Bill Clinton’s Bastard Army: Genocide; Disinformation/Misinformation; Breadline, Market, Racak Incidents

by 1389 on May 30, 2013

in 1389 (blog admin), Albania, Bosnia, Bush family, Croatia, Kosovo, NATO, Serbia, the Clintons, United Nations

Article originally published in the New English Review

By Ares Demertzis (Feb. 2009)

I: A Brief Synopsis.

  • Part 1:
    • (i) Covert Exploits; Encouraging Islamic Jihad.
    • (ii) Catholic Croatia; Operation Storm.
    • (iii) Rambouillet
  • Part 2:
    • (iv) The “Air Campaign.”
    • (v) The Catholic Croatians.
    • (vi) The Muslims
  • Part 3:
    • (vii) Genocide
    • (viii) Disinformation & Misinformation.
    • (ix) The Breadline Massacre, The Market Massacres & Racak
  • Part 4:
    • (x) Iconic Images.
    • (xi) On Trial.
    • (xii) Follow the Money

II: Links, plus

  • Czechoslovak Documentary (Video):
  • “Stolen Kosovo.”
  • International Criminal Tribunal (Video):
  • “Milosevic On Trial.”
  • “The Hague Tribunal”
  • “Slobodan Milosevic vs. New World Order”

(vii) Genocide

The most damning evidence of Serb genocidal criminality was to be found in the “Srebrenica Massacre.” Kofi Annan qualified it as “a terrible crime.” The claim that 8,000 Bosnian Muslim males were executed was reported by the New York Times on September 15, 1995.

Six years of subsequent meticulous independent forensic investigation yielded 2,028 individual remains; how many of those were executed, and how many were killed in battle is conjecture.

“Just as the weapons of mass destruction have never been found in Iraq, the charge of massacres, mass graves, ethnic cleansing and genocide proved to be an utter fabrication in Kosovo. Immediately after the war, 20 forensic teams were sent to Kosovo by the International Criminal Court at The Hague from 15 NATO countries, including the U.S.. They dug all summer of 1999 at the very sites where supposed witnesses had reported mass graves.”

By October 1999 they reported back to Chief Prosecutor for the Tribunal Carla Del Ponte that they had been unable to find any mass graves in Kosovo at all. They had found a total of 2,108 corpses in individual graves. How many of that number may have been killed by the NATO bombing they did not speculate.

This troubling fact notwithstanding, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), in a contemptible judicial thuggery, without even a minimal pretense for acceptable Western standards of justice, convicted Bosnian Serb General Radislav Krstic of genocide, concluding in a breathtakingly arbitrary decision, without a shred of evidence, that the total number of Bosnian Muslim males executed was “likely within the range of 7,000 – 8,000.” (Judgment in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, par. 82)

Madeleine Albright, speaking before the United Nations Security Council on August 10, 1996, reminded those present not to “forget the tragedy and outrages perpetrated earlier in Bosnia against the eastern enclaves of Srebrenica…(the) dead were not killed in the heat of battle, they were not killed in self-defense and they were not killed by accident, they were systematically slaughtered on the instructions of the Bosnian Serb leadership.”

US Representative Frank McCloskey (D. IN) wrote in the Christian Science Monitor on December 31, 1992: “Serb forces in Bosnia have killed between 128,000 and 200,000 persons – almost one in 10 Bosnian Muslims. They particularly target educated, white-collar Bosnia Muslims in the death camps. This is “elitocide,” or the sociopolitical decapitation of a people. Women of child-bearing age are also targeted for destruction in the rape/death camps. I know no name for this new horror.”

“The UN predicts up to 400,000 deaths this winter, from Serb weapons and from equally purposeful Serb subjection of Bosnian Muslims and Croats to freezing weather, famine, and disease. By winter’s end the death toll is likely to reach a half million – a quarter of Bosnia’s Muslims. Half of Bosnia’s Muslims have already been forcibly displaced, and their homes and cultural institutions destroyed.”

“We know that genocide is underway in the Balkans. Our television screens show us bits of it. The alarm is sounded by the press, human rights groups, political figures around the world, and many governments. Western leaders compare Serb fascists actions to those of the Nazis.”

The New Statesman, December 13, 2004: “In November 1999, the Wall Street Journal published the results of its own investigation, dismissing “the mass grave obsession.” Instead of “the huge killing fields some investigators were led to expect…the pattern is of scattered killings [mostly] in areas where the separatist Kosovo Liberation (Muslim) Army has been active.” The Journal concluded that NATO stepped up its claims about (Christian Orthodox) Serbian killing fields when it “saw a fatigued press corps drifting toward the contrary story: civilians killed by NATO’s bombs. The war in Kosovo was cruel, bitter, savage. Genocide it wasn’t.”

“One year later, the International War Crimes Tribunal, a body in effect set up by NATO, announced that the final count of bodies found in Kosovo’s “mass graves” was 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Like Iraq’s fabled weapons of mass destruction, the figures used by the US and British governments and echoed by journalists were inventions – along with Serbian “rape camps” and Clinton’s and Blair’s claims that NATO never deliberately bombed civilians.”

George Robertson, British Secretary of Defense, before the Select Committee on Defense in the U.K. House of Commons: “Kosovo Liberation (Muslim) Army (KLA) were responsible for more deaths in Kosovo than the Yugoslav (Christian Orthodox Serb) authorities.” This was also true of Bosnian Muslims and the Croatian Catholics; facts undisclosed by a mainstream media eager to caricature Serbs as “Milosevic´s willing executioners” intent on perpetrating genocide against the innocent.”

During a speech in Geneva reported by UPÏ on January 4, 1993, Bosnian Muslim President Alija Izetbegovic in an exquisite exercise of Islamic taquiyya, repeated the unfounded and provocative claim of U.S. Representative Frank McClosky´s 200,000 figure, and added that the Muslim women of Bosnia had been subjected to the “most massive raping in human history.’’ Speaking to the Carnegie Endowment in Washington D.C. he emphatically declared: “In the last nine months, more than 200,000 people have been killed in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which means approximately almost 1,000 per day.” (Federal News Service, January 8, 1993).

Within hours, Izetbegovic’s spurious claim had been reported as fact by the self accredited disseminators of flawless information: National Public Radio, Associated Press, Washington Post, and New York Times.

“Ms. Magazine ran a cover story that accused Bosnian Serb forces of raping for the purpose of producing pornographic films. No such films were ever found and the charges were not supported by the findings of Helsinki Watch or Human Rights Watch.”

“In January 1993 the Warburton Report, authorized by the European Community, estimated 20,000 Muslim women had been raped as part of a Serb strategy of conquest. This report was widely cited as an independent, authoritative source. No coverage was given to a dissenting member of the investigative team, Simone Veil, a former French minister and president of the European Parliament. She revealed that the estimate of 20,000 victims was based on actual interviews with only four victims—two women and two men.”

“The Jan. 4, 1993, issue of Newsweek reported that up to 50,000 Muslim women had been raped in Bosnia. Tom Post, a contributor to the article, explained that the estimate of 50,000 rapes was based on interviews with 28 women.”

Covert Action Quarterly, Diana Johnstone, August 10, 1998, No 65: “No one denies that many rapes occurred during the civil wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, or that rape is a serious violation of human rights. So is war, for that matter. From the start, however, inquiry into rape in Bosnia-Herzegovina focused exclusively on accusation that Serbs were raping Muslim women as part of a deliberate strategy. The most inflated figures, freely extrapolated by multiplying the number of known cases by large factors, were readily accepted by the media and international organizations. No interest was shown in detailed and documented reports of rapes of Serbian women by Muslims or Croats.”

“The late Nora Beloff, former chief political correspondent of the London Observer, described her own search for verification of the rape charges in a letter to The Daily Telegraph (January 19, 1993). The British Foreign Office conceded that the rape figures being bandied about were totally uncorroborated, and referred her to the Danish government, then chairing the European Union. Copenhagen agreed that the reports were unsubstantiated, but kept repeating them.”

See: Norma von Ragenfeld-Feldman, “The Victimization of Women: Rape and the Reporting of Rape in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1992-1993”, Dialogue, No 21, Paris, March 1997; and Diana Johnstone, “Selective Justice in The Hague”, The Nation, September 22, 1997, pp 16-21.

The World Association of International Studies, Stanford University: “It is extraordinary how the estimates of deaths in Kosovo shrank, from the 100,000 repeatedly asserted by US Secretary of Defense William Cohen, to the 4,600 claimed in a US State Department report issued in May 1999, to the 346 cited in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) war crimes indictment against Slobodan Milosevic.”

These figures hardly provide the evidence necessary to assert the systematic genocidal slaughter which NATO officials and the Western media claimed was taking place in Kosovo, and which provided the pretext for American military intervention. This cumulative death toll is far smaller that the number of fatalities inflicted on innocent civilian Serb non-combatants by the US-NATO bombing.

The hysteria and Serb bashing emanating from highly biased interventionist sources was enthusiastically accepted by individuals willing to believe the statements of such propagandists as former Assistant Secretary of State and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Richard Holbrooke, who wrote in his book “To End A War,” that “Between 1991 and 1995, close to three hundred thousand people were killed in the former Yugoslavia.” American journalists eagerly embraced, without investigation, this disinformation that presented the Serbs as rabid nationalist killers, notwithstanding that the European press was introducing contradictory evidence and skepticism of the established and highly promoted U.S. government narrative.

Media exaggeration and mendacity aside, the European Journal of Population (June 2005) reported that researchers for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), testified for the prosecution during the Milosevic trial (therefore their biases were not likely to neither reduce Muslim victims nor inflate Serb fatalities), that they estimated the total war-related deaths as approximately 100,000 on all sides. 55,000 deaths out of a total of 102,622 were civilians, among which were included over 16,000 Serbs; the remaining 47,000 were members of military groups.

Although these deaths are not negligible, they are far less notable than 200,000 or 300,000 strictly Bosnian Muslim deaths cited by supposedly knowledgeable sources. The estimated deaths by the researchers for the ICTY have not received media circulation because they make difficult a case for genocide against the Serbs in general and a despised Milosevic in particular. Database searches of news stories revealed that the death tolls for genocide being reported in the U.S. media was a ratio of 76 to 2 in favor of the higher, obsolete and unrealistic numbers.

In a shocking and deplorable display of prejudiced predisposition Carla Del Ponte, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague (ITCY), during a guest appearance on the PBS Charlie Rose Show in June 2007, maintained that “more than 300,000” civilians had died as a result of the wars in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo,” although she knew that this was sheer fabrication.

A dissenting voice with a contrasting, albeit far less widely circulated view was Representative Dennis Kucinich, who through his privileged position in the U.S. Congress had access to information available only to members of the U.S. government: ”I read the latest reports concerning a recent Executive Order that hands the CIA a black bag in the Balkans for engineering a military coup in Serbia, for interrupting communications, for tampering with bank accounts, freezing assets abroad, and training the Kosovo Liberation (Muslim) Army (KLA) in terrorist tactics, such as how to blow up buildings.”

“How this is intended to help establish a democracy in Serbia or Kosovo hasn’t yet been explained. Nor has the failure to substantially disarm and demilitarize the KLA been explained. Nor has the reverse ethnic cleansing taking place in Kosovo by the KLA while NATO rules the provinces been explained.”

“But the extracurricular activity is consistent with NATO’s policy of the ends justifying the means, of might makes right, of collective guilt, of retribution upon a civilian population. Part of the story of this war is how the Administration and NATO used events and sentiment to suppress criticism of the war and shroud the multitude of violations of international law.”
(The Progressive, Vol 63, No.8, August 1999)

See also:

(viii) Disinformation & Misinformation.

The civil war in Yugoslavian was portrayed by the West, and accepted as such by a badly informed public receiving fictional, ideologically motivated reporting, as an ethno-religious conflict carried out by Serbs against the rest of the Yugoslav community. Carla Del Ponte, the Prosecutor of the Tribunal against Slobodan Milosevic summed it up: “The purpose of this joint criminal enterprise was the forcible and permanent removal of the majority of non-Serbs…” (IT-01-51-I), ICTY, November 22, 2001, para.5-9).

George Kenney, US State Department, Video, “Milosevic On Trial”: (In contrast to the public relations efforts of Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo) “the Serbs were not only not cooperative with the United States; the Serbs were singularly indifferent to the media. They really didn´t like the media.” This proved to be a fatal Serb error in twentieth century hostilities where public relations and media hype can be far more effective than military combat success – as the Viet Nam war amply demonstrated. Viet Nam was the first conflict waged and won by the U.S. media.

An intense propaganda campaign to sway American public opinion and journalists, humanitarian organizations, politicians and academics was created by professional American public relations firms such as Global Communications, Hill & Knowlton, Ruder Finn, and Waterman & Associates, which were contracted by the Muslim terrorists in Kosovo, the Bosnian Muslims and the Croatian Catholics.

A storyline that on occasion included distortions and falsehoods originated at the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon, and was fashioned and legitimized by the governments of the United States, the European Union, the Vatican, and the mainstream media; a formidable assembly of conspirators who became, in effect, co-belligerents in Yugoslavia´s civil war. Those challenging the accepted argument were considered apologists for Milosevic, confronting malicious scorn and virtually insurmountable media censorship.

James Harff, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the public relations company Global Communications in a 1993 interview with French journalist Jacques Merlino: “We have been working for the Republics of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as for the opposition in Kosovo. Throughout this period, we had many successes, giving us a formidable international image…Speed is vital…The first statement counts. The retractions have no effect…Our work is not to verify information. We are not equipped for that. Our work is to accelerate the circulation of information favorable to us, to aim at judiciously chosen targets. It is not our job to verify information …We are professionals. We had a job to do and we did it. We are not paid to be moral…And when the time comes to start a debate on all of this, we have a clear conscience. For, if you wish to prove that Serbs are in fact poor victims, go ahead, but you will be quite alone.”

“At the beginning of August 1992, “New York Newsday” came out with the affair of [Serb] concentration camps. We jumped at the opportunity immediately. We outwitted three big Jewish organizations – B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the American Jewish Congress. We suggested to them to publish an advertisement in the “New York Times” and to organize demonstrations outside the United Nations. That was a tremendous coup. When the Jewish organizations entered the game on the side of the [Muslim] Bosnians, we could promptly equate the Serbs with the Nazis in the public mind.”

“Nobody understood what was happening in Yugoslavia. The great majority of Americans were probably asking themselves in which African country Bosnia was situated. But by a single move we were able to present a simple story of good guys and bad guys, which would hereafter play itself. We won by targeting a Jewish audience. Almost immediately there was a clear change of language in the press, with the use of words with high emotional content, such as “ethnic cleansing”, “concentration camps,” etc., which evoked images of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers ofAuschwitz. The emotional charge was so powerful that nobody could go against it.”

“President Tudjman was too imprudent in his book, “Wastelands: Historical Truth.” A reading of his text could find him guilty of anti-Semitism. In Bosnia, the situation was no better: President Izetbegovic, in his book, “The Islamic Declaration,” strongly supported the creation of a fundamentalist Islamic state (in Bosnia). Moreover, the Croatian and Bosnian past was marked by a real and cruel anti-Semitism. Tens of thousands of Jews perished in Croatian camps. So there was every reason for intellectuals and Jewish organizations to be hostile towards the Croats and Bosnians. Our challenge was to reverse this attitude. And we succeeded masterfully.”

The Spectator, February 12, 1993: “All public relations firms working for foreign governments must register with the Justice Department. I found in documents obtained from the Justice Department that while Croatia was contracted to pay Ruder Finn $16,000 a month and Bosnia was to pay $12,000 in 1992, payments in some later months were as high as $200,000, and total payments per year were ultimately in the millions of dollars. Moreover, Ruder Finn was not the only P.R. firm employed in Bosnia. Hill and Knowlton was also contracted early in the war. Waterman & Associates was employed by Croatia. Financial backing came from countries such as Saudi Arabia, which alone funneled nearly $1 billion to the Sarajevo regime from 1993 to 1996, according to the Washington Post, 2 February 1996. Ruder Finn was also contracted by the non-existent “Republic of Kosovo” for $5,000 a month, according to a Justice Department document dated 1 November 1992.”

Il Manifesto, Jeannie Toschi Visconti: “In recent years a new method of waging war has evolved. It is cynical, amoral, and dangerous, because it is capable of mobilizing and influencing millions of people. It is called media war. The masters of this new type of warfare are experts in communications and visual images…The operators using this new methodology are called public relations agencies…The TV media and the press have responded with enthusiasm to the stimuli provided by these communications experts, often casting aside professional scruples in favor of sensationalism.”

Canada Free Press, August 30, 2004: “Was the “River Incident” in Yugoslavia, widely reported by the media, the work of a well-paid public relations firm? The media reported that at least two Serbs and a dog had chased four Albanian boys into the river Ibar in Mitrovica. According to the heart-catching story, three of the boys drowned, and only one made it to the safety of the other side. Revenge followed swiftly. Reprisal attacks on Serbs claimed 30 lives and wounded 600. United Nations representative Derek Chappell said the river event was “definitely not true,” he was promptly pulled by the UN and transferred to another job. “The UN said he was too frank in telling the truth,” said James Bissett, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia.”

“Says Marjaleena Repo of Ruder-Finn: “The PR firm was piling hoax upon hoax. These stories and photos of “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” (a la Hitler) in a civil war, in which Serbs are as guilty as sin and others are their innocent victims, are repeated ad nauseum by western reporters without the slightest evidence, and have provided the grounds for the public’s acceptance of the illegal and brutal war against the sovereign nation of Yugoslavia.”

There isn´t enough space available to identify all the authors, many of them Pulitzer Prize winners, who were complicit in this dishonorable and reprehensible assault on their ostensibly principled and respected profession with the shameful, counterfeit “information” they imposed on credulous readers. Let it suffice to publicly identify just a few who followed the standard narrative:

David Rieff in a vividly dramatic journalistic tract more consistent with a work of fiction than reportage, exaggerated in 1995: “The Serbs came, they slaughtered, they conquered, while the world looked on. As I write, the genocide is all but complete.”

Laura Silber and Allan Little: “Under Milosevic´s stewardship (Serbs were) the key secessionists (seeking) creation of a new, enlarged Serbian state encompassing as much territory of Yugoslavia as possible…his politics of ethnic intolerance provoke(d) the other nations of Yugoslavia, convincing them that it was impossible to stay in the Yugoslav federation and propelling them down the road to independence.”

Misha Glenny: “Without question it was Milosevic who had willfully allowed the genie out of the bottle, knowing that the consequences might be dramatic and even bloody.”

Noel Malcolm: “Two processes seemed fused into one: the gathering of power into Milosevic’s hands, and the gathering of the Serbs into a single political unit which could either dominate Yugoslavia or break it apart.”

Roy Gutman: “Serbia had harnessed the powerful military machine of the Yugoslav state to achieve the dream of its extreme nationalists: Greater Serbia.”

David Rieff: “even if (Croatia’s President) Tudjman had been an angel, Slobodan Milosevic would still have launched his war for Greater Serbia.”

Tim Judah: (Wars in) “Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo: four wars since 1991 and the result of these terrible conflicts, which began with the slogan ‘All Serbs in One State,’ is the cruelest irony.”

Florence Hartmann: “Long before the war began, Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and, following his example, Franjo Tudjman in Croatia, had turned their backs on the Yugoslav ideal of an ethnically mixed federal State and set about carving out their own ethnically homogeneous States. With Milosevic’s failure in 1991 to take control of all of Yugoslavia, the die was cast for war.”

Marlise Simons: (Milosevic) “rose and then clung to power by resurrecting old nationalist grudges and inciting dreams of a Greater Serbia…the prime engineer of wars that pitted his fellow Serbs against the Slovenes, the Croats, the Bosnians, the Albanians of Kosovo and ultimately the combined forces of the entire NATO alliance.”
Ed Vulliamy: “Once Milosevic had back-stabbed his way to power and had switched from Communism to Fascism, he and Mirjana set out to establish their dream of an ethnically pure Greater Serbia cleansed of Croats and ‘mongrel races’ such as Bosnia’s Muslims and Kosovo’s Albanians.”

George Kenney, U.S. Foreign Service officer: “At many different levels there´s an element of groupthink. Everyone is going along saying the same thing, believing the same thing, and they´re all wrong.” (Video: Milosevic On Trial).
Covert Action Quarterly, August 10, 1998, No 65: “In fact, in the case of the Yugoslav tragedy, the irony is that “alternative” or “left” activists and writers have frequently taken the lead in likening the Serbs, the people who most wanted to continue to live in multi-cultural Yugoslavia, to Nazi racists, and in calling for military intervention on behalf of ethnically defined secessionist movements…American journalists who repeated unconfirmed stories of Serbian atrocities could count on getting published, with a chance of a Pulitzer prize. Indeed, the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting was shared between the two authors of the most sensational “Serb atrocity stories” of the year: Roy Gutman of Newsday and John Burns of The New York Times. In both cases, the prize-winning articles were based on hearsay evidence of dubious credibility.”

“Gunman’s articles, mostly based on accounts by Muslim refugees in the Croatian capital, Zagreb, were collected in a book rather misleadingly entitled “A Witness to Genocide,” although in fact he had been a “witness” to nothing of the sort…Burns’ story was no more than an interview with a mentally deranged prisoner in a Sarajevo jail, who confessed to crimes some of which have been since proved never to have been committed.”.

“On the other hand, there was no market for stories by a journalist who discovered that reported Serbian “rape camps” did not exist (German TV reporter Martin Lettmayer), or who included information about Muslim or Croat crimes against Serbs (Belgian journalist Georges Berghezan for one). It became increasingly impossible to challenge the dominant interpretation in major media. Editors naturally prefer to keep the story simple: one villain, and as much blood as possible.”

“Still, the virtually universal acceptance of a one-sided view of Yugoslavia’s collapse cannot be attributed solely to political designs or to sensationalist manipulation of the news by major media. It also owes a great deal to the ideological uniformity prevailing among educated liberals who have become the consensual moral conscience in Northwestern Euro-American society since the end of the Cold War.”

(ix) The Breadline Massacre, The Market Massacres & Racak

Offensive in the Balkans, Yossef Bodansky, Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare for the US House of Representatives: “After blaming the Bosnian (Christian Orthodox) Serbs “beyond reasonable doubt” for the “mortar shell” which caused the Market Street carnage, the Clinton Administration then used this incident to justify the massive bombing campaign which was launched against the Bosnian Serbs virtually immediately. On August 29, President Clinton called the still-escalating bombing campaign “an appropriate response to the shelling of Sarajevo.” Initial targets were around Sarajevo, giving credence to the fig-leaf claim of retaliation for the “mortar shell.” But, within a few hours, bombing raids were taking place all over Bosnia-Herzegovina.” (Foreword)

1992 Breadline Massacre: “United Nations officials and senior Western military officers believe some of the worst killings in Sarajevo, including the massacre of at least 16 people in a bread queue, were carried out by the city’s mainly Muslim defenders – not (Christian Orthodox) Serb besiegers – as a propaganda ploy to win world sympathy and military intervention.”

“Classified reports to the UN force commander, General Satish Nambiar, concluded… that Bosnian forces loyal to (Muslim) President Alija Izetbegovic may have detonated a bomb. “We believe it was a command-detonated explosion, probably in a can,” a UN official said then. “The large impact which is there now is not necessarily similar or anywhere near as large as we came to expect with a mortar round landing on a paved surface.” (“Muslims ‘slaughter their own people’,” (London) The Independent, 8/22/92)

“Our people tell us there were a number of things that didn’t fit. The street had been blocked off just before the incident. Once the crowd was let in and had lined up, the media appeared but kept their distance. The attack took place, and the media were immediately on the scene.” (Major General Lewis MacKenzie, Peacekeeper: The Road to Sarajevo, Vancouver, BC, 1993, pages 193-4)

February 5, 1994 First “Market Massacre”: “French television reported last night that the United Nations investigation into the market-place bombing in Sarajevo two weeks ago had established beyond doubt that the mortar shell that killed 68 people was fired from inside Bosnian (Muslim) lines.” (“UN tracks source of fatal shell,” (London) The Times, 2/19/94)

“For the first time, a senior U.N. official has admitted the existence of a secret U.N. report that blames the Bosnian Moslems for the February 1994 massacre of Moslems at a Sarajevo market. “…After studying the crater left by the mortar shell and the distribution of shrapnel, the report concluded that the shell was fired from behind Moslem lines.”

“The report, however, was kept secret; the context of the wire story implies that U.S. Ambassador Albright may have been involved in its suppression.

August 28, 1995 Second “Market Massacre”: “British ammunition experts serving with the United Nations in Sarajevo have challenged key ‘evidence’ of the Serbian atrocity that triggered the devastating NATO bombing campaign which turned the tide of the Bosnian war.” The Britons’ analysis was confirmed by French analysts but their findings were “dismissed” by “a senior American officer” at U.N. headquarters in Sarajevo. (“Serbs ‘not guilty’ of massacre: Experts warned US that mortar was Bosnian,” (London) The Times, 10/1/95)

“(A) crucial U.N. report (stating Serb responsibility for) the market massacre is a classified secret, but four specialists — a Russian, a Canadian and two Americans — have raised serious doubts about its conclusion, suggesting instead that the mortar was fired not by the (Christian Orthodox) Serbs but by (Muslim) Bosnian government forces.” A Canadian officer “added that he and fellow Canadian officers in Bosnia were ‘convinced that the Muslim government dropped both the February 5, 1994, and the August 28, 1995, mortar shells on the Sarajevo markets. An unidentified U.S. official contends that the available evidence suggests either “the shell was fired at a very low trajectory, which means a range of a few hundred yards — therefore under (Sarajevo) (Muslim) government control” or “a mortar shell converted into a bomb was dropped from a nearby roof into the crowd (of Muslims).” (“Bosnia’s bombers,” The Nation, 10/2/95)

“French magazine editor Jean Daniel put the question directly to Prime Minister Edouard Balladur: “They (i.e., the Muslims) have committed this carnage on their own people?” I exclaimed in consternation. “Yes,” confirmed the Prime Minister without hesitation, “but at least they have forced NATO to intervene.” (“No more lies about Bosnia,” Le Nouvel Observateur, 8/31/95, translated in Chronicles Magazine, January 1997)

Another successful media enthused (especially in the American press), Muslim deception was the Racak incident of January 15, 1999. It was the culmination of (Muslim) KLA attacks provoking (Christian Orthodox) Serbian reprisals that had continued unceasingly throughout the winter of 1998–1999. General Klaus Nauman, Chairman of NATO Military Committee, in a statement to the North Atlantic Council affirmed that “the majority of (ceasefire) violations was caused by the KLA.”

The Racak incident was immediately, without any investigation, advantageously seized by the U.N. the U.S. and the E.C., and proclaimed to be a massacre of Muslim civilians by Serbs. American Ambassador William Walker held a press conference categorically condemning the Serbs for the massacre. Although later proven to be a KLA hoax (the dead were KLA combatants killed in action, not civilians) it formed the basis for one of the charges of war crimes against Milosevic.

The political slanting of NATO favoring the (Muslim) KLA was reported in the BBC Television program “Moral Combat: NATO at War.”

See also:

Previous post:

Next post: