Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Israel and Serbia – facts, fiction, and faction

It is occasionally interesting to observe the disparity between religio-political fact and politico-religious fiction. The MSM has a propensity for demonising certain ethno-religious groups, principally by propagating highly inaccurate information propaganda, and yet choosing frequently to ignore the results of careful research, or indeed any judgements or declarations which are deemed ‘inconsistent’ with its fore-ordained worldview.

For example, it appears that there are Arab and Muslim groups in Israel who are not merely content for Israel to exist, but for it to remain Jewish.

The chairman of the forum of the Druze and Circassian authority heads, Nabiah Nasser A-Din, has criticised the ‘multi-cultural’ Israeli constitution proposed by the Israeli Arab organization Adalah, saying that he finds it unacceptable: “The state of Israel is a Jewish state as well as a democratic state that espouses equality and elections. We invalidate and reject everything that the Adalah organization is requesting," he said.

And remember the widely reported accusations against Israel that depleted uranium was used in the summer 2006 ‘Middle East Crisis’ war with Lebanon? A panel of experts from the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other international agencies has announced: “To date, there is no evidence of depleted-uranium-ammunitions use during the 2006 conflict in Lebanon." Didier Louvat, IAEA head of radioactive waste issues, told a news conference hosted by the National Council for Scientific Research in Bir Hassan.

And the Serbs…The Ruling of the International Court of Justice - the World Court in The Hague, declared on Monday 26th February: “Serbia has not committed genocide, through its organs or persons whose acts engage its responsibility under customary international law. Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of genocide. Serbia has not been complicit in genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."

This judgement inclines Cranmer to believe that Mr Blair did not only lie about the Iraq conflict, but thousands died and millions were made homeless in the Balkans because of imperialism and vanity (and not only Mr Blair’s). He is dangerous and deluded; his ‘Messiah complex’ knows no bounds.

9 Comments:

Anonymous Voyager said...

Serbia is a murky area - NATO looking for a role; the Heslinki Final Act Treaty 1975 being cast aside and feeding Russian paranoia bout NATO.

Then the way the Bavarians sponsored Croatia to break up the Yugoslav Federation; how the incoming Schroeder SPD Government in Berlin hyped up the propaganda efforts and swung into 1941 mode of wanting to bomb Belgrade with Rudolf Scharping the histrionic Defence Minister; and Clare Short and assorted members of the BBC/Guardian "War Party" urging military action.

The bombing of civilian infrastructure like bridges, TV studios, power stations which so upset the BBC in Lebanon but not in Serbia.

The fact that Blair wanted to commit troops and the Rambouillet Conference was reminiscent of Austria's belated ultimatum to Serbia in 1914 coming 6 weeks after Franz Ferdinand's demise by Black Hand terrorists.

That it was Viktor Chernomyrdin who brought Milosevic to heel by demanding payment of arrears to Gazprom shows how far Blair-Clinton-Schroeder-Fischer-Halfbright were intent on flexing military muscle while Yeltsin was inebriated......and yet the Yugoslav forces extracted from Kosovo in the end showed how far NATO intelligence had been way off base and they had been left to destroy civilian buses and other vehicles in all sorts of Jamie Shea exculpations because the Yugoslav tanks were so well camouflaged.


With Clinton refusing to supply ground troops and Blair gung-ho to use 50.000 British soldiers, he would have had a rather bloodied British Army had they tangled with the Yugoslavs who would have been much more tenacious than a few Iraqis.

Kosovo/Serbia was the full dress-rehearsal for Iraq....but funnily enough those who were gung-ho for attacking Serbia were doves over Iraq....funny that....only France was consistent strangely

7 March 2007 at 08:18  
Anonymous oiznop said...

On Serbia, you cannot ignore the role of Germany. It was Germany's unilateral recognition of an independent Croatia that precipitated civil war. They are simply pursuing their traditional foreign policy.

7 March 2007 at 10:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember that during WW2 Croatia was set up as a Catholic state putting into practice ( as another has said) the high principals of the papacy. This was the popes state. Torture and forced conversions were the norm.
Serbia was always to get a hiding just as in Ulster the unionist people suffer at the hands of the popes other team of missonaries (IRA)

7 March 2007 at 14:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

USA picked on the wrong guys with Serbia. Serbia is a Christian nation (Orthodox), Bosnians are Muslims, so too are the Kosovos. It's about high time Europe defends other Christian nations from the onslaught of Islam. Serbia is one of those fault line countries, once they fall, Islam gets a little closer.

8 March 2007 at 08:41  
Anonymous VOyager said...

USA picked on the wrong guys with Serbia.

The US had a Secretary of State called Madeleine Halfbright of Czech background who loathed the Serbs....and a dimwit President

8 March 2007 at 12:34  
Anonymous Colin said...

Oiznop,

"On Serbia, you cannot ignore the role of Germany. It was Germany's unilateral recognition of an independent Croatia that precipitated civil war. They are simply pursuing their traditional foreign policy."

That's correct and probably one of the reasons why France opposed the war against Yugoslavia as it also opposed the German reunification. Why did the USA support the war promoted by Germany? Yugoslavia was a Russian dominion.


Voyager,

"Bavarians sponsored Croatia"

The most important factor were the German Foreign Ministers at that time, all members of the liberal party (FDP) which is strongly influenced by big business. What was the interest of German and probably American big business in Yugoslavia? As in China, foreign companies could only aquire 49% of the shares in Yugoslavian companies preventing their complete control by foreigners. Milosevic refused to change that and didn't have a powerful army as China has. After the NATO war against Yugoslavia, the law has been changed and many companies have been "bought" with freshly printed dollars, deutsche mark and euros. An "unintended" consequence of NATO's war for "human rights"?

A war against Yugoslavia to prevent genocide but many years of investigation did not discover a genocide. A war against Iraq because of an atomic bombe but no weapons of mass distruction were discovered despite extensive search. Result: Thousands of innocent people killed in the name of human rights and for democracy. Prediction: More human rights wars to come.

8 March 2007 at 23:27  
Anonymous Colin said...

His Grace wrote:

"The MSM has a propensity for demonising certain ethno-religious groups, principally by propagating highly inaccurate information propaganda, and yet choosing frequently to ignore the results of careful research, or indeed any judgements or declarations which are deemed ‘inconsistent’ with its fore-ordained worldview."

Among others, this is proven by the following facts: "At Rambouillet the US presented the Yugoslav delegation with a set of demands, intimating that if they did not sign, they would be bombed. When the Yugoslav parliament passed a resolution accepting autonomy for Kosovo and UN troops to enforce a cease-fire in the province, the US, without consulting or even advising its NATO allies, added an Appendix B to its list of demands, which specified that NATO troops were to have free rein everywhere in Yugoslavia, to be immune from prosecution for crimes, and to have control of Yugoslav broadcast facilities. No country in the world would allow its head of state to sign such a document.

Under the Vienna Convention on Treaties of 1963, agreements negotiated under threat of force are null and void. And of course, threatening to bomb a country which is not attacking its neighbors (or anyone else) is ipso facto an act of aggressive war under the UN Charter. The NATO treaty itself permits going to war only to defend a NATO member from attack. Thus the US officials at Rambouillet were already in violation of fundamental international laws even before "Operation Allied Force" actually began."


Lessons: "So these enlightened intellectuals, our Best and Brightest, continue to believe it is our obligation to teach the Serbs a lesson in humane tolerance, if necessary using cluster bombs."

9 March 2007 at 20:48  
Anonymous Voyager said...

After the NATO war against Yugoslavia, the law has been changed and many companies have been "bought" with freshly printed dollars

As Douglas Hurd and Pauline Neville-Jones formerly of the FCO discovered as they worked for NatWest privatising Yugoslav state assets in some very shady deals.......

10 March 2007 at 14:51  
Anonymous Jack said...

Quote "The bombing of civilian infrastructure like bridges, TV studios, power stations which so upset the BBC in Lebanon but not in Serbia."

Im really hoping you see whats wrong with the above statement. Surely,at the back of your mind you must agree that the disgusting atrocities commited by the Serbian para's by far outweigh anything that the Lebanese people ever did.



Does the word "context" not mean anything to you. Maybe you should give up the keyboard. Are you just stupid or do you have a very disturbing agenda?

22 July 2008 at 19:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older