P.S.
MILOSEVIC,
Nato has more and bigger guns.

This is so silly
Serbs can't fight armed forces
(they are used to fighting women and children).


And now that they are getting their butts beaten,
And now that the Russians have abandoned them,
they try to get the Chinese involved,
by planting bombs on the Chinese embassy.

What next?
Are you going to plant bombs on THE LAST FRIEND
you have left ... BAGDAD EMBASSY ?

You want to fight?
Stand up and fight like MEN !
Abusing the underdog..... you are not MEN!
Take it from a marine.
YOU ARE NO SOLDIERS.
Just down to earth ABUSERS - A.B.U.S.E.R.S.
BULLIES.
When you face an army you run like hell.


Next thing you know you'll try to get KOREANS to defend you.

This will go down in history.
Still proud to be Serbian?
SHAME SHAME SHAME

CHICKEN - good only at fighting women and children.

DISCUSTING !@#@!%^&*

Adriana,

this is between you and me.

Did you see that message from Igor?

He says we are the same person.

Igor is one of the Pro-Serbs on this board.

Now, Adriana, between you and me.

Are we the same person ?

This is what the Milosovic crew does on this board.

This is the way they their propaganda here.

I knew this already - now you know !

UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER !


U.N. ••••••• CONDITIONAL.

sugarbuzz, miss you. please get a hold of me. love you more! cootiebug

DdC

You must be smoking some good s.h.i.t.

It makes you write forever..... cool runnings man.

To all Serb-Lovers,

you will find "sympathy" (for your cause)

in the dictionary

somewhere between

"s.h.i.t." and "s.y.p.h.i.l.i.s"

Oooh Daniela,
So worried that we destroyed 16 civilian cars !

It is very likely that these cars previously belonged to Albanians.

Your friends stole them from the Albanians,

as they forced them to leave their homes and families.

You start wars, but can't take a beating!

Sympathy for you : find it between s.h.i.t. and syphilis.

Yugoslavia: How Deomonizing A Whole People Serves Western Interests

May 06, 1999
Recolonization of the Balkans is what this is all about
Source: The Coastal Post - April, 1999
By Marie-Pierre Lahaye
In order to convince world opinion that air strikes are a justifiable
threat against the recalcitrant Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic, the
international community is relying on two motives: the "brutality" of
the Serbs and the threat of "Greater Serbia" that could imperil the
stability of the region. These are two myths constructed by the West to
justify its intervention and prepare its domination of the Balkans.
Let's start by first exploring the validity of such an accusation that
was made and still remains against a whole people: the brutality of the
Serbs.


To begin, we need to go back to the Bosnian war, which was presented
erroneously by the dominant media as an aggression conducted by Serbs
coming from a neighboring country (Serbia). Bosnia was then a
multi-ethnic Republic (one of the six that then formed Yugoslavia)
populated mostly by Muslims(43%), Serbs(31%), and Croats(17%). While all
had lived there for centuries, the Western media reserved the term
"Bosniac" solely to the Muslims. On the other hand, Serbs of Bosnia were
never qualified as "Bosniac" but only as "Serbs." This is how the public
was mislead to believe that they were an exterior element, coming from
Serbia, and that it was legitimate to chase them out. (1,2) Once the
civil wars erupted, the Serbs of Belgrade naturally came to the support
of their ethnic brothers, but contrary to common belief , they never
took the initiative of any intervention. To misjudge this fact, namely
the difference between a local upheaval and an outside intervention is
to blame wrongly Milosevic as solely responsible for the hostilities.
(3)
The recent brutality of the Serbian Security Forces in defending Serbia
from the repeated attacks of the Kosovo Liberation Army has been
reactionary and possibly criminal, but to what extent can one say it has
been worse than the atrocities of the KLA themselves, or the brutality
shown by the Croats and the Muslims in the mid-nineties in Bosnia?
Violence and brutality are by no means exclusive to the Serbs in the
Balkans. The Western press, however, has certainly chosen its side. One
just needs to review the world media to be aware of how balanced
reporting -known to be not entertaining -remains a pious vow as far as
Serbs are involved. I will let David Binder of the New York Times speak
from his own experience :"In New York and Washington it is considered
politically correct to malign the Serbs on any and all occasions until
it has almost turned into racism. The Serbs are being demonized
practically to the point of excluding any reporting that brings about a
balance." (4)


The role of U.S. public relations firms should also be exposed.
According to a U.S. Department of Justice official document, the
Washington based public relations agency Ruder-Finn served as a media
counsel for the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina in order to "facilitate
a greater U.S. leadership role in the Balkans ...and to educate U.S.
government officials, including Clinton Transition Team members and news
media reporters, editors and producers to the continuing tragedy taking
place in Bosnia." The same document also acknowledges that Ruder-Finn
during the period from November 1992 to May 1993, rendered the same type
of service for the province of Kosovo for a fee of $230,000, consisting
of a "compilation of background materials and dissemination of
information regarding the brutal Serbian repression of minorities in
Kosovo." This provides clear evidence that a strategy of communications
has been carefully planned by the ethnic Albanians with the support of
the U.S. government at least five years before the violence erupted in
the province, specifically targeting opinion leaders in order to
manipulate the mass media against the Serbs.


It was not surprising, therefore, to see the U.S.-imposed head of the
OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) "verifiers"
mission to Kosovo, William Walker, declaring his indignation at the
atrocities committed by "the Serb police forces and the Yugoslav Army"
at the recent "massacre" of Racak before the facts became known. Racak
is particularly important because this occasion was used by Western
diplomacy to trigger off the so-called "peace process," Rambouillet,
followed by Paris, which ultimately revealed itself to be more of an
ultimatum: "sign and submit to an occupying army or be bombed." In fact,
there are a lot of contested truths about the "Racak massacre." "The
account of two journalists of Associated Press TV (AP TV) who filmed the
police operation contradicts this tale" reported French television and
newspapers a few days later. (5) Walker is not an independent and
neutral observer, but a U.S. State department veteran who directed the
dirty war against El Salvador and Nicaragua in the nineties. According
to charges filed in U.S. District Court by independent counsel Lawrence
Walsh, Walker was responsible for setting up a phony humanitarian
operation at an air base in Ilopango, El Salvador. It was secretly used
to run guns, ammunition and supplies to the Contra mercenaries attacking
Nicaragua. (6) Why Walker was chosen to head the OSCE verification
mission in Kosovo remains to be seen, but it is clear that by speaking
before the facts were known, he guaranteed that Washington's version of
what happened in Racak became the official version.

Now let's see if the threat of a "Greater Serbia" constitutes a better
justification for bombing a sovereign state and intervening in their
internal affairs, thus violating the U.N. charter, NATO's own charter,
and international law. Having personally been to Kosovo and Belgrade
twice over the past twelve months, I never once heard a Serb talking of
expanding their territory. On the contrary, most Albanians I met took
great efforts to explain to me why secession from Yugoslavia was the
only solution they could envision. My experience with local people thus
contradicting commonly held assumptions, I started researching where the
idea of "Greater Serbia" came from. Most Western observers usually go
back to the ceremonial speech delivered by Milosevic at Kosovo Polje on
the 600th anniversary of the famous battle fought there in 1389. It is
commonly accepted in the West that it is this speech that ignited Serb
extremism. Journalist and writer Diana Johnstone went back to the
original speech and was able to explain that this myth found its origin
in an erroneous translation of a Serbo-Croatian word : "Quoting various
sentences in which Milosevic celebrated the restoration of "unity" (the
Serbo-Croatian word Milosevic used was sloga meaning "harmony" or
"accord"), Robert Cohen (7) interprets this as the announcement of the
goal of a "Greater Serbia" that would "unify all the Serbs in one
state." The word for political unity, as in "national unity," is however
not sloga but jedinstvo. This farfetched interpretation is the only
proof such an able writer as Cohen (who apparently knows the language)
is able to produce of the alleged "Greater Serbia" project of
Milosevic." (8) Moreover, if the ethnic Albanians succeed at creating an
independent state of Kosovo, "Greater Albania" represents a much bigger
threat, as it could inflame the ethnic Albanians living in Macedonia (
23%), and reinforce the regional enmities between Greece and Turkey.

These two myths of the Yugoslav disaster-the brutality of the Serbs and
the threat of a "Greater Serbia"- have abundantly fed the demonization
process that the Serbian people have been subjected to over the past
decade. From a geo-political point of view one will observe that this
ongoing demonization campaign was needed to justify the foreign policies
of sanctions, ultimatum, and now of air strikes. But one question still
remains to be answered: what are the Western interests in Kosovo?
According to Michel Collon, a Belgian journalist and author who has
extensively researched the geo-politics of the Balkans, "four stakes
motivate the great powers:

1) Dominate the Balkans, a key region to control the roads of petroleum,
from the Middle East as well as from the former-USSR: Caucasus, Caspian
Sea, and Kazakhstan.

2) Dominate Eastern Europe, juicy reservoir of raw materials, skilled
labor, and of markets for exportation.

3) Prevent Russia from controlling the above resources and of becoming a
rival to the Western powers.

4) Secure military bases. With the recent installations of bases in
Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia the United States will have Southern Europe
and the former USSR under control." (9)

Recolonization of the Balkans is what this is all about. This is part of
a long-term plan, implemented soon after the disintegration of the
U.S.S.R., to dismember the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia into smaller
Republics, easier to dominate, in which to install and secure
governments docile to the doctrines of neo-liberalism. Willing to
internationalize the question of Kosovo, ethnic Albanians hoped to find
in the West a reliable partner to support their desires to secede.
Ironically, they were also giving the West a formidable opportunity to
expand its domination on a region on which they had been seeking to
install, by force or by guile, an international protectorate. "We have
completely taken over the control of the Balkans"-writes Lee Hamilton, a
former US Congressman- "U.S. officials exercise managing functions in
all states of the former Yugoslavia. We are virtually the proconsul."
(10)


For all these reasons, I find the present ideology of invoking "peace"
and of positioning NATO as the "savior" of the atavistic Balkan
conflicts to be as racist as the colonial wars have been. What is worse
is that it deceives world opinion twice: by invoking "peace" and
"humanitarian disaster prevention" while at the same time bombing a
sovereign country and threatening the lives of innocent civilians. It is
time that we wake up and that we no longer let ourselves be fooled by
Western propaganda and this imperialism in disguise. The monster is not
them but us who activates all these enmities by arming their
protagonists in order to justify our interventionism. NATO and the West
must get out of the Balkans before it leads us to World War III.

NOTES:
1. Collon Michel, The Big Powers, Yugoslavia and the Next Wars,
Brussels, 1998, p. 15.
2. For the same reason we should not refer to the ethnic Albanians of
Kosovo as "Kosovar" as most of the Western press and diplomacy have
-purposely or no- taken the habit because it lets erroneously imply that
the Serbs although (still) legally at home in Kosovo are not entitled to
receive this appellation.
3.Dalmas Louis, "Bosnie:Ce qu'on ne nous dit pas", Paris, Octobre 1994,
p.3.
4. Zivota Ivanovic, Media Warfare, The Serbs in Focus, Belgrade, 1995,
p.5.
5. Chatelot Christophe, Les Morts de Racak ont-ils vraiment ZtZ
massacrZs froidement? in Le
Monde, January 21, 1999. p.2.
6. Wilson Gary, Warhawk behind U.S. Kosovo Policy/Amb. Walker covered up
real massacres in El Salvador, in Worker's World, January 20, 1999.
7. Cohen Robert, Hearts Grown Brutal: Sagas of Sarajevo, New York, 1998,
pp272-73.
8. Johnstone Diana, To Use a War, in CovertAction, winter 1999, p57.
9. Collon Michel, Pourquoi le Kosovo s'embrase? in Solidaire, June 10,
1998, p.10.
10. New York Times, February 1st, 1999.

Jack London, a war monger, it was not 16 cars that were destroyed but lifes. Of people who most likely never even went to Kosovo and have nothing to do with what is going on down there. Everybody is guilty of something, except America and Britain are innocent. What were Chinese guilty of that you had to attact their teritory, the embassy? Did they participate in killing Albanians aswell? No mistakes were made, it was three deliberate hits.