I've seen it happen over and over again. For years, the self-styled "international community" delivered food to the Bosnian Muslims (and looked the other way as the food was redirected to the ruling elite, then the troops, with what was left being sold for cold hard cash to the civilians it was intended for in the first place), looked the other way as weapons and jihadists came in, and tried to broker a peace agreement that the Bosnian Muslim regime would accept. But instead of gratitude, they would be accused of "appeasing the aggressors" and "not doing enough."
Eventually, the UN openly sided with the Muslims. In August 1995, UN "peacekeepers" put on their NATO hats and turned their guns on the Bosnian Serbs. Yet even today, the Bosnian Muslim media stoke the fires of propaganda that the UN and the West "favored the Serb aggressors" and "failed" Bosnia. There are monuments mocking international aid. And even the most outspoken pro-Muslim officials, such as Daniel Serwer of the U.S. Institute of Peace, are denounced as "Karadzic's propagandists" if they so much as suggest that the Muslims may not have been absolutely right about everything, always.
One of the people high up on this hate-list is Lewis MacKenzie, Canadian general and veteran of many peacekeeping missions, who commanded the UN in Sarajevo during the first several months of the war in 1992. As such, he brokered a deal to turn over the Sarajevo airport to the UN, enabling the humanitarian aid to reach the beleaguered civilians. This saved quite a few lives, but wrecked the Izetbegovic government's plans to provoke a Western military intervention on their behalf - plans that Alija Izetbegovic openly admitted to MacKenzie at the time.
So the Muslims turned on MacKenzie with the full force of propaganda at their disposal, intent on making his name mud in Canada and beyond. He was accused of patronizing a (fictitious) "rape camp," of being a Serb, of being paid by the Serbs... Such accusations, though blatantly false, easy to debunk and clearly designed with defamation in mind, always got reported in Canada without qualifications, sometimes costing MacKenzie dearly. And all because he dared to speak about what he actually saw in Sarajevo, as opposed to what the official propaganda wanted the West to see.
His name is back in the news this week, as Radovan Karadzic's lawyer recently visited Canada and interviewed him - among others - as a potential defense witness. Sarajevo papers, whose hate-o-meter is stuck on 11 lately, immediately commenced a game of "Let's Hate Lew MacKenzie."
Thing is, MacKenzie is no Serb apologist, or even some sort of Serb sympathizer. I mean, he still blames Karadzic for the bombing of Sarajevo (and rightly so). He's simply a man of honor - you know, the kind soldiers actually ought to be - who tries to do what's right. And for that, he gets smeared by crooks and jihadists. Meanwhile, his own country stands idly by - or worse yet, joins in on the calumny.
No doubt, Gen. MacKenzie has no great desire to stay involved in Bosnia. But so long as he insists on telling the truth, rather than the officially preferred lies, the Muslims won't stop slandering him. They don't care much that he puts a lion's share of the blame for the Bosnian tragedy on the Serbs. Whether he or any other Western official thinks the Serbs were 50% or 75% or 99% to blame is entirely irrelevant. "100% of Bosnia" is not just a party slogan of the ruling Muslim nationalist these days; it's a political dogma. One must buy into Sarajevo's official "truth" 100%, or risk the wrath of the smear brigades. They will tolerate nothing less than full submission. And even if one offers it, they still reserve the right to viciously attack anyone, anytime, for any reason. Gratitude? Forget about it.
There ought to be a lesson in there somewhere. I'll let you figure it out for yourselves.
I wonder how long the Izetbegovic fanclub thinks it can realistically dine out on their special victimhood status? Can they survive on handouts from Saudi in return for mosques and their 'conservative' imams?
There's no money coming from the Serbs over the politcally correct 'genocide' resolution in the Serbian parliament and even less coming from the EU.
Even more interesting was the meeting of Srb&Cro presidents speaking of bosnia of "three equals"* and the (official) alignment of the main croat party and serb parties (HDZ BiH+SNSD)** in bosnia announced publically.
It looks like the croats in Bosnia are sick of being the ignored third party/junior party to the MC Federation and are tying themselves to the serbs, Grahovac having just resigned. Doesn't all this undermine the EU's policy of trying to force the RS to give away its Dayton protected rights voluntarily so that Bosnia can join the EU and Sarajevo can sponge off the serbs rather than Brussels? The numbers just don't add up which makes me wonder, are these people insane?
Brussels can't continue to say it is just the serbs fault in bosnia anymore now that the croats are aligned and their policy of trying to isolate the rs and undermine it via various means (corruption etc.) is at a dead end. And so we have Belgrade and Zagreb, captials of two candidate countries effectively telling Brussels to lay off trying to change Dayton*.
I wonder how long it will be before Brussels is forced to change its policy on Bosnia. Gregorian is gone, Inzko and a few fools remain, emasculated and bored.***
On a side note, I was digging around the report “Prosecutorial and judicial practice in Republic of Slovenia in regards to the violation of the international law during the 1991 armed conflict” by Marko Prešeren (his thesis) last may on how Slovenia started the war there, committed crimes for which serbs were only prosecuted and that the JNA behaved in an exemplary fashion:
I was amazed to discover that it doesn't seem to exist in english. How is it if the Serbs want to change the ongoing misperceptions about what went on, they don't seem to have even bothered to get it translated and used it, particularly as a counterpoint to highlight how Slovenia refused to prosecute its own for war crimes and Brussels continues to turn a blind eye. It could be a useful tool if the Slovenes try in future to blackmail Serbia over accession, or even just as an instrument of revenge.
Prešeren's thesis pdf is easily found (Univeristy of Ljubljana's Faculty of Social Sciences) via a simple web search:
"...stating that Bosnia-Herzegovina must be a country of three equal nations."
You should check out Matthew Parish' site: http://www.matthewparish.com
Considering your piece a long time ago on the real death toll figures for bosnia (2007 methinks), then you would also like to know about the real and official Sarajevo casualty figures (found via the slobo site):
Civilian death toll of 5,064 - half of the oft repeated figure.
So much for Sarajevo = Stalingrad.
Link to the relevant page on the Sarajevo Research & Documentation Center (sarajevo.zip):
Thanks - I saw that article just yesterday. Very curious to find out what territory the ICTY defined as Sarajevo (i.e. whether it was just the Muslim-controlled parts), for the purposes of their research. Thank you for the links!
Nebojsa, I know in the US the NYT handles the anti-Serb department but here in Britain the job is still being handled by The Guardian. I’ve decided that even the SDA and their press probably aren’t anywhere near as Serbaphobic as the self declared experts and their followers in the west. To prove my point, just look at how the lunatics in the CiF section in The Guardian have reacted to Slavenka Drakilic’s use of the word “redemption” in an article about Serbia. What’s that quote about opinions being like assholes…..?
Post a Comment