Post: #1

I found an interesting interview with professor Edward S. Herman (co-author of Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky) from a few years back. Herman asserts that the alleged Srebrenica massacre was vastly overstated by Western media and was used as a pretext to punish Serbia for geopolitical reasons.

http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/201...interview/

If you recall, the Srebrenica massacre took place in July 1995 and it is alleged that around 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were executed by Serb forces.

Herman calls BS. A few excerpts:

Quote:Also another important fact about the Srebrenica massacre is that all those killings of Serbs took place coming out of an area that was supposed to be a “safe haven”. Srebrenica was a safe place, a safe haven. It was supposed to be demilitarized, but it never was.
So the Bosnian Muslim soldiers would come out to Srebrenica and they would kill Serb civilians. This is all completely ignored in the Western media. It’s as if the Serbs came in July and started to kill arbitrarily.

Quote:One of the features of the “quote” Srebrenica Massacre, that is the second one, is that 20,000 Srebrenica women and children were bussed to safety by the Serb army. Women and children were not killed, only military aged people and a very large fraction of those that did die, died in combat.
So my own estimate, as I said, is that maybe there were 500 to 1,000 executions. Vengeance executions.

Quote:So there was a significant massacre, but put it in its context! This was a war, this was an army that had seen their own civilians massacred on a much larger scale. That is completely suppressed in the West, as if the Serbs came in to Srebrenica and started to kill because of a blood lust! It’s absolutely a fraud!
So, I regard the Srebrenica massacre as a tremendous propaganda triumph. The West wanted to go after Serbia and they avoided peace. They needed this massacre.

I was actually surprised by the info here. The Serbs have been successfully painted as the evildoers of the Balkans and it seems they were just defending themselves against Muslim aggression.

Post: #2

(06-16-2016 10:07 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I found an interesting interview with professor Edward S. Herman (co-author of Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky) from a few years back. Herman asserts that ... painted as the evildoers of the Balkans and it seems they were just defending themselves against Muslim aggression.

Part of the long standing war against Russia which is its final stages.

Post: #3

Recognising the true nature of this conflict was part of my Red-Pill experience.

There's not a lot of trouble muslims suffer that they haven't brought on themselves.

Post: #4

I was young, but I kind of remember something happening in bosnia or serbia, something about Clinton wanting to bomb the area or a genocide happening.

Post: #5

Read about the NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999, another big psyops campaign of the media.

Post: #6

It was not only the Bosniaks who got a slap on the wrist from the West, it was also the Croats and the Shqips.

(Very NSFW)





We have a big fear right now that if Clinton becomes president we will be going to war not only with islam but also the West.

If you look at Bosnia and Albania (which are both under Western control) right now and you see what is going on there, you really wonder what the elites of the West are planning. Bosnian youth is getting ever more radicalized and is the number one training ground for jihadists in Europe. Albanians used to be 'relaxed' muslims but they are getting more extreme aswell. All financed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and NATO.

Kosovo (which is owned by UN right now) is another absolute astrocity. All the young Serbian women and children in that region have moved to Serbia out of fear of getting raped and killed. Now it is only older people living there and they are getting killed by muslims, often in a brutal way. This is a brutal genocide that is happening in present day Europe and what does the West do? Absolutely nothing.

But we can not do much, all we can do is wait and hope the West and USA get weaker or Donald Trump becomes president and sets everything straight. Then we can take back what is rightfully ours and clear these people from the balkans for good.

Post: #7

Rule of a thumb:

Was nation/leader/group accused of "gross violations of human rights" an enemy of the west ? If answer is yes, then probably 90% of the stuff brought up against them is false, made up, twisted, exaggerated, not put into a context, and the relations between the agressor and the defender are completely inverted by a media bombing campaign featuring destroyed towns, children crying etc...

Remember, we never saw children of Sadam's loyalists crying on TV

Post: #8

This event was actually the very first thing that made me question the democratic party (and later, scrutinize all politicians' motives).

I know this is an extremely simplistic analysis of the situation, but as I understand it, the Muslim population in this area are descendants of Muslim invaders going back to the Ottoman empire.

They aren't integrated into Bosnian/Serbian society, and only under harsh communist rule was the whole situation contained. The "albanian gangsters" from the movie Taken is a realistic stereotype/portrayal, based on what people living in that area have told me - areas were these people live are extremely dangerous, especially to non-muslims, and you are likely to be robbed/raped/etc if you go down the wrong street.

Today these "poor, victimized" populations are actively supporting Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and terrorism against non-Muslims. After the conflict in Serbia died down, many of their best fighters went to Chechnya to fight the Russians as Jihadi loyalists.

There was bloodshed and human rights violations on BOTH sides (it was a civil war, after all). After the conflict, it turned out many of the "Albanian mass graves" actually held Serbian bodies.

But Clinton decided to side with the Muslims and bomb the natives into submission to take attention away from his blowjob scandal. It's hard not to be on the side of the Serbians, as they were trying to defend their ancestral homelands against invaders who had been trying to take over for hundreds of years. Either way, for me this as another case of western governments aiding their people's enemies due to internal political corruption.

Post: #9

(06-16-2016 10:07 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I was actually surprised by the info here. The Serbs have been successfully painted as the evildoers of the Balkans and it seems they were just defending themselves against Muslim aggression.

Not exactly. As soon as Bosnia-Herzegovina declared independence in 1992, the Serbs decided they didn't want to be part of this, took control of the majority of Yugoslav Army assets in the country (with approval from Belgrade), and started an ethnic war of extermination with the aim of carving out an ethnically clean republic for themselves. Bosnian Muslims were very poorly armed at the beginning of the conflict.

I would be highly skeptical of any material released by that loony leftist Chomsky or his associates.

I do agree that the NATO intervention in 1999 was a sham and never should have happened. Clinton administration was truly idiotic - amidst growing threat from Al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism, the only country he decides to bomb is the country that's actually fighting Islamic extremists.

Post: #10

While the matter is vastly more gray than "Serbs = BAD, Bosnians = GOOD", it seems wrong and counterproductive to present this as some sort of global conspiracy against Serbia, even moreso when you consider that Bosnians as an ethnic group aren't "descendants of Ottoman invaders", but descendants of local Slavic people who converted to Islam to survive. Of course they have their crazies and extremists like Croats and Serbs do (and who went completely unpunished, sadly - check out our war criminal Branimir Glavaš for example), but to treat them as some sort of evil alien entity is totally counterproductive.

I recommend you go on a trip to Bosnia and bang some slutty Muslim girls in Sarajevo, eat burek and ćevapi until you're bursting and have fun seeing the country and talking to locals.
Then book a flight to, say, Cairo, and try doing the same in Egypt.
I guarantee that you'll be begging to return to the land of "Muslim aggression" within a week.

Post: #11

In fairness the blue helmet brigade of the UNFOR was getting bored, what, with not having any aid supplies to commandeer and sell for personal profit, or any vulnerable girls (not women, girls) to press into sex slavery.

Post: #12

(06-17-2016 08:35 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  While the matter is vastly more gray than "Serbs = BAD, Bosnians = GOOD", it seems wrong and counterproductive to present this as some sort of global conspiracy against Serbia, even moreso when you consider that Bosnians as an ethnic group aren't "descendants of Ottoman invaders", but descendants of local Slavic people who converted to Islam to survive. Of course they have their crazies and extremists like Croats and Serbs do (and who went completely unpunished, sadly - check out our war criminal Branimir Glavaš for example), but to treat them as some sort of evil alien entity is totally counterproductive.

I recommend you go on a trip to Bosnia and bang some slutty Muslim girls in Sarajevo, eat burek and ćevapi until you're bursting and have fun seeing the country and talking to locals.
Then book a flight to, say, Cairo, and try doing the same in Egypt.
I guarantee that you'll be begging to return to the land of "Muslim aggression" within a week.

Yes, nobody was innocent in the wars. What we have a problem with is that the Western media painted us as the devils, ridiculing Serbia and its people. But people who visit here know the true story, we are good people.

I have a friend, Bosnian guy, good guy. He has been alarming me on the rising extremism and salafism there. Many young guys with dress and beards there now. ISIS training their recruits there. So you have to wonder how long this secular Bosnia becomes more like Egypt.

You can see the link that when Saudi Arabia and Turkey send over their imams into the mosques, the muslims become more radical.

Post: #13

This might seem like a stupid question, but why was there so much brutality?

Post: #14

(06-17-2016 04:43 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  This might seem like a stupid question, but why was there so much brutality?

In Srebrenica?

For what I have gathered, the Muslims were attacking neighboring Serb villages around Srebrenica, brutally killing everyone that happened to be here, under the command of Naser Oric (who used to be a bodyguard of Slobodan Milosevic, fun fact). Now, when they (Muslims) faced a imminent counterattack from the Serbs, they ran back to Srebrenica (which was a UN administered zone manned by the Dutch UNPROFOR - on paper, neutral zone).

The Serbs did not let the Muslims get away by doing this, so they rushed in, captured the town, and killed dozens of men (most of which were soldiers who laid down their weapons and uniforms, and tried to withdraw to the Tuzla region, which Muslims controlled). Also, likely in a fit of rage from seeing their families and relatives being terrorized, the local Serbs killed Muslim women and children as well, alongside aforementioned captured Muslim troops.

Just like the Soviets did with the German civilians and prisioners in WW2.

P.S

If someone is wondering, I am no way condoning the thing that happened in Srebrenica. A crime is a crime, regardless of whether Muslims and Serbs did it. Which is something the court in Hague is not really familiar with (very biased against Croats and Serbs, and lets Muslims and Albanians get away).

Fuck them. Jebali mater svoju.

Post: #15

(06-17-2016 04:43 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  This might seem like a stupid question, but why was there so much brutality?

In regards to Bosnia, this is something i can not say in an open forum but it is a very personal issue for me so i will refrain from commenting on it any longer, since my opinion will always be biased.

I think Khan pretty much summed it up in his post above. I will try to give a very short version.

The fall of Yugoslavia was caused by violent nationalism financed and fueled by both inside and outside forces. Corrupt politicians, like always.

It was mostly fought over territory with the use of ethnic cleansing. Croatians killed Serbs living in Serbian dominated cities in Croatia and vice versa. This happened everywhere in the Balkans.

A bit of the same thing in Kosovo. Only with a more religious and historic undertone. The big problem is, Kosovo is our most historic region. So i think this issue will not be resolved peacefully. I fear it will happen soon, with the increasing jihad forces in Europe.

Sometimes i wonder if this region is possessed by the devil.

Post: #16

Lean, do not worry about your bias. I am also a little biased, as you can sometimes see.

Although we will certainly disagree (and never agree, unfortunately) with some things, I do have some respect for you Serbs. You have spine, and unlike us, you will not sell your own grandmother in order to get some meaningless validation from some EU birocrats.

Are you a Bosnian Serb? From which region, if it is not too personal?

Post: #17

(06-17-2016 07:25 PM)leanmeansexmachine Wrote:  Sometimes i wonder if this region is possessed by the devil.

No it was just the Ottoman Empire.

(My Non-Expertise expertise)

The region has been a tinderbox for over a century. Amazingly most are related to each other in culture. The wars between the Ottomans and the Hapsburgs left the place in ruin culturally. People placed here because there are others there on the "Other Side". Its how there was a "Croatian March" and how the territory is distributed.

I believe the Yugoslavia War was a continuation war started during WWII with the Ustase and postponed with Tito. You hate someone for the past and you wait until the opportunity comes around. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other massacres the West doesnt know about (or just chooses to ignore).

On an unrelated note, the Serbs were very helpful to any Americans (and Allies) who happened to be in their territory during WWII.

Post: #18

Did you know that Bin Laden was active there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_a....931999.29

And that Bob Bear stated how the whole region was destabilized?
http://awdnews.com/top-news/ex-cia-agent...yugoslavia
http://inserbia.info/today/2013/08/croat...a-officer/

I don't even blame him. He got a "set" of information and acted on it. Now, that he knows more in the aftermath, he found out he's been duped too.

Post: #19

(06-17-2016 04:43 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  This might seem like a stupid question, but why was there so much brutality?

Number of reasons.

1) Ethnic division was deeply entrenched. What most foreigners don't know is that they haven't suddenly appeared out of nowhere. They have been brewing 10 years prior to war. Kosovo tensions were high even 20 years prior to Kosovo war, but communist regime covered up all of that with particular attention. Even during full blown communist rule, Serbs were leaving Kosovo for example due to sectarian tensions.

2) Not a single nation, Serbs, Croats, or Bosniaks had clearly carved out territory. Bosnia was heavily mixed up. Therefore to carve out ethnic territories by definition demanded force.

3) As necessity for national division was mounting, so were battlefield difficulties. Pressure was high. Every ethnic group was at one point close to total collapse. Serbs at the beginning and at the very end of war, Croats during operation Corridor, Bosniaks every now and then. Under such circumstances, quick, brutal solutions seemed to military leaders, no matter how bizarre this sounds, as least painful ones. For example, quickly after Srebrenica was overrun, Mladic was immediately transferred to western Bosnia to face Croat offensive that was mounted by Croatian Army rather than Bosnian Croats. One of the reasons why he probably didn't want to prolong Srebrenica siege

(06-17-2016 06:09 PM)Irenicus Wrote:  Also, likely in a fit of rage from seeing their families and relatives being terrorized, the local Serbs killed Muslim women and children as well, alongside aforementioned captured Muslim troops.

This is absolutely not true. Not even Hague prosecutors claim this, and they are particularly biased. Shot were only males, those who were deemed after brief visual inspection to be of military age.


My 2 cents: The whole Srebrenica controversy is not about whether there were mass shootings there. The controversy is about:

1) Scope
2) Nature of crime

First of all, numbers of dead males are wildly exaggerated. The only reason why they cannot be questioned is solely because of narrative, extreme pressure and demonization of everyone who dares challenge them. Same as with Holocaust.

Just a brief look at the census stats shows that it is impossible that 8000 males from Srebrenica were shot, when 15.000 people lived in entire municipality (not only besieged town)

In besieged Srebrenica, there were not even 4000 males, let alone 8000.

The official (no joke) method that "researchers" use is number of buried bodies (so far 6000 were buried) at memorial complexes, which is completely outrageous since at the complex were buried and can be buried: people who were not victims of shootings, but actually simply combatants who died in combat; people who died elsewhere; people killed in combat elsewhere; people who died after the war (!!); people who died even today are buried there, particularly family members.

The number 8000 is a wild guess, just as number 6 million of Jews is nothing but complete fantasy. Narrative, shaming, demonization, repeating, cannot ever replace the truth and factual analyzes.


2) Massacre of max 2-4000 males in a single area is an act of genocide ?!

Post: #20

Orion, I do not really know the details, only the most basic stuff about Srebrenica (because, frankly, I do not really care that much - my ethnic group was not involved).


I never called it a genocide. Was it a crime? No doubt, because you do not just shoot POW's.



The only people that believe it happened (genocide) are Muslims (and for them, a genocide even if 2 of their civilians get killed - trust me on this) and people who do not really know local history.

Post: #21

(06-17-2016 04:43 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  This might seem like a stupid question, but why was there so much brutality?

There are many reasons for this. I'm not a historian or a political analyst, but I'll try to give a brief description. This is the ethnic map of former Yugoslavia according to the 1981 census (Montenegrins are barely distinguishable from Serbs on this map due to color, but it doesn't change much):



In short, the recipe for disaster went along these lines:

- take seven different nationalities, who belong to three different religions and whose ethnic areas of residence are largely intermixed;
- put them all into a single state, ruled by the Communist Party;
- suppress all nationalism, but make the largest nation over-represented in the government, military & police force etc.
- after the death of the charismatic, sociopath alpha-male dictator, whose charisma and power largely held the country together, have incompetent Communist bureaucracy take power;
- absent of Western loans, watch the socialist command economy collapse, increasing despair and frustration among the people;
- have some sweeping changes in the world affect the people, who now all want democracy, capitalism, nation-states, ethnic self-determination etc.
- watch the country erupt in flames in short order.

That's basically it. In Croatia, when people discuss the fall of Yugoslavia, they sometimes resort to mental masturbation on the example of Czechoslovakia. Look at them, they say, they separated without bloodshed!

Well of course they did. The Czechs and Slovaks are culturally very similar, and their ethnic territories are homogeneous and separated. For them it was easy, for us - not so much.

Bosnia today is not unlike Yugoslavia. You have Serbs and Croats who want out, and Muslims who want all of Bosnia for themselves. Of course, the Muslims will never admit this - they'll usually rebrand their nationalism as multiculturalism or some shit like that. When they say We want a multicultural Bosnia, they actually mean Shut up, do as we say, and watch us get deep into the asses of our Saudi sponsors.

The problem is, the international community won't allow a peaceful disintegration of Bosnia because if the Serbs and Croats left, you'd have a Muslim nation-state in Europe that would be financially dominated by its foreign sponsors from Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc. This is the anchor that's keeping the Serbs and Croats in.

Post: #22

Are Albanians even European? Some of them look very dark. I've read many times now in pre-WW2 antrophology and linguistics (only pre-WW2 stuff is non-pc), that most signs show migration of people from the Caucasus and other parts of the Ottoman empire into Albania, those who call themselves Sqhiptari, their language is a strange combination of languages, having loan words for most everything related to seafaring (which strongly suggests a landlocked region as origin).

Before you deny this theory out of habit, remember the Gypsies.

Post: #23

Quote:That's basically it. In Croatia, when people discuss the fall of Yugoslavia, they sometimes resort to mental masturbation on the example of Czechoslovakia. Look at them, they say, they separated without bloodshed!

Well of course they did. The Czechs and Slovaks are culturally very similar, and their ethnic territories are homogeneous and separated. For them it was easy, for us - not so much.

Post: #24

(06-18-2016 11:52 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Are Albanians even European? Some of them look very dark. I've read many times now in pre-WW2 antrophology and linguistics (only pre-WW2 stuff is non-pc), that most signs show migration of people from the Caucasus and other parts of the Ottoman empire into Albania, those who call themselves Sqhiptari, their language is a strange combination of languages, having loan words for most everything related to seafaring (which strongly suggests a landlocked region as origin).

Before you deny this theory out of habit, remember the Gypsies.

Albanians, to my understanding have been in Europe as long as the Hungarians. Skanderbeg is their national hero and he was around 600 years ago.

Post: #25

Are Serbs, Croats and Bosnian really that different though? Yes, different religions, but very similar languages, and a long common history. They are far more alike than say, Bretons and French; Catalan, Basque and Castilian; Flemish and Walloon; Romanche and Swiss German, and so forth.

I think the Yugoslav communities got played, and their differences amplified. Sort of like what happened, at about the same time, in Rwanda, also under the Clinton administration.