Owen Parsons

Alright, thanks for clarifying that in a satisfactory manner Jack. It just seemed that you were deliberately avoiding and/or confusing the issue. I wasn't interested in using this issue to discredit you because I dislike some aspect of your work; I just wanted to see it addressed, which you did.

I agree with Len here, Jack. I find it disturbing that you are able to conflate "research on Zionism" with Holocaust denial. You do not object to "research on Zionism" (which includes Holocaust denial in your definition); your only issue is that it "prejudices some." Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this seems to amount to tacit approval of fraudulent Holocaust denial "research."

UPDATE: "The presiding judge Ian Bonomy estimated that the Račak, Padalište and Dubrava events are not representative of the prosecution's assertion that the Serb forces in the spring of 1999 conducted a campaign of terror against approximately 800.000 Kosovo Albanians by means of forcible deportation and murder." NATO's ICTY court (see here) has just dropped the fraudulent so-called crimes of Racak, Padaliste, and Dubrava prison (an atrocity which was caused, strangely enough, by NATO bombs) from the trial of the so-called "Kosovo Six," which begins tommorow. (source) NATO apparently realized that Milosevic successfully destroyed these charges during his trial and so decided to remove them to save themselves from further embarrassment. There is not a great deal left of the Kosovo "genocide" fraud. And need I remind everyone, again, that Racak was the only pretext that NATO had to bomb Serbia to begin with.

Thanks for all the information on this character. He was mentioned in a paragraph in Flammonde's old book and I'd been trying to dig up more on him.

The good thieving Mr. Bethell currently writes for National Review (what a surprise) and has a new book out from Regnery called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science." No kidding.

I have little to add but this: Happy 4th of July!

[NOTE: I can't get the quotes to work correctly, so Len's comments are in bold.] As I indicated on that thread, I don't really have the time to research that. I didn't see it. But in any case, you have had a lot of time to debunk 9/11 demolition theories, moon hoax theories, and "Wellstone's plane was shot down by EMP weapons" theories. I don't know how Racak would be greatly different. Even if the bodies there really where KLA guerrillas it doesn't mean that the Serb weren't guilty of ethnic cleansing in other cases especially Bosnia. Please see these internal German government documents for further proof that there was no campaign of genocide in Kosovo. This is why the phony massacre was necessary. Doesn't it bother you that NATO illegally bombed a sovereign country on pretexts that it had to know were lies? Just a little? I note that you haven't started a thread about that yet. There are two reasons why I haven't posted a thread on the Bosnian conflict (which did not primarily involve Milosevic, btw; the Bosnian Serbs were a separate political entity, Republika Srpska, indigenous to Bosnia itself) yet. The first one is that it would take a really long time to compile and then post, due to the complexity of the conflict. The conflict in Croatia is quite a bit simpler. The second, and main reason, is that I was disappointed with the way my Racak thread turned out, with little in the way of actual debate before dwindling off into nothing. I don't want to put too much effort into something that will be dismissed as "denial" (as Andy Walker called my Racak thread). Exactly normally these conflicts are usually more complex than the X's, the evil ethnic group vs. the Y's, the righteous ethnic group. I only skimmed two of your links two didn't cite any sources, one cited lots of sources but all the links I clicked on were to dead. The dead links in the Antiwar article can be retrieved by editing the URLs and/or putting them into Internet Archive. The links about the Iranian-trained assassination squad that the Bosnian government sent after Abdic, for example, may be found here and here. My reply was motivated by your comment that you would reexamine your entire outlook on the Arab-Israeli conflict base on the invasion of Gaza, that is the opposite of judging each situation on its own merits. I didn't say I was going to do a complete turnaround. What I said was that I'm striving for a less one-sided view, as is reflected in my 2nd post. You provided some documentation for this with Tudjman in your latest post, what about Izetbrgovic? The best place for that would be a different thread. See above. The more encouragement I get the more likely it is to be out there soon. Tudjman it should be noted fought with Tito against the Nazis. I am aware of this. By the 1960's, however, he was attacking Communism and was jailed briefly by Tito's government for his nationalistic activities. His fighting the Nazis in WWII (if it wasn't simply opportunism) does not mitigate the fact that he quite clearly became an anti-Semitic, anti-Serb Nazi holocaust denier later in his life. In any case Tudjman was facing inditement by the same court as Milosevic. Many Croats claim that his crimes were hoaxs just as you claim Milosovic's crimes were. Yes, indeed, there are quite a few neo-Ustase out there. The difference, though, is that they do not appear able to back up their arguments with factual material. It is also very hard to deny because Tudjman's own words damn him. In Milosevic's case, you will find nothing racist or ultra-Nationalist from him (quite the contrary in fact). Not in speeches, not in books. No minutes of government meetings planning ethnic cleansing.

Oh yes, and if you have any belief that Croatia is in any way a victim... Please read the following material. For some historical context about the WWII Croatian Ustase regime and its crimes, please visit the Pavelic Papers website. Excerpts from Franjo Tudjman's book, Wastelands of Historical Reality, can be read here. They are revealing, to say the very least. Read here, here, here, and here about the resurrection of Croatia's Nazi past. Read about the fears of Croatia's Jewish community here. Read the fascinating story of how Croatia utilized units composed of German neo-Nazis here. Read here about how some 10,000 Serb homes were dynamited in Croatia. Read about the attrocities committed in Gospic here and here. These minutes from the "Council for Defense and National Security of the Republic of Croatia" in 1993 show Tudjman planning the ethnic cleansing of Croatia's Serb population. Read of the massacre the Croatian military committed in the Medak pocket in 1993 here, here and here. Operation Flash, prelude to the Operation Storm ethnic cleansing operation, used as its pretext a phony "Serb terrorist attack" against Croatian motorists that was staged by the Croatian government, as confirmed by Tudjman's Cabinet Chief. Read about it here. Operation Storm entailed the massive ethnic cleansing of Serbian Krajina, a war crime you have probably never heard about, although it had full U.S. backing and support at every step of the way. Read about it here, here, and here. View these pictures if it isn't "real" enough. The minutes from a meeting held shortly after the operation again adress the ethnic cleansing plans. After you finish with that, read Tudjman's speech regarding this. Learn of the conditions of those Serbs who came back here. It should be noted that the Croatian government broke off peace negotiations with Republika Srpska Krajina on false pretexts (and with American assistance) in order to do all this (see here). Let there be no doubt, then, that Croatia was most assuredly an aggressor and a monstrous one at that. Historical context matters.

In this interview of 2001, you revealed that you were writing a book on the Luce press. What became of this project?

Yes, I do have this tendency, which is why I'm currently reexamining things, hopefully to arrive at a more balanced or at least more nuanced position. Most political activism can entail reductionism of this sort. It isn't a fault of youth alone. That's not the main argument. The main argument is that almost all of the so-called Serb crimes are provably phony, which is not the case regarding their enemies. I note that you have not even tried to prove the reality of the so-called Racak massacre, for instance. You are quite correct about this. For instance, Bosnian Muslim leader Fikret Abdic (a true moderate, and more popular than Izetbegovic) did the right thing and sided with the Serbs. Read his story here, here, and here. Exactly, the incidents should be judged on their own merits, which is what I do. The historical context is useful for understanding motivation and context. The historical context is also useful to pull up whenever supposed parrallels between the Nazis and the Serbs are drawn. It is also important because people like Tudjman and Izetbegovic celebrated the Nazi pasts of their people.

This is kind of overreaction for the kidnapping of one soldier, don't you think? See this article. "Operation Summer Rains" may just cause me to rethink this conflict (again). (I know this probably belongs in the Government and Politics forum, but after seeing the reaction to my Montenegro Referendum thread there [i.e. none], I think its warranted)

Well sure, some elements of the right wing challenged Clinton on just about everything. But this was certainly not the case for the entire right wing. Just to take one example I am aware of, Bill O'Reilly was all for bombing Serbia period, regardless of civillian death*. Ditto for William Safire (link). Judith Miller was also pro-intervention (here). People like John McCain, for instance, criticized Clinton for not committing ground troups. Elizabeth Dole also supported this idea (here). Bob Dole had a hard-line anti-Serb stance from the start (here). Steve Forbes, also, was pro-bombing and pro-arming of the KLA (here). Bush II was also pro-NATO intervention (here). Dan Quayle criticized Clinton for being indecisive and taking ground troops off the table (here). Did they? Sure, the idea is to create a desperate atmosphere through the news media by reporting bogus attrocities and presenting a totally false picture of the conflict. As I have argued, the fact that this incident was hoaxed (and by necessity with the complicity of significant elements of the OSCE's Kosovo Verification Mission) indicates that there were no real massacres. One does not manufacture fake proof to justify "humanitarian" war when real proof is available. Because the U.S. (and NATO) find it necessary to take an active hand in the destruction of some countries and not others. Some areas are of more interest than others. Also, Kosovo was different in that there was no campaign of government sponsored genocide. The "humanitarian crisis" was something that was cooked up by Washington and its NATO allies. Indeed, this must be a difficult thing for Serbs to accept, especially since it strongly appears not to be true. The establishment, for instance, found it necessary to lie about Milosevic's 1989 Kosovo speech, which was explicitly anti-nationalist and ethnically tolerant, in order to make him appear to be the "new Hitler" (here). You are aware that the Serbs fought against the Germans in both World War I and II, aren't you? Or that they were victims of Nazi/fascist genocide? Funny that they should change course so soon. Its possible of course, but without the necessary proof, I'd have to say it didn't happen. On the other hand, Nazi nostalgia can be found in both the Croatian government of Franjo Tudjman (a bona fide holocaust denier) and in the Bosnian government of Alija Izetbegovic (which resurrected the Muslim SS Handzar division). The desire for a "greater Albania" on the part of Albanian ultra-nationalists can also be traced back to WWII. "Greater Albania" was only ever a reality when Albania was a fascist state during WWII. The problem is that the Serb cause (fighting a terrorist organization) was not what was portrayed in the news media (ethnic cleansing and genocide). If the Serb cause was as portrayed, I would agree with your assessment. However, all the evidence I have seen indicates that the Serb cause was just. Nor do I think that the Serbs deserved to lose Kosovo (which is their equivalent of Jerusalem and the cradle of their cultural heritage) to a bunch of fanatics and racists. When you provide something of substance (i.e. actually challenge the case against the Racak "massacre") I will reconsider "get[ting] taken in by them." Until I see reason not to, I will continue to resist getting taken in by the lies of the political power elite. Your post consists of what you remember of your perception of the conflict as viewed through the media. As such, it is rather vague and general and not, I think, a basis on which a real debate can occur. The Kosovo conflict did not have to do with "fear of one's neighbor." It had to do with fighting a secessionist and ultra-nationalist terrorist organization which was killing both Albanians and Serbs. *Bill O'Reilly's famous comments: If NATO is not able to wear down this Milosevic in the next few weeks, I believe that we have to go in there and drop leaflets on Belgrade and other cities and say, "Listen, you guys have got to move because we're now going to come in and we're going to just level your country. The whole infrastructure is going." Rather than put ground forces at risk where we're going to see 5,000 Americans dead, I would rather destroy their infrastructure, totally destroy it. Any target is OK. I'd warn the people, just as we did with Japan, that it's coming, you've got to get out of there, OK, but I would level that country so that there would be nothing moving--no cars, no trains, nothing (source).

It looks like a fascinating book with lots of useful information but unfortunately the price is pretty steep. If only it was $20 less. I know its over 1,000 pages, has a slipcase and a CD etc., but still... If you have not already done so, Mr. Parsons, you might want to check out this piece by Dave Reitzes, along with the links attached, on the McAdams site http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/dr1.htm Dave Reitzes is a really good, thorough researcher, but he seems to be attracted to cults. He was at one time a member of the Garrison cult, then he joined the John Armstrong cult, and now he is a member of the McAdams cult. I'm not sure which one is the worst. I am indeed familiar with Mr. Reitzes. Just about all of his writing on Garrison is total garbage. If I had both the time and the energy I could write out a refutation of just about everything relating to Garrison he has written (and he has written a lot). As for Armstrong, I'm almost totally agnostic on his central theory. I'm just saying that it appears to have lots (and lots) of useful material for research.

That's perfectly understandable. Most of my material is neutral, in that it consists of reprinting newspaper and magazine articles, transcripts of Pentagon press conferences etc. (with editorial commentary from time to time). They are merely hosted by non-neutral websites. Its not like I'm relying on Op-Ed columns. I maintain that this entire discussion is a red herring. Well, if I were writing an academic paper I would indeed go straight to the article/paper/whatever I am relying on. However, this is the internet, and I want to make things accessible to readers.

It looks like a fascinating book with lots of useful information but unfortunately the price is pretty steep. If only it was $20 less. I know its over 1,000 pages, has a slipcase and a CD etc., but still...

I am not sure why the fact that Mr. Carr specializes in the Balkans hurts his credibility. Simply asserting that having a viewpoint or being associated with the University of Belgrade hurts your credibility begs the question. Anyway, it is a conference lecture, as is one of the of the Johnstone links, which is why they are unsourced. Ms. Johnstone was a journalist at In These Times before being given the boot because her reporting was a little more, shall we say, independent, than In These Times' newest correspondent Paul Hockenos (an old OSCE hack). She published The Politics of Euromissles in the late '80s and recently published Fool's Crusade (reviewed here by Edward Herman) about the subjects we are currently discussing. I think you are misreading Mr. Gervasi. The U.S. is destabilizing regions so as to purge the nuisance elements and then stabilizing the regions under NATO. At root, the problem was that the United States had an extremely ambitious plan for the whole of Europe. It is now stated quite openly that the US considers itself a "European power". In the 1980s, this assertion could not be made so easily. That would have caused too much dissension among Western allies. But the US drive to establish its domination in Europe was nonetheless a fact. And the United States was already planning what is now openly talked about. Quite recently, Richard Holbrooke, the Assistant Secretary of State for European affairs, made the official position clear. In a recent article in the influential journal FOREIGN AFFAIRS, he not only described the United States as a "European power" but also outlined his government's ambitious plans for the whole of Europe. Referring to the system of collective security, including NATO, which the US and its allies created after the second world war, Mr. Holbrooke said, "This time, the United States must lead in the creation of a security architecture that includes and thereby stabilizes all of Europe -- the West, the former Soviet satellites of Central Europe and, most critically. Russia and the former republics of the Soviet Union." (8) In short, it is now official policy to move towards the integration of all of Europe under a Western political and economic system, and to do so through the exercise of "American leadership". This is simply a polite, and misleading, way of talking about the incorporation of the former Socialist countries into a vast new empire. (9) It should not be surprising that the rest of Mr. Holbrooke's article is about the necessity of expanding NATO, especially into Central Europe, in order to ensure the "stability" of the whole of Europe. Mr. Holbrooke states that the "expansion of NATO is an essential consequence of the raising of the Iron Curtain." (10) Thus, behind the repeated interventions in the Yugoslav crisis, there lay long-term strategic plans for the whole of Europe. As part of this evolving scheme, Germany and the US originally determined to forge a new Balkan order, one based on the market organization of economies and parliamentary democracy. They wanted to put a definitive end to Socialism in the Balkans. (11) Ostensibly, they wanted to "foster democracy" by encouraging assertions of independence, as in Croatia. In reality, this was merely a ploy for breaking up the Balkans into small and vulnerable countries. Under the guise of "fostering democracy", the way was being opened to the recolonization of the Balkans. By 1990, most of the countries of Eastern Europe had yielded to Western pressures to establish what were misleadingly called "reforms". Some had accepted all the Western conditions for aid and trade. Some, notably Bulgaria and Rumania, had only partially accepted them. In Yugoslavia, however, there was resistance. The 1990 elections in Serbia and Montenegro kept a socialist or social-democratic party in power. The Federal government thus remained in the hands of politicians who, although they yielded to pressures for "reforms" from time to time, were nevertheless opposed to the recolonization of the Balkans. And many of them were opposed to the fragmentation of Yugoslavia. Since the third Yugoslavia, formed in the spring of 1992, had an industrial base and a large army, that country had to be destroyed. That was one of her reasons; I didn't say I agreed with everything she writes. The U.S. does loudly say it supports Israel, however, true or not, so I allow that currying favor with Muslim nations is a small part of the mix. Skim some more. This is from the "Humanitarian War" piece: An oddity of these "cultural divide" projections is that they find the abyss between Eastern and Western Christianity far deeper and more unbridgeable than the difference between Christianity and Islam. The obvious short, three-letter explanation is "oil". But there is a complementary explanation that is more truly cultural, relating to the transnational nature of Islam and to the importance of its charitable organizations. Steve Niva (18) has noted a split within the US foreign policy establishment between conservatives (clearly absent from the Clinton administration) who see Islam as a threat, and "neo-liberals" for whom the primary enemy is "any barrier to free trade and unfettered markets". These include European leaders, oil companies and Zbigniew Brzezinski. "Incorporating Islamists into existing political systems would disperse responsibility for the state's difficulties while defusing popular opposition to severe economic `reforms' mandated by the IMF. Islamist organizations could also help fill the gap caused by the rollback of welfare states and social services...", Niva observed. In any case, all roads lead to the Caspian, and through Kosovo. Kaplan publicly advises the nation's leaders that an "amoral reason of self-interest" is needed to persuade the country to keep troops in the Balkans for years to come. The reason is clear. "With the Middle East increasingly fragile, we will need bases and fly-over rights in the Balkans to protect Caspian Sea oil. But we will not have those bases in the future if the Russians reconquer southeast Europe by criminal stealth. Finally, if we tell our European allies to go it alone in Kosovo, we can kiss the Western Alliance goodbye"(19). Looking at a map, one may wonder why it is necessary to go through Kosovo to obtain Caspian oil. This is a good question. However, U.S. strategists don't simply want to obtain oil, which is a simple matter if one has money. They want to control its flow to the big European market. The simple way to get Caspian oil is via pipeline southward through Iran. But that would evade U.S. control. Or through Russia; just as bad. The preferred U.S. route, a pipeline from Azerbaijan to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan has been rejected as too costly. Turkey has vetoed massive oil tanker traffic through the Bosporus on ecological grounds. That leaves the Balkans. It seems the U.S. would like to build a pipeline across the Balkans, no doubt with Bechtel getting the building contract -- former Bechtel executive and Reagan administration Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger is a leading Kosovo warhawk. Bechtel has already obtained major contracts in Tudjman's Croatia. It is interesting that the Danube, likely to fall under German control, has been blocked for serious transport by NATO's bombing of Serbia's bridges. On the way to the Caspian, the next stop after Yugoslavia could be the big prize: Ukraine, which like the other former Soviet Republics is already under U.S. influence through NATO's "Partnership For Peace". Early this year, asked by a German magazine whether NATO should be the world policeman, NATO commander Wesley Clark observed that the "countries on the Caspian Sea are members of the `Partnership for Peace'. They have the right to consult NATO in case of threat." Clark "didn't want to speculate on what NATO might then do..."(20). Peter Dale Scott (a forum member) has also gone over the oil motive here. Then I will provide them for you: "Dr. Gervasi is an economist, he has taught here in the C.U.N.Y. [City University of New York] system as well as at the Sorbonne. He worked for several years at the U.N. on the question of Namibia and today is a research professor at the Institute for International Political and Economic Problems in Belgrade, where he is writing a book on the subject of Yugoslavia. As a commentator on WBAI [a Pacifica station] radio in New York he is also a well known and long time supporter of progressive causes in this country." (source) I provided the links for interested readers because my primary concern here is proving that Racak was hoaxed, the principle purpose of this thread, and I do not want to devote considerable time to the whys (which are for the Bosnia thread, when I get around to doing that). Also, I am pretty sure that I have not relied on intelligence agencies yet, Balkan or otherwise. As for people "associated with Milosevic," I have used sources supportive or Milosevic (none of his close friends or family though, if that's what you mean). But even so, this is assuming the guilt which has yet to be proved, i.e. begging the question. No, the main point is that if the point was to torture Albanians to fill out phony affidavits for propaganda purposes it is mighty strange indeed that these affidavits were not in fact used for propaganda purposes for six years and sat around collecting dust in the police archives, which kinda deflates the (alleged) purpose of the (alleged) torture. The thesis doesn't make logical sense. You don't "legitimize" a massacre by doing nothing with the information you have allegedly coerced. But even if it did make sense, the testimony against Jasovic would be suspect because Albanian's are intimidated, kidnapped, and killed if they say things that hurt the KLA's cause. I quote: During the re-examination, Milosevic managed to take Mr. Nice by surprise. Milosevic had somehow managed to obtain a confidential motion that the Office of the Prosecutor had filed with the tribunal in the Ramush Haradinaj case. The prosecution's motion explained that they were having tremendous difficulty getting witnesses to testify against Haradinaj, because of the repressive atmosphere and massive witness intimidation in Kosovo. According to the document, some potential witnesses have been killed for merely talking to tribunal's investigators. It said that the problem of witness intimidation in Kosovo is far worse than it is anywhere else in the former Yugoslavia. Mr. Nice didn't like having his own argument thrown back at him one bit. First he objected saying that the prosecution's document was supposed to be confidential, and then he said that the trial chamber should not hear this type of evidence because it goes to show that Kosovo-Albanians are unable to tell the truth. Mr. Nice's argument is ridiculous. If Kosovo-Albanians are in such a position that they can be killed for speaking in favor of the Serbs or against the KLA, then that should be taken in to account because it affects their credibility. It doesn't make them bad people; it just calls everything they say into question. (source) This is also true in the case of the two ethnic Albanian witnesses who testified for the defense, both of whom had family members kidnapped by the KLA (source) (source). I am not saying that this particular incident serves as justification for Serb resistance, you are the one bringing it up (as I said, the link I posted was primarily about al Qaeda and the KLA). Izetbegovic was actually bringing in fundamentalist Mujahideen terrorists all the way back in 1992 (and yes, this is based on much more than the Tanjug report). Bin Laden's later involvement fits the pattern, but I did not say it was the cause of the conflicts nor did I even mention it in my initial post. I did not intend to discuss Bosnia here, but rather Kosovo and specifically the hoaxed Racak massacre. I will be posting a thread on Bosnia soon, as I have mentioned. I will go into the details there.

---EDIT--- I just realized that this post of mine amounts to thread hijacking, so I've deleted it. Nothing to see here. Move along. ---EDIT---

An excellent series of points very well made Mike. This tendency favoured by conspiracists on this forum to believe anything which contradicts an official or accepted/established position without question is actually not being very analytical or intelligent at all. Rather it is a self indulgence which sails very close to full scale denial. All Mike does is essentially point out that many of my links are anti-NATO and pro-Serb websites, which is something that I have never been unaware of or denied (at no point have I "had no comprehension of the significance of the provenance of [my] sources"). Never mind the fact that the information in those pages is all quite clearly sourced and often consists of reprinting of relevant documents or articles (from mainstream sources). The thing that he does not do is deal with the information contained within. Nothing "analytical" at all. Essentially, he (and you) are begging the question. Also, I am not Jack White. I do believe Americans went to the moon. I don't believe in "Chemtrails." I don't believe believe that the Z-film was cooked up in a special effects studio or is in any way altered. I do not believe that the Bush administration shot down Paul Wellstone's plane with EMP weapons. I do not believe that the WTC towers were taken down by explosives (there may have been a "stand down" however; I haven't really started researching the subject yet). Please don't try to paint me as a crackpot. Contrary to your other thread, I do not find anything psychologically soothing in accusing the NATO powers of massive and monstrous fraud to justify criminal activity. I find it very disturbing that something of this magnitude was pulled off and I would really like to be proven wrong.

Thank you. Greed and the drive for world domination. What else? In a nut shell, the western NATO powers were able to carve out a lot of strategically valuable territory and knock out an inconvenient, independent, and still somewhat Socialist nation (and a stern warning to others). Some useful articles: http://www.tenc.net/articles/carr/carr.html http://www.tenc.net/articles/gervasi/why.htm http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/Johnstone/hawks.html http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/Johnstone/balk.htm http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/Johnstone/crime.htm http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/on.htm The U.N. has a mixed record, but on balance, I would say they were "in on it" (at least the important elements). The world media (i.e. NATO media) got the whole thing wrong I'd say about 95% of the time (with certain elements being "in on it" and certain elements being dupes), Human Rights Watch is also a NATO tool (as should be obvious from looking at where its backing, support, and funding comes from). I think most left wing groups were "taken for a ride" and some elements of the progressive sector are realizing this (such as Z Magazine). Of course, there were probably more than a few provocateurs in the mix. Many people outside of the Slavic countries have picked up on this, and there has been some (emphasis on some) good western investigative reporting. For instance, you will notice the very early and very valuable french articles questioning the Racak "massacre." I think John has posted about Operation Mockingbird enough for you to get an idea about how western media really works. I have addressed most of the sources in the Mike Tribe reply, but this one needs a little extra attention. The accusations against Mr. Jasovic have about zero credibility, see here and here. The most relevant extract: Mr. Nice asserted that Jasovic was a criminal who beat-up and tortured Albanian civilians and forced them to sign false witness statements against the KLA. Mr. Nice claimed that Jasovic generated the "false" witness statements in order to legitimize the Racak "massacre." The only problem with Mr. Nice's theory is that nobody even knew these statements existed before Jasovic exhibited them at the Milosevic trial. Furthermore, it wasn't originally Milosevic's idea to call Jasovic -- it was Mr. Nice's idea. If the idea was to cook-up some sort of false political legitimacy for a massacre, then these statements would have been available a long time ago. They certainly would not have been sitting in a police archive for more than six years gathering dust. For his part, Jasovic stuck to his testimony that the witness statements were taken for the internal use of the police, and not for any other purposes. Indeed I do, and I plan to post a thread about the Bosnian conflict (and probably the Croatian and Slovenian secessions also) in the near future. When I wrote, "Every single aspect of the 'official story' is a lie. The same thing could be said about just about every other aspect of the Yugoslav conflicts narrative as propagated in the NATO governments," it wasn't hyperbole. I was really linking to that page for the information about Al Qaeda and the KLA, but since we are on the subject, I will go over the bin Laden Bosnian passport issue. It's not really unconfirmed. Both Eva-Ann Prentice (who reported on the conflicts for The Guardian and the London Times) (here) and Renate Flotau (of Der Spiegel) (here) witnessed Osama bin Laden enter Alija Izetbegovic's office. This would entail having a Bosnian passport, I would think. I plan to go over the Islamic extremist nature of "President" Izetbegovic and his government, and its links with Islamic terrorism, in the aforementioned planned thread.

I've been having forum problems recently and now I'm back... so... www.srpska-mreza.com is run by Peter Makara, a Serbian computer engineer currently living in America. srpska-mreza typically reprints articles that slip through the cracks (i.e. material that Mr. Ivetic collected in this one instance), and all the content I have used for my initial post is of that nature. The link between the PLO and the Nazis is not hard to document and is a generally awknowledged (though not often talked about) fact. But the PLO is not what is at issue here. slobodan-milosevic.org is a great clearing house of information run by Andy Wilcoxson, an American with experience in television. I use his summaries because they are accurate (as can be confirmed by looking at the trial transcripts) and I want to spare the reader lots of scrolling. The other thing I used from slobodan-milosevic.org is the article about the photos that show the tampering with the Racak bodies, the most damning of which comes from an Albanian source. Anyway, this assumes that Milosevic is guilty until proven innocent (rather than vice versa) and that his supporters are less objective than the NATO supporters. The kosovoforum article is an analysis of discrepancies in the statements of the Racak witnesses, leaving aside the fact that these witnesses contradict all of the autopsy material. balkan-archive almost entirely consists of reprinted material from mainstream sources. I used its hosting of the infamous "White Book" which is indeed a Yugoslav government source, but it is detailed and backed up by photos, besides the fact that NATO was subsequently forced to admit some of its war crimes (although always careful to call them "accidents" in the end, after much initial bungling of alibis). I would prefer it if you would try to dispute the content of my links rather than just pointing out urls. All you have done here is attack the messenger. The most damning information comes straight from the Finnish team's own report. I have looked at both sides and the defenses of the reality of the Racak "massacre" are incredibly weak. This one, for instance, relies on Helena Ranta's early statements to "contextualize" the then recently released Finnish report. This is the same Helena Ranta who went on to admit that the scene had been staged. Another thing the article uses is the "eyewitnesses." But they, as I have noted, contradict the hard data of all three autopsy reports.

High school ended last week. You're certainly correct to say that people in the west are uninterested in this area (and various other "dark corners of the world"). I think that it is one of the primary reasons why malicious hoaxes like this can be foisted on the public, who have no real knowledge of the history or context of the area in which to place it. I became interested in this topic about the time I heard about Milosevic's death at the Hague. I had been aware of the "alternative" views of the conflicts, but had brushed them off without any real examination. Something about Milosevic dropping dead at the convenient time that he did made me suspicious, so I began looking into the charges against him and the Serbian people as a whole. Needless to say, my suspicions were confirmed in droves. Since then the history of the Balkans (the recent history, especially) has become something of an obsession. In my opinion, it is a key example of western foreign policy in action.

I wrote about my conclusion that the Serbs are innocent of the various slanders thrown at them by NATO and its media in another thread a few days ago. In this thread, I will demonstrate that one of the central atrocity stories, that Serbian security forces massacred Albanian civillians in the Kosovo village of Racak, is false. This "massacre" was then used as justification for NATO's "humanitarian" bombing campaign of Serbia. Every single aspect of the "official story" is a lie. The same thing could be said about just about every other aspect of the Yugoslav conflicts narrative as propagated in the NATO governments. Anyway, let's begin. Since 1996, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an Albanian secessionist terrorist group financed by the drug trade (source) (source) (source) (source) and supported by Al Qaeda (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) with an ethnically pure Kosovo and "Greater Albania" as its goal (source) (source) (source) (source) (source), had been carrying out attacks against the Serbian police force, Serbian civillians, Albanians loyal to Yugoslavia, and various minorities (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source). From its earliest days it had recieved great assistance from the CIA and German BND (source) (source) (source). At one time, the U.S. government had aknowledged "without any questions" that the KLA was a terrorist organization (source). The Yugoslav government understandably responded by combatting the terrorists and driving them back. Noam Chomsky notes that prior to NATO stepping in, of the 2000 estimated deaths caused by the fighting, 1500 appear to have been caused by the KLA (source). In addition, internal German government documents attest to the fact that there was no policy of genocide and ethnic cleansing on the part of the Yugoslav government at the time (source) (source). The security forces were a little too successful at combatting the KLA and retaking territory, so in October of 1998, NATO threatened the Serbs with bombing if they did not pull back and allow OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) monitors into the country, ostensibly to prevent massacres of Albanian civillians from occuring. This allowed the KLA to quickly recoup its losses (source) (source). I say "ostensibly" because in actual fact the OSCE team was full of CIA operatives and employees of American paramilitary companies, who were involved in spying for NATO and coordinating with the KLA (source) (source). I quote from the Sunday Times of March 12th, 2000, below: William Walker, who, in addition to being involved with Elliott Abrams and Oliver North in arming the Contras, had extensive experience in covering up real massacres in El Salvador, was picked by Madeleine Albright to head the team (source) (source) (source) (source). On January 12th, 1999, the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission recieved a report that the KLA were planning to fabricate "Serbian crimes." (source) It is in this context that the security forces launched a counter-terrorism operation in the village of Racak on the 15th. At 8:30 a.m. that morning the security forces invited two AP journalists to come along to film the operation, as well as a Reuters crew, which they did (an odd action for those planning a massacre, isn't it?). In addition, the OSCE was informed, and they sent vehicles over. The Reuters film was shown at the Milosevic trial and it shows the orange OSCE vans parked above the gully where the massacre supposedly took place (source). The security forces were pinned down by KLA fire during the majority of the operation. At 10:30 a.m., the first press release was issued. At 3 p.m., the Security forces announced the success of the operation and at 3:30 they left, along with the film crews. The OSCE people stayed behind, looking for civillian casualities. They "did not seem particularly worried" to the French journalist who talked with them at 6 p.m. (source). Judge Marinkovic attempted to conduct an investigation of the incident, on the 15th, but was fired upon and had to leave (source). The next morning, on the 16th, the KLA leads William Walker to the infamous gully, where he comes across about 22 bodies (out of 40) dressed in "civillian clothes" (which is irrelevant, as the KLA often operated in civillian clothes as well as in uniform [see photos below], in addition to the fact the they were dressed heavily for the outdoors). He describes it as "an unspeakable atrocity" (source). Two photos of the bodies taken at different times that day indicate that the bodies have been tampered with (source). In addition, it later emerged that 30 of the 40 people were known KLA members (source). Meanwhile, Judge Marinkovic returns to investigate at about the same time as Walker takes his tour and is again fired on (source). Madeleine Albright told National Security Advisor Sandy Berger that "Spring has come early" (source). The denunciations of the NATO governments come swiftly and before any investigation has been conducted. On the 17th, Judge Marinkovic returns again and is again fired upon, but this time it is videotaped. On the 18th, General Drewienkiewicz, an OSCE heavy, attempts to prevent Judge Marinkovic from investigating, unsuccessfully. Judge Marinkovic investigates anyway, this time successfully. Her team uncovers many weapon caches and other KLA paraphenalia, all of which is videotaped (source). Autopsies are conducted, under the supervision of two OSCE monitors (source), by Serbian and Belarussian teams, which are later joined by NATO's favored Finnish team. The Serbian and Belarussian teams find no evidence of a massacre, beatings, or mutiliation (source) (source) (contradicting the "eyewitnesses" who are produced later, for which see here). They do find using paraffin glove testing, however, that 37 of the bodies had been firing weapons (source) (source). The Finnish team's report is surpressed until 2001 (more on this soon). The team's leader, Helena Ranta, however, gives her opinion in lieu of the actual report. She declares it a "crime against humanity" (source). Later, she will admit to a German documentary that "I am aware of the fact that this entire scene had been rigged..." (source, scroll down to page 4779, line 8, for the transcript of the documentary). The Finnish report, released in 2001, is consistent in every way with the reports of the other two teams. The Finnish team finds multiple wounds per body, coming in at all angles, and a distinct lack of close range wounds (source) (source) (source) (source). After Racak, there was another supposed massacre in the village of Rugovo that made the rounds in the media. The fraudulence of this claim does not require any more proof than that the "victims" were filmed by Western journalists immediately after the event and were dressed in KLA uniforms and had KLA identification cards and machine guns (source) (source). On March 24th, 1999, after the maliciously fraudulent Rambouillet accords (see here for a discussion of this), NATO began its illegal bombing of Serbia for various geostrategic and economic reasons (but assuredly not humanitarian ones), in which many real war crimes are commited (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source). Since it was necessary to fake a massacre, it follows that there were no real ones committed by Serbian security forces. Note: Lest anyone raise issues about the White Book on NATO War Crimes, Human Rights Watch, certainly no friend of the Serbs, finds it "largely credible" (source). Indeed, I find it more credible than their own report on the issue. EDIT: Updated/revamped post.

Well its about time someone stuck up for the Warren Commission on this forum. Your government should be proud of you. I don't remember where I read it (maybe the Warren Report itself) but I once read a thoughtful explanation of the Nixon "incident." The thoughtful conclusion was that Marina wasn't making the story up, but was confused about which Vice-President Oswald was talking about shooting. It was LBJ, who visited Texas earlier in 63 (or was it late 62?) and it was LBj that Oswald talked about killing. This brings up the interesting question: if the story is true and Oswald wanted to kill Johnson, why would he turn around and kill Kennedy, whom he liked, knowing that it would make Johnson president? The Warren Commission did float this explanation, but Marina said "there is no question that in this incident it was a question of Mr. Nixon" (source) and later "Yes, no. I am getting confused with so many questions. I was absolutely convinced it was Nixon and now after all these questions I wonder if I am right in my mind" (source). Whether she did mistake Nixon for LBJ (and I don't believe this is the case), this still leaves the issue of Marina's two mutually exclusive stories about how she restrained Oswald. One of these was implausible, the other impossible (as Peter Dale Scott outlined in the link I posted). Antti: The WC did indeed get its hands on the story, but found it of "no probative value" (source). Dunn: I have read Shadow Play. It is indeed a valuable book.

EDIT: Double post, somehow. See next page.

This is weak. How am I defending the Warren Commission? I am just pointing out that that particularly incident she recounted was so blatantly phony and false that "[n]ot even" the Warren Commission wanted it, even though it could potentially help them in their effort to portray Oswald as a violent political extremist.