The hoaxing of the Racak "massacre"

[Ron Ecker]

Ron Ecker has chosen to hijack this thread

Owen,

I would be remiss for not apologizing to you for hijacking this thread if you believe that I did so. Andy Walker posted a message criticizing all conspiracists on this forum who will believe anything. I posted a reply in defense of conspiracists, and in doing so I hijacked the thread.

Len Colby then posted about the black boxes at Ground Zero, and I replied to that, and in doing so I further hijacked the thread.

So I apologize for hijacking the thread, and can only say, looking at the bright side, that at least I didn't crash it into a building.

Ron

Edited June 5, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Len Colby]

Len Colby then posted about the black boxes at Ground Zero, and I replied to that, and in doing so I further hijacked the thread.

So I apologize for hijacking the thread, and can only say, looking at the bright side, that at least I didn't crash it into a building.

Ron

Truth be told YOU brought up the black boxes on this thread. I replied and suggested if you wanted to furthur debate the issue that you start a new thread

Len

[Ron Ecker]

Len,

I apologize for bringing up the black boxes on this thread. It was just an example I mentioned in trying to make a point in my reply to Andy about conspiracies. And you are right that you certainly did respond to it. But I apologize for responding to your response. I apologize to everyone on this forum, and to everyone in America, Britain, and elsewhere. Did I leave someone out? I apologize.

Ron

[Owen Parsons]

I've been having forum problems recently and now I'm back... so...

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...

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Owen Parsons]

Owen,

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

Thank you.

What do you think motivated such a massive conspiracy?

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

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

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.

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

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.

a Serbian police detective accused of torture

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.

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

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 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.

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.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Owen Parsons]

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.

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.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Len Colby]

What do you think motivated such a massive conspiracy?

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

So let me get this straight as part of a nefarious plot with the aim of World domination the US and Germany carried out an elaborate hoax in order to install Muslim fundamentalist regime in Europe?

I skimmed your links (there are only so many hours in a day) and I didn't find them very convincing. Out of curiosity I copied the six articles into Word and they totaled about over 110 pages and 42,000 words. Perhaps you could help your case and those interested in seeing if it has any validity by quoting specific passages that support your thesis.

1st link – no sources – by "T.W. Carr, Associate Publisher Defense & Foreign Affairs Publications, London" I googled the name of the publisher, the London focus only on the Balkans and pushes the same point of view, the parent company in the US also focuses a lot of attention on that region and seems to push the perspective it's founder, an American, is part of the "Civil Defense faculty at the University of Belgrade

4th link - no sources - by Diana Johnstone we are not told what qualifications if any Ms. Johnstone has.

The other articles do offer some documentation but normally it doesn't support the authors' most controversial contentions i.e. that the West contrived the Balkans crises for various motives. Mr. Gervasi said it had to do with stabilizing the region which doesn't make sense, Ms. Johnstone said it was as a counterweight to the US's blanket support of Israel which contradicts your beliefs. Again I skimmed but I didn't find any convincing motive for such a strong interest in a seemingly unstrategic region or that the crises were contrived and manipulated.

2nd link by "Prof. Sean Gervasi" again we are not told what his qualifications are.

3rd and 5th link more from Ms. Johnstone

6th link by Dr. Ivan Angelov "Associate Professor, Social Aspects of International Relations Sofia, Bulgaria"

To make a long story short:

1) Quote specific passages of these and other articles that support your thesis. Just telling us to read a hundred plus pages is not enough few of us have the time or disposition.

2) Make sure the authors of the articles you quote/cite document their claims, preferably your sources' sources won't be suspect sources like Balkan intelligence agencies or people associated with Milosevic etc.

a Serbian police detective accused of torture

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.

The only possibly relevant point is that Jasovic was originally a prosecution witness for another trial, but without knowing the details it's hard to judge the significance of this. Saying that the allegations of torture have little merit because the victims didn't complain to his superiors is silly because the "official story" is that they to were part of the 'apparatus of oppression'. The point that no one knew about the declarations until Milosevic's defense team produced them at trial also proves little.

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.

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 don't think bin-Laden visiting Izetbegovic office indicates he had Bosnian passport since it's normal for political leaders from one country to receive people from other nations. In 1994 the Bosnian War had been on going for two years so this wouldn't serve as justification for Serbian resistance to Bosnian independence. If I were in Izetbegovic's shoes I would probably have sought and accepted help from where ever it came. I'm not sure in 1994 how widely known OBL's activities were.

Len

Edited June 7, 2006 by Len Colby

[Owen Parsons]

1st link – no sources – by "T.W. Carr, Associate Publisher Defense & Foreign Affairs Publications, London" I googled the name of the publisher, the London focus only on the Balkans and pushes the same point of view, the parent company in the US also focuses a lot of attention on that region and seems to push the perspective it's founder, an American, is part of the "Civil Defense faculty at the University of Belgrade

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.

4th link - no sources - by Diana Johnstone we are not told what qualifications if any Ms. Johnstone has.

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.

The other articles do offer some documentation but normally it doesn't support the authors' most controversial contentions i.e. that the West contrived the Balkans crises for various motives. Mr. Gervasi said it had to do with stabilizing the region which doesn't make sense

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.

Ms. Johnstone said it was as a counterweight to the US's blanket support of Israel which contradicts your beliefs.

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.

Again I skimmed but I didn't find any convincing motive for such a strong interest in a seemingly unstrategic region or that the crises were contrived and manipulated.

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.

2nd link by "Prof. Sean Gervasi" again we are not told what his qualifications are.

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)

To make a long story short:

1) Quote specific passages of these and other articles that support your thesis. Just telling us to read a hundred plus pages is not enough few of us have the time or disposition.

2) Make sure the authors of the articles you quote/cite document their claims, preferably your sources' sources won't be suspect sources like Balkan intelligence agencies or people associated with Milosevic etc.

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.

The only possibly relevant point is that Jasovic was originally a prosecution witness for another trial, but without knowing the details it's hard to judge the significance of this. Saying that the allegations of torture have little merit because the victims didn't complain to his superiors is silly because the "official story" is that they to were part of the 'apparatus of oppression'. The point that no one knew about the declarations until Milosevic's defense team produced them at trial also proves little.

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 don't think bin-Laden visiting Izetbegovic office indicates he had Bosnian passport since it's normal for political leaders from one country to receive people from other nations. In 1994 the Bosnian War had been on going for two years so this wouldn't serve as justification for Serbian resistance to Bosnian independence. If I were in Izetbegovic's shoes I would probably have sought and accepted help from where ever it came. I'm not sure in 1994 how widely known OBL's activities were.

Len

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.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Mike Tribe]

Owen the reason I chose to concentrate on the source of you material rather than its content is two-fold:

(1) I really don't have the time to read through such a huge amount of material on a subject which would be, at best, tangental to my teaching assignment. I teach a full schedule of 19th and 20th Century history. About half my teaching assignment relates to examination classes and I'm afraid Kosovo doesn't figure prominently in the exams... Pragmatic, I know, but...

(2) As a teacher, I do think it's important for you to look at the "origin and purpose" of the sources you choose to cite. I teach International Baccalaureate history classes and on Paper 1 of the examination, students are specifically required to assess the value and limitations of two sources on the basis of their origin and purpose. I think this is one of the "historical skills" to which Andy was referring.

I understand that you hold the views that you hold very passionately and that you have taken the trouble to research the issue in considerable depth, obviously devoting many hours to the endeavour. However, you must understand that to any reputable historian, the use of sources which clearly have "an axe to grind" in the matter you are investigating without making any reference to such possible bias would be considered most reprehensible.

I don't know whether or not the material you have amassed is "true" or not. That is not the point I was making. You are about to embark on an academic career. If you don't take more care over the way you use your sources, you will (or certainly ought to if you have competent professors) find yourself in all sorts of difficulties.

All you had to do was make reference to some "neutral" materials and make it clear in your text that you were aware of the inherent bias of almost every source you used but had decided it was valuable to cite it anyway because (insert relevant reason).

[Owen Parsons]

(1) I really don't have the time to read through such a huge amount of material on a subject which would be, at best, tangental to my teaching assignment. I teach a full schedule of 19th and 20th Century history. About half my teaching assignment relates to examination classes and I'm afraid Kosovo doesn't figure prominently in the exams... Pragmatic, I know, but...

That's perfectly understandable.

(2) As a teacher, I do think it's important for you to look at the "origin and purpose" of the sources you choose to cite. I teach International Baccalaureate history classes and on Paper 1 of the examination, students are specifically required to assess the value and limitations of two sources on the basis of their origin and purpose. I think this is one of the "historical skills" to which Andy was referring.

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.

I don't know whether or not the material you have amassed is "true" or not. That is not the point I was making. You are about to embark on an academic career. If you don't take more care over the way you use your sources, you will (or certainly ought to if you have competent professors) find yourself in all sorts of difficulties.

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.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Pat Speer]

Without studying the story to the extent necessary to come to any conclusions, I nevertheless find that this possible "conspiracy" does not pass my smell test. Having been a news hound back when these atrociites were taking place, I read many an article and watched many a news report on the Balkan problem. Are you aware that the right-wing in this country fought Clinton on this issue, and tried to keep the U.S. out of the Balkans, insisting that Europe's problems were the problems of the European union? Does it make sense for the NATO-loving backers of Bush I to challenge presidential authority on this issue, if it was part of the New World Order Plan of their beloved leader? Meanwhile, day after day, another atrocity was on the news. Half the country thought Clinton was an anti-Muslim coward for doing nothing and the other half thought a war-protester like Clinton had no business sending our boys into harm's way. If some of the atrocities were manufactured, it was done to either fool Clinton into commiting U.S. forces, or to give Clinton something he could show to the American people to justify our involvement. If this is true. however, the perpetrators of this fraud didn't exactly have a sure thing. The U.S. was more than happy to stand by and let countries like Rwanda and Cambodia collapse into murderous chaos. Why should the Balkans have been any different?

As with the German people after WWII, and the South after the Civil War, and too many Americans after Vietnam, it must be hard for the Serbs to accept that their cause was neither noble, or just, and that they deserved to LOSE. I suspect there are many Serbians going through this right now--looking for reasons for their loss--trying to figure out how they were CHEATED out of victory. Don't let yourself get taken in by them. I have a friend who lived in Israel for a few years; after 1 year she was shocked to find that so many Arabs believed that Jews were innately evil; after 2 years she was convinced that all Arabs hated Jews more than they valued their own lives; after 3 years she was calling for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran, as she was 100% convinced Iran would use nuclear weapons on Israel as soon as they were functional, even if it would guarantee their own destruction. Fear of one's neighbor has a strange effect on some people.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Owen Parsons]

Without studying the story to the extent necessary to come to any conclusions, I nevertheless find that this possible "conspiracy" does not pass my smell test. Having been a news hound back when these atrociites were taking place, I read many an article and watched many a news report on the Balkan problem. Are you aware that the right-wing in this country fought Clinton on this issue, and tried to keep the U.S. out of the Balkans, insisting that Europe's problems were the problems of the European union?

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).

Does it make sense for the NATO-loving backers of Bush I to challenge presidential authority on this issue, if it was part of the New World Order Plan of their beloved leader?

Did they?

Meanwhile, day after day, another atrocity was on the news. Half the country thought Clinton was an anti-Muslim coward for doing nothing and the other half thought a war-protester like Clinton had no business sending our boys into harm's way.

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.

If some of the atrocities were manufactured, it was done to either fool Clinton into commiting U.S. forces, or to give Clinton something he could show to the American people to justify our involvement. If this is true. however, the perpetrators of this fraud didn't exactly have a sure thing.

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.

The U.S. was more than happy to stand by and let countries like Rwanda and Cambodia collapse into murderous chaos. Why should the Balkans have been any different?

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.

Like the German people after WWII, and the South after the Civil War, and too many Americans after Vietnam, it must be hard for the Serbs to accept that their cause was neither noble, or just, and that they deserved to LOSE.

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.

I suspect there are many Serbians going through this right now--looking for reasons for their loss--trying to figure out how they were CHEATED out of victory. Don't let yourself get taken in by them.

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.

I have a friend who lived in Israel for a few years; after 1 year she was shocked to find that so many Arabs believed that Jews were innately evil; after 2 years she was convinced that all Arabs hated Jews more than they valued their own lives; after 3 years she was calling for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran, as she's 100% convinced Iran will use nuclear weapons on Israel as soon as they are functional, even if it will guarantee their own destruction. Fear of one's neighbor has a strange effect on some people.

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).

Edited June 10, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Owen Parsons]

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.

Edited July 10, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Michael Hogan]

I've been very impressed with the way Owen handles himself in these threads. His writing skills and research methodologies are very sound, in my opinion.

Owen shows maturity and a refreshing open-mindedness that makes references to his relative youth meaningless.

Keep up the good work, Owen.

Mike Hogan

[Owen Parsons]

A belated thanks to Mr. Hogan for his words.

With the current talks about Kosovo's status being held (and with indepence looking ever more inevitable), I've decided to update and edit my post. I've added new information and many more sources (including replacing some of my old references with better ones), such as articles from the Berliner Zeitung and Toronto Sun that, on the basis of the Finnish report, declare "no massacre" and "hoax." I've also added a link to the report itself, among much else.

Edited August 16, 2006 by Owen Parsons