Jump to content
The Education Forum

The hoaxing of the Racak "massacre"


Recommended Posts

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:

American intelligence agents have admitted they helped to train the Kosovo Liberation Army before Nato's bombing of Yugoslavia. The disclosure angered some European diplomats, who said this had undermined moves for a political solution to the conflict between Serbs and Albanians. Central Intelligence Agency officers were cease-fire monitors in Kosovo in 1998 and 1999, developing ties with the KLA and giving American military training manuals and field advice on fighting the Yugoslav army and Serbian police.

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.

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Very impressive posting. I like the way you have provided source material to back-up your arguments. What gave you an interest in this topic? I am afraid most people in the west show little interest in this part of the world. Are you studying the topic at university or are you still in high school?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very impressive posting. I like the way you have provided source material to back-up your arguments. What gave you an interest in this topic? I am afraid most people in the west show little interest in this part of the world. Are you studying the topic at university or are you still in high school?

High school ended last week. :rolleyes:

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.

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I considered Bill Clinton and his NATO buddies with their bombing to be war criminals on the face of it. The kind of information you're reporting just makes their crime all the worse.

When one considers there is a real possibility that the Clintons could wind up right back in the White House after the 2008 election, one can only shake one's head and marvel at the human condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Owen,

I agree with John, your post was very impressive but I have a few questions and doubts.

What do you think motivated such a massive conspiracy?

Do you think the UN, World media, human rights organizations and left wing political groups were "in on it" or were they unwitting dupes?

Why has virtually no one outside of Slavic countries picked up on this?

To be honest many of the sources are questionable, Eastern European and Balkan intelligence services, the official Serbian news service, a Serbian police detective accused of torture, milosovic.org, various organs of the Yugoslavian/Sebian governments etc

Do you have evidence of similar chicanery in Bosnia? Were all the reported cases of ethnic cleansing and other atrocities there faked also?

I don't think the (unconfirmed) charge that Bosnia gave OBL a passport in 1993 to be that damaging he probably did help them and I would expect an embattled country to be grateful for any help it received and back then he was only starting to create problems for the West It is possible the Bosnian ambassador was not aware of all of bin Laden's activities and he had been a CIA asset only a few years before.

Len

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that Owen feels deeply and strongly about this issue, but I think it might be worthwhile to take a slightly closer look at some of the sources used.

He relies heavily on www.srpska-mreza.com. The name itself ought to ring some alarm bells, but when one of the entries begins: "Dragan Ivetic, 3rd-year law student at University of Illinois College of Law, collected and contributed the majority of articles" they should be ringling even more strongly...

A lot of the sources cited come from www.tenc.com. The initials appear to refer to "the emperor's new clothes". There is little information on the website which would lead one to trust its objectivity. The leading light of the website seems to be a Jared Israel who, amongst other things, claims a direct link between the PLO and the Nazi Holocaust.

Another website used several times as a source is www.slobodan-milosevic.org. I don't know quite how much objectivity we can expect from Mr Milosevic's supporters...

Two other websites used are www.kosovoforum.net and www.balkan-archive.org.yu. A visit to the webpages gives no information about the origin or credentials of the material produced.

I don't know enough about this issue to be able to say whether what Owen says is true or not, but if the only sources he has consulted are the ones he cites, then I really don't think he does either.

Recent entries on this forum ridiculed anyone who suggested that the historian should try to be as objective as possible in his approach to the past as being either hopelessly conservative or stupid. I would suggest that using only sources which back your own views, and failing to mention that these sources might be considered a little self-serving is just the sort of subjectivity that those calling for a modicum of objectivity might be criticizing, "stupid" though such criticism may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that using only sources which back your own views, and failing to mention that these sources might be considered a little self-serving is just the sort of subjectivity that those calling for a modicum of objectivity might be criticizing...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

This is not addressed to Andy Walker (what would be the point?) but to other members of the forum reading this. Have you ever known, or do you know, an habitual xxxx? He or she may be telling you the truth, but there is no way to know, absent independent corroboration, because you know that he or she is a xxxx.

It's the same with the government, or at least with the U.S. government since at least 1963. If you can't believe anything the government says, how do you know, absent independent corroboration, that's it's telling the truth? It's not a question of accepting anything that contradicts the government, it's having no way of knowing when the government is lying and when it's telling the truth.

A good example on 9/11 is the government's claim that no black boxes were found at Ground Zero. A couple of workers have described helping find the black boxes in a book about Ground Zero. So who are you going to believe? If it's a choice between the government with its track record for truth and two workers helping out at Ground Zero, I'll believe the workers. I'll soon be citing examples of blatant 9/11 government lies in the thread of Flight 93.

This is why the government (or hand-picked Washington insiders) should not be conducting the only investigation into something like the JFK assassination or 9/11. It is why truly independent investigations of both are still needed.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good example on 9/11 is the government's claim that no black boxes were found at Ground Zero. A couple of workers have described helping find the black boxes in a book about Ground Zero. So who are you going to believe? If it's a choice between the government with its track record for truth and two workers helping out at Ground Zero, I'll believe the workers. I'll soon be citing examples of blatant 9/11 government lies in the thread of Flight 93.

Two men made that claim one of whom is a Ground Zero volunteer named Michael Bellone. He was recently arrested by NYFD fire marshals for possession of stolen NYFD property, a "charity" he runs owes money to several creditors, including the company that printed the book. He is also in the habit of posing as a NYC fireman and calling himself the "safety director" at Ground Zero. He sounds like a habitual xxxx / con man to me.

The other was a veteran fireman and friend of Bellone whose name escapes me but has made no public comments about this. He is quoted in a single sentence of a book published and co-authored by Bellone. My theory is that Bellone made it up and his friend not wanting to embarrass him doesn't say anything.

The story seems odd to me. The FBI had over 1000 agents in NYC after 9-11 trained in evidence recovery who frequently investigate plane crashes. If they wanted to secretly find the black boxes why would they involved a fireman and a volunteer?

Also 9-11 CTists believe the CVR tape from flight 93 and the FDR data from flight 77 were faked. If they have the technology to fake CVR tapes and FDR data why wouldn't they calim to have useable tapes from all 8 recorders with info that reinforced the "OCT"?

Ron (or anybody else) if you want to debate this case start a new thread

Len

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

This is not addressed to Andy Walker (what would be the point?)

For you of such a closed mind very little point indeed :ph34r: .

The point Mike Tribe was making, (rather more politely than I intend to), and one which you studiously ignore, is the complete lack of basic historical skills you guys tend to bring to historical issues.

In this case the author of the initial post in the thread had no comprehension of the significance of the provenance of his sources.

I imagine this is mainly why you tend to reach such exciting and genuinely "fantastic" conclusions - rather like an excited little teenager with his first copy of National Enquirer.

Research without academic discipline is not research at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine this is mainly why you tend to reach such exciting and genuinely "fantastic" conclusions - rather like an excited little teenager with his first copy of National Enquirer.

Research without academic discipline is not research at all.

You have me wondering what fantastic conclusions I've reached. I believe, based on the evidence, that the government was complicit in 9/11, and I've posed a lot of questions about that, but I don't recall offhand reaching any fantastic conclusions. That we in America are governed by criminals is a conclusion that is neither fantastic nor new.

You can believe what you want to about my lack of academic discipline. I think I have a pretty good record in academic research, though I admit it hasn't made me much money nor brought worldly fame. For example, I researched and wrote a book that the influential review journal Choice selected as one of the "Top Academic Books of 1990." I'm proud of that accomplishment among others, and point it out not to brag but to defend myself. When you compare me to a teenager doing his research from the National Enquirer, I can tell you plainly that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have me wondering what fantastic conclusions I've reached. I believe, based on the evidence, that the government was complicit in 9/11, and I've posed a lot of questions about that, but I don't recall offhand reaching any fantastic conclusions. That we in America are governed by criminals is a conclusion that is neither fantastic nor new.

It appears that our American cousins still have problems with pronouns and their political elite. I wonder which is the graver?

Ron Ecker has chosen to hijack this thread without addressing a single issue raised within it. I suspect he is upset that I have chosen again to highlight the academic and psychological flaws endemic to conspiracy theorists.

Ron incidentally freely identifies his own paranoia elsewhere on this forum.

Perhaps however he is part of a conspiracy to undermine the educational credibility of the Education Forum.

If he is then he is doing a damned fine job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Bellone did not claim to help find the black boxes at Ground Zero. He said he observed their recovery. The worker who helped federal agents find the black boxes was fireman Nicholas DeMasi, who describes the recovery (three boxes out of a total of four) in one paragraph of his article in the book about Ground Zero.

"If they wanted to secretly find the black boxes why would they involved a fireman and a volunteer?"

Is it possible that at the time they looked for and found the black boxes in September 2001, the federal agents knew nothing of any government intent to keep it a secret?

Things have changed, of course, since the 9/11 Commission has stated that no black boxes were found. (Would it lie?) When Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News tried to locate DeMasi for comment, he was unsuccessful. My hunch is, if DeMasi is still alive he ain't talkin'.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050205232325/...al/10033802.htm

Perhaps however he is part of a conspiracy to undermine the educational credibility of the Education Forum.

If he is then he is doing a damned fine job.

No problem, I'll leave it. I wish to do nothing to damage this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't take a college degree in thermodynamics to realize the frying pan is hot.

mike tribe's response to Owen Parson's original post was thoughtful and devoid of personal insults. His questioning of Mr. Parson's sources seemed to be legitimate, and designed to evoke further discussion on the topic.

Mr. Parson, fresh out of high school, has demonstrated a keen interest in a variety of historical topics and a fine grasp of the English language. Mr. Parson has shown restraint in not lowering himself to personal invectives, even though he has been the subject of same from those many years his senior. Young men and women like him, and their ideas should be welcomed into a Forum like this.

Instead Andy Walker makes the following statement:

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.

It doesn't take a historian to recognize a cheap shot. In one sentence, it seems he is accusing Owen Parson of not being very analytical or intelligent at all. Simply put, that is an absurd and unsubstantiated conclusion. And furthermore, Mr. Walker's propensity to paint all or most "conspiracists" (he does not bother defining the term) with such a broad brush is both disingenuous and just plain wrong to anyone with a modicum of common sense.

Later, having been exempted by Ron Ecker's response, Mr. Walker nevertheless apparently felt it necessary to respond by likening Mr. Ecker to "rather like an excited little teenager with his first copy of National Enquirer." The superfluous use of the word "little" was apparently included to make his charge as demeaning as possible.

Mr. Walker evidently regards himself as an historian. He should be aware that many historians employ selective sourcings which tend to support their views. Like it or not, that is the way things work. His statement that Owen Parson had "had no comprehension of the significance of the provenance of his sources" is again undocumented, unsubstantiated, and unprovable.

I do not know Mr. Walker, and have nothing personal against him. But he does strike me as a typical know-it-all, replete with a with a tendency to use personal insults in the place of the "basic historical skills" that he professes to hold in such high regard.

In the wilderness of mirrors that is conspiracy history, things are not always so cut and dried. There is a place for speculation and opinion. Even in the academic world of science, where hypotheses are eventually subjected to rigorous scrutiny, many important discoveries had their genesis in a yet unproven idea, borne of speculation and intuition.

In societies where much of what occurs is kept secret and hidden, the employment of "basic historical skills" (however Mr. Walker chooses to define that term) has its strengths....as well as its weaknesses.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In societies where much of what occurs is kept secret and hidden, the employment of "basic historical skills" (however Mr. Walker chooses to define that term) has its strengths....as well as its weaknesses.

Mr. Hogan (I am so glad we are maintaining the niceties of polite dialogue by the way :ph34r: )

I do not claim to "know it all" but you must brace yourself for the possibility that I might indeed know more than you.

I am surprised that in a section of this teacher's forum which prides itself on the quality of its research, (something I remain totally unconvinced of by the way), it should be necessary for a secondary school teacher such as I to explain what is meant by "basic historical skills".

However as a starting point you may find this guide to handling historical sources I wrote for my 14 year old historians helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...