Let’s take a deep breath and remember who the real Nazis are.
During World War Two, The Third Reich recruited an entire SS division of Bosnian Muslims to fight for the Germans and help out with the Holocaust. Denazification cleared Germany of the National Socialist ideology, but it lives on in Bosnia, among the Muslim descendants of Hitler’s enthusiastic helpers.
And now comes news that an unabashed Nazi organization has formed among the Bosniaks.
The principal enemies of the Bosniaks are the Bosnian Serbs, and Serbian nationalists are routinely demonized in the Western press as “fascists”. Any journalist who continues to retail the Serbs-are-Nazis meme without questioning its accuracy is therefore contributing to one of the greatest injustices visited on any ethnic group since the end of the Cold War.
Here’s the story from Serbianna:
Nazi Bosnian Pride Movement Formed- - - - - - - - -Bosnian neo-nazi organization was birthed today that insists that Bosnia belongs to the Bosniaks, an invented nationality with which Bosnian Muslims identify in order to avoid their religious background when talking to the Western press.
The new Nazi Bosnian Pride Movement (Bosanski pokret nacionalnog ponosa) believes that Serbs and Croats have no right to the state and that the state belongs exclusively to Bosnian Muslims, aka Bosniaks. The Pride’s insignia is pictured on the left.
The Nazi Bosnian Pride Movement has expanded its enemy list from their WWII predecessors, the Handzar Division and the Young Muslims.
As their enemies, Nazi Bosnian Pride Movement includes the usual ones they were exterminating in WWII — Jews, Gypsies and Serbs — but have expand the list to include Chetniks, Tito, communists, homosexuals, blacks and Croatian separatists.
The group plans to spread nazi leaflets very soon in the cities of Sarajevo, Zenica, Bihac, Tuzla and Mostar, all cities with substantial Muslim and Croat population that will find the message appealing.
The group’s a notoriously slow to load web site, bosnacenter.com, serves up a blank page but with little googling their moderated chat room appears with postings on Zionism, Serb Republic, Truth and 5 questions for prospective members.
One can also sport some of their multimedia courtesy of the YouTube.
Hat tip: C. Cantoni.
35 comments:
A disturbing post but I have contextual questions:
1. Exactly how popular is this movement?
2. Is Bosniak really a fake nation invented out of Islamized Croats and Serbs (South Slavs for brevity) or are they a real autochthonous group who called themselves Bosnians or some equivalent before the Turks came?
It doesn't really matter whether or not the Bosnian identity is artificial in origin or not. The fact of the matter is that Bosnians see themselves now as a distinct people (irrespective of their Slavic origins), and thus it is wise to have separatism between them and other Balkan ethnic groups. The neo-Nazism, anti-Serbian prejudice, and no doubt Islamic fundamentalism are all unfortunate developments of otherwise is a reasonable demand: the right for Bosnia to be Bosnian. However, there needs to be mutual respect for Serbia to be Serbian and Croatia to be Croatian, etc.
HH --
I can answer at least part of question 2. "Bosniak" refers to both the language and the ethnic group, which is Bosnian Muslim. Serbian, Croatian, and Bosniak are almost the same language. All three ethnic groups are also largely the same genetically.
Bosniak was not recognized as a distinct language until relatively recently, when Bosnian Muslims began to claim their new identity during the turmoil of the 1990s.
If I have remembered any of this incorrectly, I hope knowledgeable readers will set me straight.
A broken watch is still correct twice a day and with respect to the bombing of Serbia in order to save the "poor, innocent Muslims" the American government did indeed act in, as the left would put it, a violent, imperialistic state. May god rescue Serbia from the fate that was determined for it by the US/EU multicultist elite.
The fleur-de-lys? On Nazi banners? On [i]Muslim[/i] Nazi banners?
The fleur de lys, the symbol of Christian Knights and French Kings?
God, I hope these guys get their arses royally handed to them by a Prince of the Blood! Such impudence!
Vive le Roi!
I try to drop by your place every week. Much I don't know about the subjects you cover, and much to learn.
That being said, it doesn't take a great deal of sophistication to feel a true chill at this news.
Thanks for informing us of this.
It bears watching.
Back in the days of the Ottoman Empire the Bosnian Muslims were simply Ottomans and their elite was Turkish speaking.
Maybe they see their SS granddads as a major milestone in independent identity building.
I swear it can't be a popular movement. Flinging around a swastika is the absolute worst thing you could do if you wanted to garner the international sympathy that was essential to their movement in the 90s.
HH:
It's more popular than you think. One would think that flinging around swastikas would be the worst thing one could do. It is when the media actually covers it, and you can guarantee that the vast majority of Western media will not cover this important event. That would draw too many uncomfortable questions concerning our support for the Bosnians back in the good ol' 1990s during the wars in Yugoslavia.
Bosnian is a completely invented identity. It's false and technically does not exist. Ethnically, a "Bosnian" is either a Serb or a Croat, usually one who converted to Islam sometime during the past 600 years or so. That is one of the reasons why I hate calling people "Bosnian Muslims." It makes Islam seem like an ethnic identity, which of course it is not. But I do feel it is important to distinguish between Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Serbs, for example. By the way, Bosnian Serbs are Serbian through and through and usually align themselves with the nation of Serbia (which is actually a true nation with a proper history), as opposed to the false state of Bosnia. Even geographically, the land that makes up Bosnia is either historically Serbian or Croatian.
Getting back to swastikas and other Nazi symbolism, the Croats have a strange and much too admiring relationship with their Nazi past. During World War II, the pro-Nazi regime in Croatia massacred an untold amount of people (especially Jews and Serbs), yet in the 1990s the regime was using Nazi symbolism (like the šahovnica, the distinct red and white checkerboard) on their flags. A large component of the poisoning of relations between Serbs and Croats arose from the Serbs' rightful fear that they would be senselessly massacred yet again, as they were during the Second World War.
I don't mean this in a conceited way, but I know quite a bit about this region and sometimes forget that many people (Americans, at least) do not have the knowledge I do. Do you all think it would be helpful if I wrote some posts for my blog about the former Yugoslavia and surrounding areas to dispel common myths and such?
By the way, my comment isn't directed only at Homophobic Horse--it's for everyone. Give me feedback, if you want, about my proposed idea I mentioned in the previous paragraph :-)
Yes it would be very interesting to learn more about the peoples of the former Yugoslavia. So please help us separate serbs from croats from bosnians. I grew up when it was still one nation and our country got a lot of immigrants back then. Back then we didn't have to bother much if they where this or that as it was one nation. Because of that I can still not differ a croat from a serb. They look the same so they're basically still yugoslavian to me. It's not meant to be insulting because I cannot differ them apart. It's just as simple as that.
Oof ... ok, this is a long, long, long story. It took me about 80 pages to write it up the last time I tried, which was for my int'l relations bachelor thesis. I'll try to condense it a bit:
1. The population prehistory: genetically there isn't much difference between the various populations. Most of the people in all the Balkans (like the rest of Europe) represent descendants of the original neolithic farmers spreading from the Middle East from about 10kya. There are later admixtures, but most of the people called Slavs today are the descendants of people who called themselves Romans and Greeks and Illyrians and Thracians and whatnot once upon a time. And other things before that.
2. Ethnogenesis. Or how ethnic groups form. This is a complex topic in itself, deserving of a whole book, but let it just be noted that ethnic groups are not "natural formations", with hard boundaries. They are ideas carried in the heads of people who identify themselves as members of groups, their borders and definitions are porous, they naturally change over time, their languages naturally change over time. Language, history, common ancestry, territory, institutions, religion, culture, art etc. are held up as markers of an ethnic group, but they are often politically instrumentalised, and none of them is essential. Enough on this, like I said, there's material for a book.
3. The history.
a. Late Antiquity. Until about the year 450 the region we speak of was Rome. People spoke Latin. The Western Roman Empire (WRE) fell first and various Germanic tribes occupied the areas of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia. Around the year 600 Avars and Slavs devastated the Balkans and together with Persians nearly conquered Constantinople. During this time the Balkan provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire were devastated and effectively lost to the Emperor. In the north, the Slavs and Avars drove the Langobards from Pannonnia into northern Italy. The Romans of the Balkans were either eventually assimilated, or fled to fortified coastal and island towns (such as Caput Histriae, Iader, Spalatum, Epidaura, which fell and its survors founded Ragusa).
b. The Dark Ages. For the next 200 years Christianity was pushed out of the western Balkans and Slavic chiefdoms and kingdoms slowly arose. The Slavs settled from two directions, from the north in Pannonia (one group with a similar language settled from Slovakia, through Pannonia, Lower Austria and Slovenia), and from the east further south (Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria). Towards the end of this period the area of Slovenia was conquered by the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. Meanwhile, under Frankish and Roman (Byzantine) pressure, the Slavic tribes of the Western balkans coalesced into larger unions. Then the Hungarians invaded, adding pressure to the cooker. Here's an example of the mess at the time, with no guarantee it's correct.
c. The Middle Ages. By the 11th century Croatia was conquered by (or united with, if you're Croat) Hungary. Meanwhile the kingdoms and principalities of Bosnia, Serbia and Zeta (Montenegro) continued as independent states until later. In around 1350 AD much of the Balkans was united by the Serbian Empire of Stefan Dusan.
d. The Turkish Conquest. Then the Ottomans invaded. By around 1350 AD the Ottomans had united Anatolia and crossed over into Europe at Gallipolli. By 1356 Thrace was in Ottoman hands. In 1360 Murad I became sultan and moved his capital to Adrianople, in the Balkans. In 1371 at the Maritsa river the Ottomans crushed a larger Serbian army, after which the Serbian empire fell apart into warring principalities (yes, it was more important than Kosovo polje). Bulgaria became a vassal of the Ottomans, then Murad returned to Anatolia to campaign against the Romans (Byzantines). Murad returned to take care of the rebellious Serbs and in 1389 the bloody mess of Kosovo polje happened. Both armies were devastated, but the Turks replaced their men with their Anatolian reserves, while Serbian power was finished. Murad I died and was succeeded by Beyazid I. After Kosovo polje most of the Serbs became Ottoman vassals. Over the next 60 years all the Slavic kingdoms and principalities of the Balkans were conquered by the Turks, among the last were Bosnia and in particular Herzegovina (which means "Duchy", from the Germanic Herzog - duke. Ironically, Vojvodina also means "Duchy", from the Slavic Vojvoda - duke). By 1453 Serbian and other Slavic knights helped Mehmed II conquer Constantinople. By 1480 most of the Balkans were basically Ottoman, while Hungary (including Croatia) so reduced that it passed to the Habsburgs.
e. The Imperial Peace. For the next 400 years or so the Balkans were mostly pacified, part of a multi-ethnic multi-religious Empire ruled by the muslim Ottoman emperors. Trade, caravanserai, roads, bridges and mosques spread and life was generally much less brutal than during the constant wars of the dark ages. Now, for an obvious fact: like English is today, Turkish was then the language of the elite, of the arts, of commerce and the army. In this situation, ambitious individuals who wanted to go up in the world, and pay lower taxes, tended to learn Turkish and become Muslim. That's also why there are so many blonde and blue-eyed people in Turkey today. In the Balkans the words "Turk" and "Muslim" were usually interchangeable for most of this period. Think of it from an American perspective - immigrants and natives who want to get ahead, learn English and assimilate, more or less. Now imagine, if you added an additional 10% tax on non-Christians. I'm sure a lot of people would also convert.
f. The Fall of the Empire. Empires rise and fall, the Ottoman Empire finally fell in the 19th century. Nationalism was a great invention in the 19th century, bringing mass armies and ideologies of the nation. Particularly among the Serbs, nationalism--spurred by their national Orthodox church, which had been a Serbian church for about 800 years--produced a great revolt that ended in an independent Serbia and the demolition of practically all the mosques in their territory. Croatian nationalism came next, while Bosnian nationalism almost didn't happen. For various reasons, the Bosnians identified far more with the Ottoman Empire than the Serbs did. Why?
g. Croatian and Bosnian nationalism. The Croats were rebelling against Hungarian nationalism--the policy of Magyarisation, i.e. making these (Croatian) lands Hungarian--and against Austrian rule, to a smaller extent. Why didn't Bosnians develop a nationalism? There are several reasons. They had no church of their own, in the middle ages many Bosnians were bogomils--Cathars--persecuted as heretics by the Catholics, and the result was that more of the Bosnians became "Turkish". Bosnia also provided many important Viziers to the Empire and benefitted from Turkish investment as a military garrison region for the Empire. Then the Austrians conquered Bosnia in the mid 19th century. Many Muslim Bosnians now found themselves a persecuted minority in a Catholic country, which tended to favor ... Catholics. I.e. Croats. And the Austrians simply concluded that Catholics in Bosnia are Croats, Orthodox are Serbs and Muslims are Turks. Of course these were all the same people, just of different religion. They had been living there, mixed together for 400 years, where religion was, well, a relatively personal matter, except for the question of taxes.
The Bosnian Muslims suddenly found themselves in a situation where aggressive nationalisms, Serb (Orthodox) and Croat (Catholic) were springing up around them, the Turkish (Muslim) empire was collapsing and Muslims were being tossed out of every land the Serbs and the Bulgarians and the Greeks conquered.
h. World War I. And then the Austrians invaded Serbia. And the Bosnian Muslims fought in the Austrian army, unsurprisingly. So did the Croat Catholics. And the Serbs got devastated, slaughtered and killed in huge number.
i. The First Yugoslavia. After the war Austria collapsed and Serbia became the dominant power of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Originally it was called the Kingdom of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. It also held Bosnia, but Bosnians weren't recognized as such. Some were tagged Croats, some Serbs, and others Turks. Many more Muslims fled the country in this period. The Serbs gradually acquired more power and Croatian resentment and opposition gradually built up.
j. World War II. Then the Germans and Italians and Hungarians invaded. Many Croats seized their chance at freedom from the Serbs and formed the Independent State of Croatia, which was basically a nazi quizling state ... these were the Ustashe. The Ustashe worked hard to convince the Muslims that they had a joint enemy in the Serbs, and obviously some Muslims joined. What followed was a mess of a war, mixing local militials, white guards, royalist Chetniks, local nazis and fascists (Ustashe), Russians, Germans, Hungarians, Italians, and Communist Partisans (who started their battle in ... Bosnia). Estimates are that between 1 and 2 million people died during World War II.
k. Under Tito. Then Tito was king. Well, president. With the help of Western monetary help, Tito pursued a policy of "nonalignment" and promoted a singular, secular Yugoslav identity. A single language serbo-croat was taught in schools (well, not in Slovenia and Macedonia, except as a second language, but still). And the most enthusiastic supporters of Yugoslavia were ... the Bosnians. The Bosnian Muslims in particular. They became the most secular group in all of Yugoslavia, the most enthusiastic communists (not unusual, since they got quite a bit of government aid), and very proud of having been the core of Yugoslavia - the first liberated territory - which is logical, since the place is full of hills and mountains and presented a logistical nightmare for Ze Germans. Seriously, these Muslims weren't very Muslim. They drank beer, ate pork, didn't go to the mosque and supported the communists. (Well, not all of them, but surveys showed they were less religious than the Orthodox or the Catholics).
l. After Tito. Then Tito died and various politicians found they could use nationalism and religion to gain power. Primarily Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and Franjo Tudzman in Croatia. Religious types in Bosnia tended to get thrown in jail far more quickly, so there were no truly devout Muslim politicians out and about.
m. The War. And then in 1991 the War happened. Slovenia and Croatia declared independence, the mostly Serbian Yugoslav Army poured out of its barracks. After 10 days they abandoned Slovenia, while the war continued in Croatia for 4 more years or so.
In 1992 it started in earnest in Bosnia ... and the Western solution was sweeping sanctions on weapon imports. Which was fine, since the Serbs had most of the weapons factories, the Croats had some and the Bosnians had none. However, the Serbian army fortunately suffered low morale, poor training and an excess of alcohol - particularly the paramilitaries, who were best at attacking undefended villages. The army was in fact stopped in Sarajevo, in one part of the city, by the local criminal underground. Anyway, the only way for the Bosnians to get weapons was to smuggle them in, and the only people who were willing to fund their weapons were Muslims, significantly Wahhabis. Which is why there is now a large Wahhabi mosque in Bosnia and more veils than ever before.
... so there ya go.
Fantastic blog!
Keep up the good work, guys!
-B.
d.)"...Now imagine, if you added an additional 10% tax on non-Christians. I'm sure a lot of people would also convert."
Luke, not to nit-pick, but don't you mean, "...an additional 10% tax on non-MUSLIMS (or Jizra?)..."
Aren't you speaking of the status of dhimmi (Christians), under the Ottomans?
Also, I understand now why Croats, who largely remained part of the Austrian-Hungarian empire, would remain largely Catholic. But why are Serbians mostly Orthodox? Because of the Byzantine influence? Also, why have the Russians also allied themselves with the Serbs>? I believe that alliance pre-dates both countries Communist past, especially as Tito tried to keep Stalin at arms length...
Cas, yes, I was illustrating the dhimmi. I was suggesting a hypothetical example, if you put a 10% tax on non-Christians in America I'm not sure how high the tax on people of the book was under the Ottomans.
Historical reasons of conversions explain the churches. Missionaries to Croatia and Slovenia came mostly from German and Italian lands, while the Serbs attribute their conversion to Greek (Byzantine) missionaries, like Cyril and Methodius, who also invented cyrillic for writing in proto-Slavic. The Serbians were Orthodox also for political reasons - the Orthodox faith gave them a national church, something Catholicism didn't--their church was autocephalous. Essentially like Anglicanism used to function as the national church of England.
Bosnia was in between the two regions, mountainous, hard to invade and control -- which is part of the reason groups dubbed heretical found it a welcome refuge. Also, hemmed in by Catholic Hungary in the north and Orthodox Serbia in the south, the Bosnian rulers found little sympathy from either Rome or Constantinople. An important force in Bosnia, though, were the Franciscans.
Finally, Russians -- I'm guessing some linguistic and religious affinity (slavic, orthodox), but also the usefulness of Serbs in the Great Game of power politics. Like Iran uses hamas against the Israelis, so Russians used Serbs against the Austrians and the Turks. Under Communism there was actually a split between Tito and Stalin, because Tito wanted more power for himself -- hence Tito got money from the USA, which helped him stay in power (and built a lot of houses in Yugoslavia).
The way the epithets are thrown around - if we accused them of something, it would be litigation tomorrow for character assassination.
Lukc: You left out the part of the story regarding the Bogomils. According to Rebecca West's Black Lamb and Grey Falcon, in the late middle ages Bosnia was inhabited by Bogomils, an heretical Christian sect similar to the Albigensian heresy in Southern France. The Bogomils were ruthlessly persecuted by Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs. When the Turks arrived the Bogomils converted to Islam.
Do you believe that there is any truth to this history?
And also Lukc, thanks for debunking the lie that the Bosnians are nothing more than Turks. They are as Slavic as anyone in Croatia and Serbia.
Gordon, yes, I agree. I left out the Bogomils/Albigensians/Cathars ... basically they found a refuge in the Bosnian mountains, where they also provided legitimacy to the local rulers against the Catholic Hungarians and the Orthodox Serbs - i.e. something of their own. There is a theory regarding the high rate of conversion to Islam in Bosnia that it had a lot to do with the previous Bogomil religion, which was a dualistic and Manichean religion with a theology that adapted readily to the Islamic concept of a single Allah opposed by a single Sheitan. I.e. no mention of any of that Trinity nonsense. It was thus easier for them to say the words and "become" Muslim, while keeping to their old traditions than for someone who believed in the Triune nature of the Almighty.
Of course there is also anecdotal evidence that it was quite common for the local population to go for blessings to the Imam on Rammadan, the Pater for Christmas and the Pop for the other Christmas--most people very reasonably decided that it couldn't hurt to get a few extra blessings to keep their crops from failing.
(As an aside, there are records of a crusade in the 14th century in Western Slovenia to root out a pagan Slavic shrine ... so it's not like the population was dreadfully Christian back then)
I think Lukc's extended piece is exactly the reason why one should not pronounce on Balkan history with wild abandon. There are contextual questions and problems with every paragraph.
None other than Noel Malcolm (whose "short histories" of Bosnia and Kosovo are a case study of propaganda and revisionism of the worst kind) discounts the Bogomil/Cathar/Albigensian thesis concerning the Christians of Bosnia. This myth, along with the supposed Illyrian origin of Albanians, originated with a Croat nationalist historian Franjo Racki in the XIX century.
Here's a quick and dirty answer to the original question: "Bosniaks" are a remnant of Slavs who converted to Islam during the Ottoman times and remained living in Bosnia and parts of today's Serbia, Montenegro and FYROM following the Ottoman defeat in 1912. Known as Muslims (muslimani) until 1993, when the regime of Alija Izetbegovic promoted the new name. Izetbegovic was an ideologue of Islamic fundamentalism and global Islamic revolution posing as tolerant multiculturalist democrat. He was briefly jailed after WW2 for membership in an organization promoting Muslim ties with the Nazis ("Mladi Muslimani"). While some Muslims of Bosnia joined the Communist and royalist resistance movements in WW2, the majority collaborated with the Croat fascist movement (Ustasha) in the systematic murder of Serbs and Jews.
So, no more information on the popularity of this unreconstructed Nazi movement?
HH --
Not so far. I'm working on finding a credible source on current events in Bosnia.
Natalie said...
"Getting back to swastikas and other Nazi symbolism, the Croats have a strange and much too admiring relationship with their Nazi past. During World War II, the pro-Nazi regime in Croatia massacred an untold amount of people (especially Jews and Serbs), yet in the 1990s the regime was using Nazi symbolism (like the šahovnica, the distinct red and white checkerboard) on their flags."
Sahovnica is a Croat national symbol (dates middle ages) and should be used freely.
Sahovnica was used in Yugoslav army before WWII during WWII by fascist Croats and after in communist Yugoslav army.
So maybe it is a communist symbol?
It is as fascist as French flag is fascist and nazist because was used by Vichy regime.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9gime_de_Vichy
And beer and wine are fascist drinks. The fascists drank them.
And we use fascist alphabet. If you do not believe me, just look at Mein Kampf and check what alphabet was used by Mr. Hitler. Of course a fascist one.
People, please more sanity. Not everything that fascists did or used is fascist.
Sahovnica is used by other slavic countries as well.
Poland:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szachownica_lotnicza
Moravia:
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/Flags/cz-62-.html
Baron, I will gladly answer any Bosnia questions you have; I know the country very well and have current and reliable sources there.
On the subject of the "sahovnica," while it is a traditional symbol of Croats, the version used in royal Yugoslavia began with a red field. The Ustasha version began with a white field, to symbolize "racial purity." Horrific atrocities were committed under this symbol, and while the Communist authorities after 1945 didn't outright ban it, they discouraged its use.
The government that in 1991 declared the former Yugoslav republic of Croatia an independent state has resurrected many Ustasha symbols - including the currency ("kuna") - reinstated the sahovnica with the red-field-first configuration. However, the remaining Serbs who survived the WW2 Ustasha genocide didn't see it as much of a distinction.
Hey, the swastika is an ancient Persian symbol that was even used on synagogues way back when, but that doesn't change the fact that at a very identifiable period in history it stood for the Nazi regime in Germany.
Homophobic Horse, I'm sorry if my extended piece is not up to your scholarly standard, but I think my disclaimer at the start should have been sufficient. If you have contextual questions and problems, be sure to pose them ... as someone who lives and studies in the region, I think I am capable of answering them.
Grey Falcon, I think your statement that "the majority [of Muslims] collaborated with the Croat fascist movement (Ustasha) in the systematic murder of Serbs and Jews" is frankly inflamatory and plain wrong. The majority of Muslims were women, children, old men, and generally apolitical men, who wanted to be left alone.
I do not know what percentage of Muslims actively collaborated with the Royalists, the Nazis and Fascists and with the Communists. The fact remains that the precise issue is deeply politicized and the data very hard to come by. I will certainly agree that some did collaborate with the Ustaši, but you will have to provide some sources for your claim that a majority did.
Jaroslaw, if we're on the topic of flags, I wish our politicians had had the balls to come up with something better than this: Flag of Slovenia.
But, on the plus side, it means that if we ever form a union and divide Pannonia between us, it will make it easier to have a common flag. Or come to that, if the Russians conquer us, we can keep the same flag ...
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As an American of Bosnian (Bosniak) descent, (my family escaped communism, we're not refugees.) I will give you some interesting information since I group up with these people and have a pretty good understanding on there mentalities and ideas. First, the term "Bosnian" or "Bosniak" is a term conjured up during the 1990's. We are people of the Balkans that chose to convert under Ottoman rule due to tax breaks and other advantageous societal benefits that were around during that 500 year occupation. Unfortunately, my forefathers decided to convert as opposed to fight these Islamic militants. Most Bosnians I come into contact with do not want to believe or accept this. However, how can we share a language and culture but be completely different? People will point to the difference of Croatian Catholics and Serbian Orthodox having the same language and culture but being different people so why are "Bosniaks" different. Simply because Islam was spread by the sword in the Balkans. The indigenous people of the Balkans were of Christian background or ancient Bogomil. Islam was brought via "Mohammedans" as they were known in the day through rape, war, and murder. And many chose to convert to be safe. This is the history of the area. Let me get into more contemporary problems.
"Bosniaks" during WWII were influenced by the Grand Mufti of Egypt to join the Third Reich and partner with the Ustasha. I'm assuming much of the propaganda and ideas are being borrowed from this section of history to reinvigorate so called "Bosniaks" under new nationalist ideas since much of the West simply doesn't understand the evil of Islam and it's cancerous like tendencies. Alija Izetbegovic was an Islamist and sought to create an Islamic state where Croats and Serbs were second class citizens much like during the Ottoman period. When he started to lose, then the victimhood and "help" starting to come out. Unfortunately, many people died as a result of his evil views. Many "Bosniaks" specifically in the parts of Western of Bosnia would like to have nothing to due with the Islamists. They want a multi-ethnic state. Look up Fikret Abdic and Velika Kladusa to see what I'm talking about. Sarajevo is the problem. The nostalgia with this area is what most "Bosniaks" identity with since they were essentially the rewarded subjects of the Ottoman empire. They were allowed to flourish under Ottoman rule on the blood of there fellow brethren.
Now the hatred between Bosniaks and other groups such as Serbs and Croats is not something that is relatively new. People of the West cannot understand this fact. This is deeply seeded in all of us from birth. Those individuals that have a good education can identify these problems and understand for what they are. But for the most part, "Bosniaks" want Islam to be the dominating force in Bosnia since it will benefit them. They can then choose to runaway from reality and claim themselves as an actual nation of people with a nation-state. Which of course is not true. But the way things are going in Bosnia, I'm fairly certain the country will dissolve in the next 5 years. The Dayton accords simply created a 3-nation system. I know technically it's a 2-nation system, but the Croats have there own ideas about that. Take a look at Mostar for examples of this. I lurk here a lot but don't post often. But if any of you have any questions I will be happy to answer them. I am lucky enough to be an American yet have the experiences of these people under my belt to understand the complexity and yet simplicity of the situation in Bosnia. Western Europe has to only look to Bosnia to understand what a populous Islamic population can do to the Judeo-Christian values of Europe.
Allen: Well, there's Islam and there's Islam ... it's not like it's a monolith, you know? Seriously ... although that's not to say there's not a problem with Wahhabi fundamentalist missionary activity in Bosnia today.
On the other hand, how do you think the Saxons and the Western Slavs and the Pomeranians and the Slowinci and so forth were converted to Christianity? By sword and blood, rape and pillage, oh aye. Just study your Charlemagne. As the bible says, "the log in your eye..."
In regards to Charlemagne, I would agree with you. Barbarism is not only involved with Islam but all religions (except Buddhism) maybe... But we're not dealing with Christian suicide bombers or Christian terrorists. Our problem these days is Islam. The Bible is accepted as the word of man, the Koran is the supposedly the word of God. And so we have a major problem there? The Koran does say to kill non-believers. And apostates such as myself. =)
Allen: I agree with you on all points. And congratulations on the apostasy, I think leaving organized religion is a celebration of human individuality and the ability to rise above oneself! ^_^
An aside on Buddhism*, I think it is also the only major organized religion that doesn't seem to have trouble with evolution, at least if the Dalai Lamma is to be believed (*I can't talk for all buddhisms, though we could include Jainism).
BTW on the word of god - what about Christian fundies?
You mean like the individuals portrayed in Borat? Pretty crazy, completely out of touch with reality. Or do you mean abortion clinic bombers? The concept behind an abortion clinic bombers is rather different than any Islamist/Jihadist mentality. They are seeking to protect life. I am in line with a pro-choice view since I don't like government involved with personal freedoms but am adamantly against Planned Parenthood and other "abortion industries." The Jihadist is looking to simply destroy all non-believers by any means necessary. I never understood the left's moral equivalence between abortion clinic bombers and suicide bombers. The motivating factors behind both are very different.
Well, both really. And others beside. While motivating factors may be different, in both cases we could say that these are people seriously out of touch with their broader social environment ... but it's too late for a long discussion on that.
Post a Comment