Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Is Kosovo the Beginning of a New Domino Theory?

Map of the central Balkans -- thanks, LN
Reader DP111 left a link in our comments to one of my favorite analysts, David Warren, who has this to say about Kosovo:

…I was opposed not only to the wanton bombing of Serbia, but also to the whole “inevitable” project of carving a new European Muslim state out of the flesh of that Orthodox Christian country.

I was not without sympathy for the “plight of the Kosovars,” however. Like virtually all journalists at that time, not of Serbian ethnicity, I fell for a great deal of typically Balkan propagandist rubbish that has since been quietly withdrawn.

My rule of thumb, on wars, is to fight them with your enemies, when absolutely necessary; but never with your friends, and in particular, never in order to create new enemies…

[…]

The Serbians, under the late Slobodan Milosevic, seemed determined to inspire loathing and distrust, and suspicion that he was doing in Kosovo precisely what his nationalist allies had done in Bosnia: “ethnic cleansing,” also known as the massacre of innocents. Although not nearly as monstrous as, say, Saddam Hussein, nor anything like Saddam’s threat to the West, Milosevic missed as many opportunities to come clean with his diplomatic interrogators. The Serbs, who allowed this vicious old Communist, turned nationalist demagogue, to remain in power, showed very poor judgment.

But the fact that Kosovo had a significant ethnic majority of Albanian Muslims over Serbian Christians was not, in itself, sufficient argument to detach it from Serbia by main force. For if that is the argument, the state system which provides the only order the planet currently enjoys will tend to disintegrate. [my emphasis - D]

Strange to say, I am with Vladimir Putin on this one, and against George W. Bush. Mr. Putin’s remarks on the inspiration that Kosovo’s independence has given to violent separatists in Chechnya, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and elsewhere, are entirely to the point.

Indeed, driving the Serbian government and Serbian people into the protective embrace of ex-Soviet Russia, and ultimately her ex-KGB strongman, was among several counter-productive dimensions in the war that Madeleine Albright organized, along with other ruinous Clinton interventions in areas of peripheral interest to the U.S. (Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia).

The NATO action in Kosovo brought Mr. Putin - the hammer of the Chechens - to power, by demonstrating that force and force alone will decide secession struggles, East or West. It restored anti-Americanism to its place in the Russian national security consensus, indirectly bringing an end to the Yeltsin reform era.

It was an incredibly stupid war to wage, and the product was on display in Brussels yesterday where the Russian ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogovin, actually threatened the use of force to prevent Kosovo’s declaration of independence from going any farther.

President Bush, who was prompted to recognize the self-declared Kosovar state (together with most European powers), feels obliged to accept the fait accompli he inherited from the preceding administration.

He, or his successor, will then try to resist the next stage of demands, for a Greater Albania in which Kosovo attempts to merge with Albania, and the Muslim majorities in adjoining districts of Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Greece begin insurrections to join them. By recognizing Kosovo, Bush et al. have validated exactly that: a deadly new round of Balkan troubles, ripe for Islamicization.

We cannot afford to validate the principle of armed insurrection, whether in Kosovo or Chechnya or Palestine or Kashmir or northern Sri Lanka or southern Thailand or the southern Philippines or in any of the many other places where terrorism demands to be rewarded with an independent state. And, within Europe, a couple of thousand EU policemen (about to be installed without United Nations cover, and in defiance of agreements with Serbia) cannot guarantee order in a territory that is already a European refuge for radical Islamist cells, and threatens to become Europe’s terrorist safe house.

There is a deeper history here, for the understanding of which we would have to review the rest of the legacy of Ottoman imperialism in the Balkans. But that is, alas, something the Serbs understand a lot better than we do

Well, that’s pretty clear, isn’t it? I felt I knew a bit more about the morass after reading Mr. Warren’s take on the situation.

Then, in the comments, I found two coherent arguments - one from a Mr. Thomas Anderson, reflecting his agreement with Mr. Warren, and another by someone who calls himself “Witness to History,” and who stands opposed to both, presenting his reasoned disagreement quite well. I will present their opposing points of view below.
- - - - - - - - -
Having read both points of view, I was as lost as ever. Knowing that “Google is your friend” and that my geographical knowledge about this area is hazy at best, I tried to find out exactly what the regional parameters are. Perhaps a geopolitcal map will provide some clues?

Forget it. Wikipedia left me more confused than before. It seems that no one quite agrees on what is central Europe versus eastern Europe. You open the page and it’s more bristly with disclaimers than a porcupine. Even here, there are arguments:

Eastern Europe is a concept of a geopolitical region recently influenced by the Cold War. Its borders are defined more by culture than by clear and precise geography. Throughout history and to a lesser extent today Eastern Europe has been distinguishable from Western Europe and other regions due to cultural, religious, economic, and historical reasons. Although the term Eastern Europe was largely defined of the Cold War, it still remains much in use.[1] The term is commonly used in the media and in everyday use both in “eastern” and other regions of Europe.

The wiki goes on to explore the various definitions given by various interested parties:

1 Definitions [of eastern Europe]

1.1 UN
1.2 CIA
1.3 Time Almanac
1.4 Academic
1.5 Geographical
1.6 Soviet era
1.7 Post-Soviet

And the maps on that page aren’t much help, either. The parameters of the map(s) you choose seem to depend on your political and historical leanings. If you go to the page you’ll find a UN map, one from the CIA, another from Time, and a last one showing the divisions post-WWII until the break-up of the Soviet Union.

My conclusion: this place is so mined with both ancient feuds and recent political/historical conflict that there is no “real” truth to be had. Your truth seems to be what you want to see accomplished. Or perhaps, your truth proceeds from your own family’s past.

Here are the two commenters to Mr. Warren’s essay. As you see, they have diametrically opposed points of view. The first debater, Mr. Thomas Anderson, left his email address so I was able to get his permission to put up his ideas here. The other is anonymous with no contact. He calls himself “Witness to History”. Mr. Anderson agrees with Mr. Warren; “Witness to History” does not. They are both worth reading.

First, Mr. Anderson:

…Stupidity, including political stupidity, like the poor, has been with us and will be with us always. What I cannot understand is why, in the last half-century, it has become fashionable to be so politically stupid that we embrace personal, national and indeed cultural suicide with closed eyes and open arms.

I do understand such things as the life cycle of nations and the desire of leaders for a “good” war to enhance their reputations and prop up their support. What puzzles me is the seemingly recent unseemly rush to sell out Western Civilization lock, stock and barrel.

Concerning the situation in the Balkans, for instance, which you describe so well, one has only to look at a map to see that the 1500-year Moslem encroachment on Europe, indeed the rest of the world, is proceeding apace. The Serbs, being on the front line of this struggle between civilizations, understand the situation very well. Never mind this firefight here and that little car-bombing over there. And do not even look at their attempts to preserve a national identity. In the larger view, as you say, they see that we are piece-by-piece giving up land and everything our culture stands for to what I see as a backwards and even evil belief system.

I am puzzled. Why do we not stand up to this monstrosity? Why are we so eager to bend over and give in to these savages? And I say savage by intent. Have we become so short-sighted that we will sell our very souls for gratification in the instant? Is it necessary for us to prove we are so sensitive to our beliefs that we must carry them to sophomoric extremes? Are we now so weak that we will just give them whatever they ask for? Are we just stupid? As little as one hundred years ago, well within my grandfathers’ lifetimes, we as a civilization would have understood the Serb’s attempt to stem this dark tide. We as a civilization would have rushed to their aid. Instead, we tried to bomb THEM back to the stone age. And now we want them to give more land to millions of people who profess a belief in the Koran and the Moslem philosophy of life.

That philosophy, of course, is another sticking point. Except in very rare cases, there can be no such thing as a “moderate” Moslem. Anyone who embraces the Moslem path has already chosen to believe that by teaching and by definition, theirs is the superior way of life and must prevail at all costs. There is no room for any other thought. Even a cursory reading of the Koran will illustrate this. In the end, if someone defines himself as a Moslem, he or she must of necessity side with those who would destroy us.

…As trite as it may be, it does seem that in a most simple-minded way we are repeating the mistakes of history. Again, I am puzzled. Is this inevitable? …

After I read Mr. Anderson’s comment and amplification, I felt as though I understood the situation somewhat. But then, two comments below, I come to “Witness to History’s” strong disagreement with Mr. Warren’s analysis:

Mr. Warren is mostly mistaken in the conclusions he has drawn. He paints the Kosovar Albanians as the demons and then ties them to extremist Islam. Nothing is further from the truth. The ancestors of modern Albanians were in the area now known as Kosova for hundreds of years before the Slavic invasions. They were there during the reign of the Ottomans and actually fought on the same side as the Serbs during the famous battle of Kosovo Polje. Only after the fall of the Ottomans was the Serbian empire able to attempt to re-occuppy Albanian lands.

However, that’s all ancient history. Modern history provides plenty of justification for the independence of Kosova from Serbia. Milosevic’s attempts to disenfranchise completely Albanians in the largely autonomous province of Kosovo were the spark that lit the inferno of Yugoslavia’s dismemberment. Serbs started the bloodbath in Kosova, continued to attempt the same in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, and then, unsuccessful in all their previous campaigns of ethnic dominance, returned to Kosova. They attempted to cleanse the province and got their heads handed to them on a plate by a rag-tag army backed by NATO. Throughout this time, the Serbian people supported and defended Milosevic. Now is time to pay the piper. They backed the wrong horse and lost.

Much has been made of the “precedent” of Kosova starting problems in the areas of “frozen conflict”. Why is this bad? Why should the Kurds have to live under Arab Iraqi domination because some British prig drew the lines on a map as the Ottomans collapsed? Why should Chechens have to remain part of Russia in light of their miserable treatment for hundreds of year by the Russians. Because the conflict was “frozen” in 1945 at Yalta? If we really believe it’s better to let sleeping dogs lie than to allow people to determine their own futures, we better give everything east of Berlin back to the Communists and allow that conflict to remain “frozen”.

Let people decide if they want to continue where they are or go their separate ways. It worked fantastically for the former British colonies now known as the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Serbs, follow the example of the Germans after WWII. Apologize for the racist, nationalist crimes of your former leaders, pay reparations to all those you tried to liquidate, and concentrate on rebuilding your economy and earning some measure of respect in the civilized world. You have a lot of work ahead of you. Stick with Putin and his crowd and you will learn the true meaning of the old African saying: “When elephants fight, the grass suffers.”

And for a further complication, a third commenter notes this bit of information:

Ms. Albright is ethnically Albanian BTW. She had a blood feud with the Serbs who killed her Grandfather and Uncle in the 30’s. It was damnably foolish to allow this woman to pursue her blood feuds/psychotherapy with the USAF. It is unforgiveable that we made Russia an enemy over it.

Arrgh! How is anyone who is not already familiar with the millennia of history in this region - a knowledge that seemingly would have to cover not only the present, but go back to the period before the invasions by the Imperial Muslims - how could this fictional “anyone” begin to sort out a consensual meaning that would serve the truth?

Now I know why we Americans seem so simple-minded. Given the brief span of our time on the North American continent, our history is relatively transparent. It’s easy to watch it unfold for we are not that many generations from its very beginnings or its eventual foundation as a nation. We can disagree about what our various historical points mean but nothing is lost in the mists of time.

By comparison, European history is almost as unfathomable as China’s past. More scrutable perhaps, but nonetheless confusing. (I said “almost.”)

The difference between the Americas and other places is that we all have precise demarcations in our histories: for us, who relatively quickly came to dominate, “history” begins with the arrival of Europeans. Since winners write history, we gloss over the sagas of the indigenous tribes already resident when we came. Tribal history simply hasn’t much appeal for the Western mind, since we have long left tribal arrangements, preferring to center on the liberty of the individual.

Meanwhile in central Europe, or eastern Europe, or the Balkans, the tale called “history” changes depending on which small region is telling the story. This is true even in my ancestral homeland, where the argumentative Gaelic Irish were invaded, defeated, and dominated by the more united Sasanach - i.e., Anglo Saxons. That story is still in dispute and will be for as long as there are those who tell the tales to the next generation.

33 comments:

Homophobic Horse said...

Which is why Douglas Hurd urged not intervening in Kosovo.

VinceP1974 said...

Great article Dymphna, thanks for it.

To me , this issue is not so complex.

The islamic caliphate , led by the turks, engaged in a inhumane, brutal conquest of the Balkans on thier way to the rest of the Europe.

The Balkans were subjected to the horrors of dhimmitude and more.

Finally in the 1800s , after hundreds of years of being terrorized under Muslim rule, they people of the Balkins were finally able to become free, but not before long WW-II comes and along with it, the evil Mufti of Jerusalem in alliance with the NAZIs.

Then to be followed by decades of tryranny under Communist rule in a phoney super-state called Yugoslavia.

As the State begins to fail in the 1980s, the Muslims start to cause problems in Kosovo.

In the 90s when the State collapses, the Serbs begin their counter-action which had been effectively put on hold since WW-II.

Because of Christianne Imawhore and manipulation by Saudi Arabia, and Iran.. Serbia is made out to be the next NAZI Germany.

Meanwhile the Jihadists are hard at work to ensure success... The Balkans serve as one of the prime world stages for Muslims wanting to engage in Jihad (along with Chechnya, Kashmere, Algeria and Afghanistan)

Pressure from Co-conspirator News Network and NGOs, as well as the oppurtunity for the Leftist in the US Govt to engage in war that does not serve the national interest of the US (the only legitimate kind of war to those folks) becomes to great and Clinton goes to war against Serbia with no UN justification nor even a Congressional Authorization.

This was during our 2nd era of ignorance of jihad.

Now we're in our 3rd era of ignorance of jihad and doing the same stupid stuff.

bryan said...

EU Referendum has a great rundown of the Kosovo issue.....

The Serbs lost Kosovo in 1398. That they have some claim over territory lost 600 years ago is tenuous, plus, Serbia has been a subjugated to various empires much longer than it was independent. So its claim to the area is a good PR effort, not backed by history.

The Serbs are not the sympathetic people much of the right blogosphere makes them out to be. They attack Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, then Kosovo. Authoritarian/imperialist is the most charitable description that one can give their political tendencies.

The idea that the Kosovars have recently encroached upon Serbian territory is another Serbian fabrication. Kosovo has been predominantly Muslim since the turn of the 20th century.

The idea that Kosovo independence is creating a Muslim foothold in Europe is ridiculous. There already is foothold, it is called France, whose population is 10% Muslim.

Finally, Serbia, is better off without having 2 million Muslims in their midst. They have no need to compromise their culture in the future.

Anonymousterry said...

Good post Dymphna...I'm with Vincep 1974.Terry

gun-totin-wacko said...

For the sake of simplicity, why don't we skip the part where we argue over which ethnic group was in the majority 600 years ago. Let's also gloss over the crimes of the Serbs, simply because their neighbors also have blood on their hands.

Perhaps we should focus on a couple points: First off, the US went to war there on behalf of a known terrorist group, the KLA. At least they were terrorist until Clinton decided to "wag the dog", at which point they disappeared from the State Department's list of terrorist groups. Secondly, recall that the Kosovars are Albanian. And there has been a LOT of talk among the locals about "greater Albania" which, as some have pointed out, would require taking land from other neighbors. Would those moves be peaceful? At what point does the line get drawn? By this same logic, if the American Southwest becomes (rather, when it becomes) Mexican majority, do they have the right to "self-determine" that it should be a new country called Aztlan? And then unite with Mexico?

It's all a complex issue. In the end, I think the only law we'll note here is The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Laine said...

So the Balkans are again a powder keg. Our poor aching heads. With Palestine it's the "twice promised land". With the Balkans it's the quadruple or more claimed land with no sensible claimant to restore order as the Jews did in Israel, just cultures that prefer to war themselves into the ground.

One can only mourn the developments that injected money into Muslim countries, mainly Saudi Arabia and allowed the sleeping giant of Islamic jihad to break free from the chains of its self-imposed poverty and impotence.

As Samuel Huntington pointed out, every border in the world shared with Muslims is now volatile (including the no-go area demarcations in Britain and France).

How to put out this oil fire after igniting it with Western funds is the Gordian knot of the new century.

Paardestaart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paardestaart said...

"Serbia has been subjugated to various empires much longer than it was independent"

But it has always been home to a serbian people, with a strong sense of identity. That some Serbs chose to become muslem after Kosovo Polje, instead of having to live as dhimmi's does not mean that they deserve a country of their own now, does it?
For aren't people aligning themselves with an invader not often called traitors?
And does the fact that 'people have lived together peacefully all these years' rule out the possibility that there always has been a very clear distinction between them?
Have they always been considered loyal by the christian serbs?
Then why is it that serbs left the area when 'Kosovo' was pronounced muslem?
Are the muslems in this area immune against jihadist sentiments and interference from abroad?
Then why do these 'serbian' Kosovo-muslems burn down the churches of their own compatriots?
Don't they remember that they too are originally Slavs, like their christian counterparts? Where lies their loyalty?
In Arabia?

2/26/2008 10:18 PM

artsontime said...

tell me if I'm wrong: Supporters of Kosovo claim that as victims of "genocide," Kosovar Muslims deserve independence. But if the Muslims in Kosovo have been targeted for annihilation by the Serbs, then how is it that they have increased from 48% of the population in 1948 to 92% today? Indeed, Muslims comprised only 78% of the population in 1991, the year before Yugoslavia broke apart.

further: who is Barack Hussein Obama?
He is the Vladimir Putin without the clarity of purpose and the strength of character
and that's not saying Putin is all that"good"

Paardestaart said...

For everybody who thinks that Kosovo is not about islamization, consider this..
Sir Alfred Sherman,national security adviser and co-founder of the Centre for Policy Studies under Margaret Thatcher did not suffer the West's illusions about the region, and for this reason he signed on to the advisory board of the American Council for Kosovo, where his name still stands in memorium. From his September 30, 1994 article in London Jewish Chronicle (titled “Let’s remove the blinkers”)
Shortly before his trip to Washington in a bid to work out common policy with the US Administration, President Alija Izetbegovic of Bosnia visited Zenica, de facto capital of Bosnia’s Muslim heartland.

His purpose was to carry forward arrangements for the re-imposition of sharia-law in Bosnia; this would restore unified religious authority such as existed in Ottoman days.

Among measures proposed are the restoration of polygamy, which existed before Bosnia’s incorporation into the Yugoslav monarchy in 1918 (to be limited to a maximum of three wives per man); the criminialisation of marriage of Muslim women to non-Muslim men (the reverse is permitted); and the prohibition of alcohol.

Western media reports of the war in the former Yugoslavia have led us to believe that a majority of Bosnian Muslims were always enlightened and Westernised. Journalistic gullibility apart, this was a half-truth at best.

True, some middle-class Muslims wanted to fit into the secular-cum-Christian world of Yugoslavia. But Mr Izetbegovic’s minority government was backed by a fanatical and brutal militia, and thousands of militants from abroad, in alliance with that section of the old Communist Party which chose to stay put. Heterodox Muslims — or Yugoslavs of Muslim descent, as some put it — had the choice of joining the bandwagon, keeping their own counsel, or leaving, whether for Serbia, as thousands have done, or abroad. The changed world balance-of-power has meanwhile encouraged the Muslim leadership in Bosnia to press for a fully Muslim polity, and for maximalist territorial ambitions, now evidently supported in Washington and Bonn.

Discerning support in Washington for Muslim claims on the former Sanjak of Novi Pazar…Mr Izetbegovic is working actively to create a “Green Corridor” from Bosnia through the Sanjak to Kosovo. [”Green” refers to the Islamic green.]

This would separate Serbia from Montenegro and Greece and facilitate Albanian pressures on Montenegro and Macedonia, with their Albanian minorities, many of them illegally resident there.

With US support, Germany is in effect fostering this Islamistan, and developing increasingly close working relations with Iran, whose rulers are keen to establish a European base for their politico-religious activities.

By contrast, Washington is keen on involving its NATO ally Turkey, which has been moving away from Ataturk’s secularist and Western stance back to a more Ottomanist, pan-Muslim orientation, and is actively helping the Muslim forces.

Mr. Izetbegovic is mooting mass immigration of Turks into Bosnia from Anatolia. This would strengthen the new Muslim state’s demographic and military base for further rounds against the Serbs, and also against the Bosnian-Hercegovinan Croats.

Muslim-Croat collaboration suits Croatian President Tudjman, whose hatred of the Serbs virtually excludes other considerations. He and his circle are not only extreme nationalists, but have been actively discriminating against Croats whose Serb forebears converted to Catholicism less than four generations ago.

In the opinion of Croats, and many Serbs, the root of the present conflict lies in the creation by the late Yugoslav leader, Tito, of a separate Muslim nationality, a regression to the system which had operated under Turkish rule.

So long as Islam is treated as a nationality in the former Yugoslavia, multi-faith, polyethnic entities are ruled out by the Muslim leadership’s drive to restore the sharia.

The Serbs and Croats, whether beleivers or not, wish for a more or less secular state in which religion is depoliticised and seen mainly as a private matter, permitting religious pluralism in areas where various religious groups cohabit.

In the Bosnians’ and world Muslim view, however, God’s hand is working on their behalf. Their diplomatic backing and their multi-million-dollar public relations campaign in America and Europe have left the Serbs as isolated as the Czechs at the time of Munich.


Unfortunately it is not only in Kosovo that the jihad is being fought out..

Dan said...

So the Serbs have a claim to Kosovo 600 years old, the Ummah has a 500 year old claim on Andalusia at what point should we ignore stale claims to stolen land? Do we all not live on land that was forcibly taken from someone else in the past?

On the other hand the Albanians are Moslems while the Serbs are Coptics and that’s all I need to know.

Andrew C said...

Thanks for the excellent article by Mr. Warren, Dymphna. I was against U.S. intervention in the former Yugoslavia during both Democratic and Republican administrations. As Warren says, we are needlessly creating enemies, without any rational strategic objective in mind. Kosovo is the perfect illustration of basing foreign policy on "feelings," and Pres. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" has contributed to that pernicious trend. And speaking of feel-good policy-making, God help us if Barack Obama becomes president.

nikolai said...

I'm on the side of Serbs (and the Croats :) ) against Islam.

If they want to fight about other stuff afterwards that's their business.

Paardestaart said...

So the Serbs have a claim to Kosovo 600 years old, the Ummah has a 500 year old claim on Andalusia at what point should we ignore stale claims to stolen land? Do we all not live on land that was forcibly taken from someone else in the past?

You seem to forget that the Serbs have never left Kosovo; they have lived as a christian people under strange occupation - dhimmi's in their own land.

The umma of course have no claim on al Andaluz, because it was n't their country, and there as well the original people remained, also dhimmi's in their own land

Same goes for Israel; people left, and went into exile, but a lot of them stayed on, and naturally, when the occupying power fell, they wanted their land back - especially because they have been persecuted outside it.
It is strange indeed, that in these matters time does not seem to bring oblivion of such facts, but that has probably to do with the treatment a vanquished people undergoes..When the occupying strangers insist on discriminating the original inhabitants, and persecute them in their own country, there is no forgetfulness, no assimilation and no mixing, and reparation is due

thll said...

Confusing, yes, But one can focus on the minutiae to such an extent that one loses sight of bigger picture. Simply, the time has come to decide whose side we are on - the West or the (middle) East. For all its faults, I'm with the West.

Defiant Lion said...

Artsontime:

Well said. Your point simply blows out of the water this claim that the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Albanians.

Witness To History's diatribe is wholly lacking in fact and understanding. What further undermines his points - especially about Milosevic - is that the ICTY failed to find any evidence against him at his trial.

Add to that the finding of the UN Spanish forensic scientists who found no mass graves and what graves they did find contained no evidence of ethnic cleansing, more that the remains were of combatants from both sides and you begin to see a prejudiced and flawed attack on Serbs lacking in any evidence to support it.

He also fails to mention the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in the Krajina - an atrocity committed by Croats but planned by "retired" US generals. Should Croatia now give territory back to the Serbs? What about the US - should they pay reparitions for this atrocity?

Witness To History also fails to appreciate the difference between secede and independence. The war in Yugoslavia was about seceding. Countries acted illegally in doing so by forcibly seizing borders instead of negotiating a peaceful break away. The first two countries to secede in this manner were Slovenia and Croatia - both of whose armies attacked the Yugoslav army troops,some of whom were unarmed.

It is not helpful to the debate to read such biased, nasty and vindictive falsities as spouted by Witness. No one side is whiter than white and no one side is wholly to blame. The situation is much more complex and is desrving of more insightful analysis than such a simple assessment.

And there is also the matter of interference from foreign forces working to further their own agendas. The US, Germany, Iran and Saudi Arabia played a huge - and largely criminal - part in this conflict.

The UN and NATO have acted in violation of international law. What the Serbs did or didn't do does not give any other nation the right to use military force against it. This bombing - from high altitude using cluster bombs - deliberately targeted civilians including a convoy of Albanian refugees. What does Witness think should be done about that I wonder?

Why the US and NATO and the UN are acting directly against international law and against the UN's own charter is however, a different matter entirely but should merit as much scrutiny as anything the Balkan states have done.

Diamed said...

It is hypocritical for the USA to fight a war for independence, as did practically every other nation on earth, but require that other people remain an oppressed minority in some Empire's choke-hold. Freedom is good for everyone, it's that simple. Where was the huge hue and cry over montenegro's indepedence? It's just as small and in the same region. Serbia did less to Montenegro than it did to Kosovo. No one here objected to Montenegro's indepedence, so you are not arguing that in principle, separatism is wrong. No, all you're arguing is that we must keep the whip hand over the muslims. Slavery and oppression is not the correct answer for muslims in our midst. The correct answer has already been mentioned:

quarantine or genocide, there is no other option.

Kosovo is in fact a quarantine and progress for the West. Keeping a muslim minority that steadily out-breeds you in your country is the WORST option. France, the UK, etc is under much worse assault than Serbia is. If you could trade all the hate speech laws and dhimmi-accommodation laws and internal crime/terrorism that nations with muslim minorities must make, for some small piece of land where you can stuff all the muslims and forget about forever--which would you do?

Defiant Lion said...

Diamed:

Please provide some evidence as to what the Serbs did to Kosovo. Because to anybody who understands Islam, this has been a victory for the jihadists using one of their most effective weapons: demographics.

Please explain how a muslim state that will increase drug-trafficking, sex-trafficking, organised crime and of course Islam throughout Europe is progress for the west.

Please explain how, if quarantine is a correct answer, we didn't ensure that the Kosovars remained quarantined in Albania?

Please explain how the Serbs who have lost territory and fought a war with muslims are under a lesser assault than the UK or France?

The issue here is one of secession by force and by the interference of foreign nations using military force, taking sides in what was a civil war.

I wonder how the US will react should Mexicans become the majority population and declare independence in Texas and California?

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

The question of Flanders will raise its head again now, you can be sure of it. What happens when the Flemish declare independence? Do the EU and US support it, and so possibly foment the collapse of the european union, or do they oppose it and reveal themselves as hypocrites? Unintended consequences indeed.

Bardhyl said...

There will be no domino theory. The double six was Kosova and that is stuck in Rusian hands. There will be no new game. We are really happy to be muslims. We have friends the strongest christian countries and muslim one too. Serbs do not belong not only in Kosova but in Serbia as well. They are invadors of Ballkan territories and the world knows that. They are blood and spiritual friends of Rusians, which the rest of christian world hates, so that is a good reason to support Kosova. Better a reasonable muslim state in Europa, than an agresive, violent christian country such as Serbia and Rusia. Do not worry about U.S. America has its strength not from bruttal force but from Knowledge, science. culture. Rusia is and will be 500 yrs behind of U.S.

VinceP1974 said...

Of course its' a valid domino theory. The Palestinians already said they're more entitled to a State than the Kosovos ever would be , so they will soon their Jihad State in the midst of hte State of Israel.

As far your nonsense about the origin of the Serbs... please.. get real.. join us in the 21st Century.

Kosovo is a Jihad State.. not a "reasonable muslim state"... Your wishful thinking does not conform with reality.

Afonso Henriques said...

"our history is relatively transparent."

No Dymphna, American Hitory is not as transparent as European History. European History is pretty transperent. The thing is, in Europe, History is a continum, is our father's life History, our grandfather's life History and so forth. It is like this as it goes (I guess in every Nation) well beyond the foundation of the Nation as a State. And here in Europe, that individual Histories are shared with all the Nationals. That's why it is a National History. It is felt as hard as the present.

The American History is not palpable, it is more an invention than pure reality or Personal histories. It is hiding in the shades whereas European History is encrusted in the peoples flesh.

American History is non existant. At most, we can talk about the History of America. The Americans have too few in common for their History to be considered as one.

You seem simple-minded because you people have no NATION, you do not chave a common ground, you are just concerned in creating a nice place for individuals to live, not a people. That is the life in the colonies.

Diamed said...

What the serbs did to the Kosovars:

Denied them their inherent right to secede. Unlike every other nation which was given the right to self-determination based on the consent of the governed, Kosovo was held by military force. This is a human rights violation anywhere it occurs in the world, including Kosovo. The declaration of independence clearly says people can form a new government and secede from an old one for any reason or no reason at all. If Kosovo can't be free, then neither can the USA or any other nation that ever seceded on earth.

How this is moral progress:

Whatever harm a free Kosovo does, is due to western wimpdom and has nothing to do with the inherent right to self-determination. So if Kosovo does a lot of drugs and crime, the answer would be to declare war on them and obliterate them. It would never be to unfairly rule them and keep them as unwilling citizens of your country.

Why Kosovars are there:

The Albanians have been there for hundreds of years and are hardly invaders from Albania. The rising proportions of Albanians in Kosovo is due to natural birth rate differences. The only way to have kept albanians out of kosovo wouldn't be a border fence, it would be ethnic cleansing/genocide.

Why Serbia is safer than UK or France:

The serbs are unlikely to allow muslims into their country, and now that Kosovo is no longer theirs, muslims can't move into serbia proper. So differential birth rates and immigration, which will definitely destroy the UK and France, will not destroy Serbia. Serbia should be celebrating their indepence from Kosovo, which would have dragged them down into extinction.

The USA seceded by force. So did Holland. As did Greece. Secession by force is not wrong, stopping secession by force is. The declaration of independence is very clear on this. Self-determination has been a cherished right for centuries for the whole world. Foreign powers aided America in our secession by force. France? Hello? Unless you advocate the return of UK sovereignty over the USA, you're applying a double standard.

The USA should welcome such a secession, as it is they'll have all 50 states soon enough, so losing only 2 would be a godsend.

VinceP1974 said...

Afonso, so America has no History and Europe has more than enough?

Europe has no future and America does.

You can have your history. And then watch as the Muslims inherit it.

Defiant Lion said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Defiant Lion said...

Diamed:

Illogical nonsense.

Have you thought through what you have written? Because it amounts to this:

Should any immigrants colonise a country (illegal under international law and the UN charter) once they become the majorirty population, they can use force to secede.

On a site that is fighting against Islamic jihad, you have just fully supported the use of the conquest by demographics tactic.

Such things as: a nation's right to protect its borders, recognition of sovereignty, and third-parties using force to side with their favourites (we've moved on from the US war of independence you know) mean nothing do they?

I take it then that should Mexicans become a majority in Texas and California you'd support say, China bombing the US should the US react in the same way as the Serbs?

Mind you,the US wouldn't dare would they, the Chinese might fight back.

And how about this: Tibet wants independence from China. Would it be OK by you if the US bombs China to support the Tibetans?

This is insanity, it is the rule of might and it is wrong. It is to be condemned - as the Russians have rightly done for once - and could lead to global conflict if other nations in similar situations decide to emulate the situation in Kosovo.

It is also complicated by interference from foreign governments who may not have the best interests of the immigarnts at heart but their own selfish agenda.

Do you excuse that as well?

What you are supporting is an utterly bankrupt morality that makes a mockery of having a UN and international law.

As well as playing directly into the hands of the jihadists.

The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon said...

Dymphna, your map is incorrect. As I understand it, Montenegro has also seceded from the Yugoslav federation. Your map still shows it tied to the Serbian yoke.

Joanne said...

Maybe if people knew then, what we know now about the 'Religion of Peace', we wouldn't have been so quick to attack another Christian country, Yugoslavia - now named Serbia?

Diamed said...

'Should any immigrants colonise a country (illegal under international law and the UN charter) once they become the majorirty population, they can use force to secede.'

The answer is to cut off immigration.

'(we've moved on from the US war of independence you know)'

I still believe in it and everything it stands for.

'I take it then that should Mexicans become a majority in Texas and California you'd support say, China bombing the US should the US react in the same way as the Serbs?'

California and Texas are already lost. Just like kosovo is lost when it reaches 90% albanian, it is impossible to claim control of a country none of your own people actually live in. That's called imperialism. They won't secede though, they prefer parasitically feeding off the rest of Americans.

'And how about this: Tibet wants independence from China. Would it be OK by you if the US bombs China to support the Tibetans?'

Yes, if we could get away with it with no losses like we did to Serbia. Tibet deserves its freedom too. You realize we're already slated to bomb China to protect the independence of Taiwan? And that's even if we get nuked for it.

'global conflict if other nations in similar situations decide to emulate the situation in Kosovo.'

Freedom isn't free. Until everyone is free, yes I expect more war, and every time it will make for a better world. Practically never in history has a nation, once achieving its freedom, ever voluntarily rejoined the empire it escaped from. All of them prefer independence. When you aren't independent, you fight to become so. When you are independent, you fight to remain so. And yet you're arguing it's better for people to live in forcible empires not of their choosing just to prevent war? Fat luck convincing anyone on earth of that.

'mockery of having a UN and international law'

natural/moral law > UN law. The declaration of independence clearly says we have a God-given INALIENABLE right to liberty, period. You can't sign it away.

'As well as playing directly into the hands of the jihadists.'

There is a difference between jihad, an attack on others in order to subordinate them, and freedom fighters seeking their natural right to self-determination.

Bardhyl said...

Good judgement Diamed. I enjoy your coments.

Defiant Lion said...

Diamed:

Agreed, we should cut off immigration. But it's a bit late for Kosovo isn't it?

And you may believe in the DoI and the US constitution and fair play to you. I do not, nor do many countries in the world, That's why International law exists.

So, you believe in your constitution. You then say that CA and TX are already lost. What about the US citizens who live in these states and who also believe in your DoI? Shouldn't they have the liberty to remain US citizens? Or do they have to leave like the serbs and serb speaking muslim Albanians?

When a group of people who are not indidginous become the majority population it is called "colonization" and is illegal under International law.

The US will not attack China. They never do when a country has equal might and oil isn't involved. As it is in the Balkans. The US and NATO deliberately (in their own words) targeted civilians to crush the will of the Serbs. That's what happens when tyrants bomb. There is no way there'd be no losses. But you wouldn't care anyway, so long as colonizers won their freedom.

I did not argue for people to live in forcible empires. And um, the Kosovars will force people to live in an Albanian/Islamic empire. One that will threaten the rest of Europe to spread its empire.

You are failing to understand that no one has the right to just secede using force and consequences be damned.
For example: What if (it won't but indulge me) Russia, who disagrees with you and the US and NATO (rightly so), decides that well, we're going to attack Kosovo and get rid of the Muslims?

One of the requirements for nations is the ability to protect its borders. The KLA could not do this without interference from the US, NATO, the EU, Saudi Arabia and Iran. These countries had their own agendas, freedom for Kosovo and its people being last on the agenda. The Serbs had a right to defend their territory and bring all parties to the negotiating table. NATO took that away from them - illegally.

Another requirement is for a stable population. Clearly, this condition has not been met.

As for natural law > UN law. Whose natural law? Yours? The US? The EU? Islam? And I don't care about the DoI - it only applies to the US!

You mention liberty. What about the right then of people to enjoy liberty from Islam, from US interference, and to self-government? The liberty to enjoy protection of the law in disputes?

You have a myopic view that places the DoI and liberty above everything else. Including birthright. Nations are built over time, many in cost of blood and this to is a right fully supported in law and that people have the right to enjoy the legacy of their forefathers. For you, that means nohing if colonizers seek to reject it and is in my opinion, an attitude of cowardice.

This is an Islamic attack on others to subordinate them. There is only one side committing ethnic cleansing and smashing churches, monasteries and graveyards. To call Kosovars freedom fighters is an insult to people who gave their lives for freedom. This is all about Islamic expansion and the US need for oil, it certainly is not about freedom.

Defending war crimes in suppoprt of liberty is no defence and undermines your belief in liberty and the US DoI.

And one other point: The Kosovars already had a nation where they could practice Islam and be free from the Serbs: Albania.

nikolai said...

There was a convention that border changes required the consent of all parties. Breaking that convention will open a can of worms all over the world. Regardless of the jihad aspects that is in itself a bad thing.

Given that NATO's involvement up till now has been to prevent bits of Yugoslavia exercising self-determination and joining the rest of their nation e.g keeping them locked together in Bosnia, the decision seems utterly bizarre.

So I think there's perfectly logical reasons to be against yhe Kosovo decision regardless of the jihad aspects.

Being strictly fair I think both Albanians (in Albania) and the Bosnian muslims are a special case in that as people they have been there a long time but were converted as part of the Turkish empire. However I'm not sure being strictly fair is a good plan given the situation we are in but that's me.

Eurytan said...

Interesting name Bardhyl. King of the Illyrians that smashed Perdicas and then got smashed in turn by Philip II. Hmm...

So lets agree that the Kosovo and Tetovo Albanians have the right to independence and subsequent union with Albania. By same logic you'll agree that the Serbs of Bosnia and Kosovo, the Croats of Herzegovina and the Greeks of Albania have the exact same right?