was the only one to have the guts to criticise Tadic. And President Tadic himself, after his declarations about climbing into bed with a Greater Albania, might have something to say about the allegations that his bedfriend Hashim Thaçi is involved in the trafficking of human organs, ripped out of Serbs in Kosovo, that "nation" supported by NATO.

This, it is alleged, along with the drugs trade masterminded all along the supply route from Afghanistan (NATO) through Turkey (NATO) to Kosovo (NATO) is part of the pay-back to the members of the US Congress who sponsored the "independence" of Kosovo - being the only way the Kosovar Albanians can garner enough money to pay back their puppet-masters what they owe (after all, the "independence" comes at a price - the USA does nothing without self.-interest).

Tadic might also ask his bedfellow Thaçi what part he and his friend and advisor Xhavit Haliti had in the murder of the journalist Ali Uka in Tirana.

As the heroic Serbian people stand beside the heroic people of Libya in defending the Jamahiriya of the man who has done more for Africa and his people than anyone else, it is time for this wave of sympathy to be extended and to embrace them also. I stood with the people of Serbia 12 years ago denouncing the barbaric and murderous NATO attack, I stand with the Serbian people now as evil foreign forces strive to dismember their wonderful country.

(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHi2E4gbw0g&feature=relmfu

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru

http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/31-07-2011/118623-serbia_world_order-0/

Kosovo Bomb Exploding Serbia's South

Kosovo Bomb Exploding Serbia's South

28.07.2011 | 19:49

The situation in Kosovo after the clashes between Serbs and Albanians remains tense. The situation became aggravated on July 25, when Kosovo Albanian authorities have tried to establish full control over the entry and exit points in Yarin and Brnyak on the administrative border with Serbia. Many Serbs interpreted this as an attempt to occupy the northern part of the region inhabited mainly by Serbs, with its government, supported by Belgrade.

Pristina sent riot police in the area that had to fight with the local Serbs. In two days of armed clashes more than ten people were injured. The decision to send Special Forces was taken by Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci.

It is worth mentioning that the responsibility for the control of the check points on the Serbian border lies on the European Union Mission in the rule of law and order (EULEX). Brnyak was seized by the Albanians because the representatives of the EU offered no resistance, while Serbs managed to defend Yarin. They managed to block the track to this checkpoint with cars and construction equipment.

It was reported that German General Erhard Bühler, the commander of the international KFOR, participated in resolving the situation. However, in practice it had no effect, because his men were in no hurry to disperse the Albanians who have violated the agreement on the control of the checkpoint at the administrative border with Serbia. According to Borislav Stefanovic, head of the Serbian delegation at the talks with Pristina, he has reached an agreement with Erhard Bühler that the Albanian Special Forces would be taken to Pristina, and then Serbs will take down the barricades. Only then the EULEX staff and police of Serbian nationality would return to the checkpoint in Brnyak.

However, the Albanians have acted differently. They pretended to leave Brnyak, but later returned. As a result, the clashes between Albanians and Serbs resumed. Shortly before this, in the evening of July 26, Thaci made very different statements and conducted himself with great assurance. One gets the impression that his actions were originally agreed upon with the EU. According to him, the actions of the police in northern Kosovo should not be interpreted as a provocation. "The goal is to ensure law and order throughout Kosovo," said Thaci. "We cannot forever endure that our sovereignty is violated, and a part of our country is used for smuggling." In turn, president of Kosovo Atifete Yahyaga made a statement that the control over the entire country is a sovereign and legitimate right of any state. This right, in his opinion, was violated by Serbia who did not let the people on both sides communicate and exchange goods. Thus, the president placed the responsibility for the aggravation on the Serbs, and warned that Belgrade's behavior may affect his desire to join the EU. He also sharply criticized the statements of some Serbian politicians about the need to withdraw the Albanian Special Forces from the north.

In his claims Atifete Yahyaga referred to the aggravation that occurred on July 20, when the Kosovo government banned the import of goods from Serbia, explaining the decision by the fact that Belgrade does not recognize Kosovo's customs and prevents the import of the Kosovo goods to Serbia. The Serbian side did not specify the goods in question. However, many Serbs believe that Kosovars are unhappy with the fact that Belgrade is struggling with a flourishing drug trade in Kosovo. In addition, there is evidence that the Kosovars transported weapons to their fellow-Albanians on the territory of Serbia.

Note that the current operation of the Kosovo Albanians was the first attempt to establish a complete control of Pristina since the proclamation of Kosovo's independence in 2008, which was a flagrant violation of all previous agreements between the Serbs, Kosovars and the West. In this situation, the international forces of KFOR have shown their utter helplessness. However, the most striking thing was not the behavior of the Albanians and representatives of the EU and KFOR, as the West continues its previous policy of eliminating Serbia as a state, but the reaction of the Serbian leadership to these events. President Tadic said that Belgrade "would not wage a war" in response to the Kosovo campaign to capture the Special Forces checkpoint at the administrative border of Serbia and Kosovo, and would seek to resolve the conflict exclusively through diplomatic means. Tadic urged everyone to remain calm and not to react to any provocations. He urged the citizens of Serbian and Albanian nationality to maintain peace and encouraged the representatives of Pristina not to make any risky steps. He also noted that the representatives of some political forces consider it necessary to engage in new wars, but the majority of the citizens of Serbia do not support such a policy. On the contrary, it is necessary to continue to engage in a dialogue and promote peace. He added that fight for peace is the most difficult one, as it is much easier to plunge into a war and violence.  

In his comments to "Pravda.ru" President of the Academy of Geopolitical Issues Leonid Ivashov said:

"These events should have been expected. The policy of endless self-abasement and concessions allowed Kosovo extremists, entrenched in the leadership of Kosovo, to squeeze the Serbs from the place sacred for them. I would note that Tadic is doing everything to get into the EU. He gave Hadzic and Mladic, the heroes of the Serbian people, to the slaughter. But this is not sufficient to join the EU, as the West has already told Tadic. To do this he has to completely humiliate and degrade the entire Serbian people: Belgrade must recognize the independence of the sacred to the Serbs Kosovo and Metohija. Tadic, apparently, is ready for to do it and sell the remains of the national pride in order to make the Serbs the EU's migrant workers. As for the behavior of the West and the Albanians in this story, this proves once again the fact that now it is all about brute force. In the end Serbia may seize its existence. "

Note that these fears are not unfounded. The segregation of Kosovo did not stop all of the Serbs' problems. On the contrary, each year the negative trends in terms of separatism only increase. In this case it is not only Sandžak, but also several other southern Serbia areas inhabited by Muslims and Albanians, and Vojvodina where the Hungarian nationalists are raising their heads.

The recent developments in Kosovo show once again that the West is indulging the extremists and motivating them to greater action against Belgrade. The only question is when these bombs explode.

Sergei Balmasov

http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/28-07-2011/118610-kosovo_bomb-0/

CAIRO – Why Serbia in particular?

Why Serbia in particular?

By Mohssen Arishie – The Egyptian gazette
Sunday, July 31, 2011 12:59:28 PM

CAIRO – Members of the April 6th Movement have confessed to receiving training in Serbia and this should raise many questions. This Serbian tour opened divisions in the movement and led several of its pioneers to break away in October 2010. 

 

---

 

   In its 69th statement, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces bluntly accused the political movement of trying to drive a wedge between ordinary Egyptian citizens and the Army. 

   The SCAF's statement also accused the movement of receiving money from overseas and training there. 

   The Army's accusations came after young demonstrators left Tahrir Square and marched to el-Abbasiya, northeast of central Cairo, to demonstrate outside the military headquarters. 

   They chanted slogans, which insulted the Egyptian Army and cast doubts on its post-Mubarak loyalties. They went too far when they chanted slogans against Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi and members of the SCAF. 

   Whether it was deliberately planned or not, this anti-Army demonstration coincided with the nation's celebrating the Egyptian Revolution of July 23rd 1952, which was sparked by the Army. 

   There have been allegations that the movement's members received 'military' training, to help them overpower riot police during the mass demonstrations. 

   Partially confessing to these accusations, the movement's spokesman, Mohamed Adel, said that he had travelled to Serbia and received training in 'non-violence', the manipulation of the masses and how to mobilise and control them. 

   The instructors in the Serbia-based training camps did a good job. The movement's spokesman proudly attributed their success in leading the mass demonstrations that ousted Mubarak to the instructions and advice they received in Serbia. 

   Adel did not explain how long they had spent in Serbia before graduating and returning home to Egypt to put their 'theoretical studies' into practice in Tahrir Square and other public places across the country. The movement's spokesman strongly denied that they were traitors or agents paid to cause instability in their country. 

   One of the movement's secessionists said that he had declined the invitation to travel to Serbia for training there. 

   Tareq el-Kholi, the coordinator-general of the 6th of April Movement's Democratic Movement (a breakaway movement from the 6th April Movement), also denounced his former colleagues for allowing foreign agencies to grease their palms with US dollars and euros as a reward for their participation in the Serb-based training camp. 

   Serbia has a long way to go before it will be given the ticket to join the European club of democracy-exporting countries. Its hands are stained with the blood of tens of thousands of innocent Muslim women, children and young men in Serbia-controlled areas. 

   Serbia has desperately been trying to remove these big, indelible stains from its history by collaborating with the massive hunt for the perpetrators of this ethnic cleansing of Muslim minorities in the old Yugoslavia in the 1990s. 

   This horrendous genocide has been described as the most brutal since the First World War. Dozens of the Serb leaders of these large-scale massacres went into hiding to avoid the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. 

   The suspects included late Serb President Slobodan Milosevich, who died on March 11 in his prison cell in The Hague. He was charged by the International Criminal Court with Bosnian genocide when he led Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica from 1992 to 1995 to massacre Muslims under his army's control. 

   Milosevich was arrested by Yugoslav federal authorities on Saturday, 31 March 2001 and was sent to The Hague.  

   Charges levelled against Milosevich and his army commanders included the killing of more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims, as well as the mass expulsion of another 25,000 or 30,000 Bosnian Muslims, in and around the town of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina, committed by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladiv. 

   The ethnic cleansing throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army targeted Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats. 

   It included unlawful confinement, murder, rape, sexual assault, torture, beating, robbery and inhumane treatment of civilians; the targeting of political leaders, intellectuals and professionals; the unlawful deportation and transfer of civilians; the unlawful shelling of civilians; the unlawful appropriation and plunder of real and personal property; the destruction of homes and businesses; and the destruction of places of worship. 

   How can a country, whose majority are connected, religiously, to the war victims in areas that used to be controlled by Serbian Army, give lessons about the peaceful transfer of power?

   We do not know whether Serb war veterans led the training classes for these young Egyptians. The Serbians should revive at home the nightmarish memory of the young Muslim men, who travelled to Afghanistan to fight the old Soviet Army in this Muslim country. 

   Returning to Egypt after learning the art of war, these young people described themselves as the Mujahidin (Holy Warriors) and formed militant groups, responsible for terrorist attacks in Egypt in the 1980s and the 1990s. 

   The comparison here should ignite fears that, after the war of terror launched by Muslim radicals in September 2001, the world community, including Egypt, could witness a war of terror launched, this time, by Christian radicals. 

   The random killing of young people by an ultra-Christian extremist in Norway should substantiate these fears.

http://213.158.162.45/~egyptian/index.php?action=news&id=20106&title=Why%20Serbia%20in%20particular

Kosovo Serbs Defy NATO, Maintain Two Barricades

http://en.trend.az/regions/world/europe/1911915.html

Trend News Agency
July 29, 2011

Kosovo Serbs defy NATO, leave road barricades

Serbs in restive northern Kosovo on Friday maintained their barricades of two key roads in defiance of an order to call off their protest against NATO's Kosovo peace-keeping mission KFOR and European Union law enforcement agency EULEX.

The Serbs, who are accusing the two missions of siding with the Albanian majority and government in Kosovo, have parked tractors, trucks, logs and tyres in the middle of the roads.

The barricades were set up after violence erupted in the area earlier this week, claiming the life of a policeman, in an escalation of a trade war between Serbia and its former province.

The Kosovo government moved to take over the border checkpoints in the mostly Serb north in order to enforce a trade embargo on Serbian goods. Serbs reacted by torching one of the crossings.

On Thursday KFOR took control of border crossings and declared the area a restricted military zone. KFOR ordered Serbs to dismantle the barricades, with KFOR commander Erhard Buehler warning that violence in the zone would be met with deadly force.

Talks aimed at defusing the situation have failed. Buehler is due to meet Serbian officials on Friday.

Kosovo declared independence in 2008 without the approval of Serbia. The Kosovar government has failed to assert its control in the north, where Serbs are in the majority.

___