« Demanding respect | Main | Banks and benefits »

June 17, 2008


John Meredith

I am certain that this is will receive a measured and thoughtful response on CiF.

John Meredith

I am certain that this is will receive a measured and thoughtful response on CiF.


I wasn't going to wade into the CiF morass, but I eventually took the plunge and was rewarded with this extraordinary comment from "realtheologik", reproduced here with (obviously) no need for further remarks:

The theocratic barbarism responsible for the attack on the Twin Towers was driven not by what America and its allies had done, but by what we represented. In the words of Osama bin Laden, illegitimately appropriating for himself the mantel of Islam, "every Muslim, the minute he can start differentiating, carries hate toward Americans, Jew, and Christians".

Shoddy. What Bin Laden actually said about 9/11 was:

"Security is an important pillar of human life. Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have proud souls, like the souls of the 19 people [killed while perpetrating the 11 September 2001 attacks], may God have mercy on them. We fought you because we are free and do not accept injustice. "


I have yet to find any decent terrorists out there who are attacking 'us' because we are free/rich/Christians/democratic, but rather because of the oppression of arabs and muslims around the world.


The sarky opening comments from (fanclub secretary ?)John Meredith about the CiF response are overdone. The prevailing tone of the responses so far is that of a refusal to rise to Oliver's bait; quite a few actually think our host is parodying himself here.And at least a couple of posters (Mujokan, NeoConned) have scored good hits to the exposed Blairite midriff on display in this piece.

Mr Creighton

Until Bush applies his tough talkin' rhetoric to the Saudis, with whom he is very cosy, I think most would conclude he has made the world a more dangerous place, because he has shown them they can harbour and train terrorists with impunity. You correctly note that militant Islam is "a reactionary, millenarian and atavistic force with whom accommodation is impossible as well as intensely undesirable." Iraq is a disastrous side-show almost entirely unrelated to the above, save for the fact it is now a breeding ground for same.

Nick Good

Just a pity the UK is not and has not, pulled its weight in Iraq. The US has over 130,000 troops deployed. Given the UK's population at 60 million versus the US's 300 million - a ratio of 5:1; all other things being equal. one would expect UK deployment to be around 26,000. In reality it's only 4,000.

But then the UK's defense spending is especially low, given that she is fighting 2 wars. Only about 2.4 % of GDP vs the US's 4%. As a percentage of GDP the UK hasn't seen levels like this since the 30s. Even during the early 80s and the John Nott defense cuts that preceded or even precipitated the Falklands war - UK defense spending was 4% of GDP.

Nick Good

Oh and the term 'militant Islam' sadly, is all too tautological.

Daniel Taghioff

Nick Good

"Just a pity the UK is not and has not, pulled its weight in Iraq. The US has over 130,000 troops deployed. Given the UK's population at 60 million versus the US's 300 million - a ratio of 5:1; all other things being equal. one would expect UK deployment to be around 26,000. In reality it's only 4,000."

This was never our war, it never had anything to do with British interests, there was never a threat to British security.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both Western Allies, are two of the biggest supporters of extreme groups like Al Quaida, yet we cosy up to them. Why? Because this was never about principle and always about US Geo-strategic interests.

Neo-Conservatism is plain wrong becuase it sees progress at the wrong scale. If you really want to promote democracy, rather then just the US national interest, then you push for international democracy, and for the Americans to bow to that.


"Just a pity the UK is not and has not, pulled its weight in Iraq."

You are assuming a linear scale rather than a logarithmic one.

Your grammar is a bit suspect as well.

Nick Good

Daniel wrote: Why? Because this was never about principle and always about US Geo-strategic interests. Actually, from a US perspective, it was pretty much "about" what it said on the distinctly bipartisan Tin


Why should the scale be logorithimic?


What is 'international democracy'?

Adam McNestrie

Like Pavlov’s dogs the people of Europe are salivating at the prospect of George W. Bush’s demise. They will be almost unanimously pleased to see him go. Or at least they think they will. Bush has been reviled as a dynastic mediocrity, an irresponsibly elevated cretin, a placeman of the oilmen and an idiot warrior-President. He has been hated richly and variously, but not pointlessly. Anti-Bush sentiment has filled all sorts of psychological and political needs in Britain and on the continent.

We all want to feel that we can look at the world and feel that we can make some sense of it. Bush and his litany of political sins provides us with the simplicity that we need. In taking him as the symbol of America we can construct America as a nation of imperialistic hick-Evangelicals controlled by shadowy corporate interests. In taking one part of America for the whole it becomes a simple, ugly ‘other’ against which leftist, secular Europe can self-approvingly define itself. This denigration of America is a way of healing the wound of envy caused by Europe’s cultural, economic and military eclipse by the US.

Moreover, the confounding of Bush and America allows Europe to rationalize its own diminished power as a sort of transcendence. The international projection of power ceases to be a desirable political end and comes to be seen instead as the reckless blundering of a politically immature hegemon no longer in control of its power, but controlled by it.

To read about Bush at greater length link to my blog, just who the hell are we?, at:

Norman McGreevy

The GREAT majority of the responses (566 and counting) to your piece in CIF are perfect examples of pearls before swine. Creepy and crazy. To paraphrase Tom Wolfe, reading them is like being slowly immersed in toxic waste.


If you have such contempt for the people you write for, why write for them at all (other than to give you a chance to have a good sneer)?


I love this piece, because of what it reveals about how low Bush has now sunk.

Kamm writes: "For all Bush's verbal infelicity, diplomatic brusqueness, negligence in planning for post-Saddam Iraq, and insouciance regarding standards of due process..."

He goes on: "Bush has overestimated the plasticity of the international order..."

And on: "Bush was wrong, in his 2002 state of the union address, to speak of an "axis of evil" connecting Saddam, Iran and North Korea"

And the coup de grace: Bush's policies are "well conceived if often badly executed". The same verdict could be given of international Communism, my dear chap.

And this is an article *defending* the president?

I love it! Even an apologium for this smallest of presidents, this lesser Bush, has to hedge its half-hearted praise around with criticism after withering criticism in order not to sound entirely barking. Mr Kamm is evidently an intelligent man and knows this. What beats me is why any intelligent men are still defending the worst president in a century at all.

Oliver Kamm

JC, I don't know where you get the idea from that I have contempt for the people I write for, nor will you find any instance of sneering in my remarks to that audience.

"Grinch", you don't appear to be a regular reader, but have cross-posted your comment from the CiF thread. I thus hope you like what you find here. One thing you will discover is that I do, in fact, have numerous criticisms of the Bush administration in very many policy areas. I wasn't asked by The Guardian to write a piece defending Bush: I was asked by The Guardian to write a piece giving my view of Bush. A conservative Republican, as opposed to a European liberal, would give a different assessment. I concentrated on the overriding issue that I believe Bush has got right, which is to treat Islamist terrorism in the right terms and broadly with the right policy response. I hope this will clear up your confusion about where I stand politically.

neil craig

No he didn't. The way to make the world safer is for all countries to know that their rights under international law mean something & they neither have to have WMDs to protect themselves nor will they find them useful for invading their neighbours.

Bush in Iraq has continued Clinton in Yugoslavia's tearing up of all the rules of law to engage in what is rightly, if tediously, described as illegal wars.

Irrespective of the rights & wrongs & there is a case that Bush had right on his side against the Iraqi dictator, & none that Clinton had going to war to assist the KLA in genocide against a democracy, destroying the rule of law is infinitely damaging to any community.

Oliver Kamm

Mr Craig, I've repeatedly told you that your unlettered and xenophobic pronouncements are unwelcome on this site. I'd be obliged if you would heed this broad hint.

Hasan Prishtina

Clinton had going to war to assist the KLA in genocide against a democracy

This 'democracy' of which you speak, would this be the one that imposed explicit racial discrimination on 2 million people in Kosova from 1989? That is, the one that used a well-trained, battle-hardened force of 30,000+ army, MUP and police force armed with tanks and all manner of materiel against 100,000 civilians left to freeze to death in the winter of 1998/99 while claiming they were 'clearing out' a few hundred KLA fighters armed with little more than AK47s and a few donkeys.

Even if you take the departure of every single Serb from June 1999 on as genocide, then the Yugoslav expulsion of over 1,000,000 Albanians dwarfs any expulsions by the KLA who were, themselves, far weaker in strength than NATO's forces. If we are talking about murder, again there is no comparison here, just as there is no comparison between the losses sustained by Serbs in the Krajina during Operation Storm and the mass slaughter of 'genetically inferior' Muslims by the JNA and VRS in Western Bosnia in the early nineties, still supported by the ultra-left.

By the way, there is a little difference between Serbs and Albanians leaving Kosova: the Albanians were expelled with nothing, their identity documents destroyed, thousands raped and killed; the Serbs left with everything they could carry, much of it belonging to their Albanian neighbours - I know because I was there.

Despite racist rule in Kosova, it's not as though Serbs in Serbia escaped the voracity of Milosevic's rule, either. This is the 'democracy' that shut down dozens of newspapers, magazines and radio stations, notably B92, Borba and Nezavisnost. We should also remember that the rump Yugoslavia was where journalists were more likely to be arrested, attacked or even killed than any other country in Europe during the 1990s.

Let's also remember that virtually no opposition politician of any standing survived the 1990s without being jailed at least once by the Milosevic regime. Or the government's murder of Ivan Stambolic and its attempt on the life of Vuk Draskovic. Oh, and it's very difficult to find any reliable source that thinks that any of the elections from 1992 to 1999 even approached anything free and fair.

This is also the regime that beggared its people by taking inflation to world-record levels, awarded 'privatized' industries to its gangster friends and achieved a massive concentration of the country's wealth in the hands of the extremely rich.

But don't despair, Mr Craig. Even after independence, there are still Serbs planning for the 'final solution to the Albanian question' along the lines you would prefer and your position is backed to the hilt here and here.

neil craig

1) They didn't practice a racist regime - Milosevic did disband the previous openly racist, fraudulent & violent Albanian rule of Kosovo but that is not the same thing.

2) There were never 1 million refugees from NATO bombing/KLA terrorism/Serbs who tried to persuade people to stay. That was merely an obvious NATO lie.

"any expulsions by the KLA who were, themselves, far weaker in strength than NATO's forces" - Precisely the genocide & ethnic cleansing of 350,000 people carried out under NATO rule by the "officially" disarmed KLA could only have been carried out with NATO approval.

3) All the elections under Milosevic were free & fair, at least by UK standards. He got elected because people didn't like the opposition just like here. The difference is that he got elected by a majority unlike every British leader since Chamberlain.

If you have indeed been there then you know perfectly well that our media reporting, while demonstrating the very highest standard of honesty to which the British media aspire, was a continuous stream of racist pro-Nazi lies intended to paint the KLA as "liberators" when they & our government knew perfectly well that they were a racist genocidal Nazi organisation engaged in genocide & responsible for the overwhelming majority of death (until NATO joined in with bombers).

Oliver Kamm

Did you read my comment, Mr Craig? I don't take kindly to having racist nutters abusing my hospitality.

neil craig

As someone who has not a single word to say against his KLA Nazi friends (with NATO help as Hasan kindly points out) dissecting hundreds of living humans, on purely racial grounds, to fill our hospital organ banks I would have thought you would have been used to it & happy.

I trust you will not try & dispute Carla del Ponte's admission that this happened & that, representing all the impartiality to be expected from a NATO funded "court" she decided not to prosecute this.


This comments thread appears to have descended into a 'whataboutery' farce,with dubious stats being extruded by both Neil Craig and Hasan Pristina.
While it is clear that our host has no time for 'racist nutters' he seems however to take a much softer line on KLA groupies like Hasan.
As whataboutery has become the main theme here, does Hasan have any stats on how many of the 60,000 Presevo Valley Albanians have been sent packing by evil racist Serbs in the last 9 years ? Or how many of their mosques have been trashed beyond repair in the same period ?
And of course the correct name for Presevo Valley is 'Eastern Kosova'.

Hasan Prishtina

Mr Craig: I was indeed there. I worked in the refugee camps at Blace, Stankovec, Cegrane, Novo Selo, Bojane and a fair few others. I saw exactly what happened during the expulsions and when Kosova was liberated by NATO. But, alas, in your world the propaganda of racial supremacism takes precedence over the testimony of an eye witness. Or to be more precise, over any evidence at all.

1) Throughout the period of "racist, fraudulent & violent Albanian rule," by which I presume you mean autonomy, the overwhelming majority (a great deal more than 90%) of those persecuted by the regime were Albanian. Nearly one person in three, from babies to centenarians, was detained by the police and MUP, who were...er, mostly Serb and Montenegrin. By far the largest proportion of political prisoners in Yugoslavia during the 1980s and 1990s was Albanian. When compared with the violent overthrow of the constitution and the imposition of the explicitly racist Programme for the Realisation of Peace, Freedom, Equality, Democracy and Prosperity, the system in the 1970s was bratstvo i jedinstvo and rectitude itself. Or as near as a Communist regime will ever get.

2) The evidence that the Yugoslav authorities, or anyone else for that matter tried to persuade the Albanians to stay is pretty threadbare. Not only can many people I know testify exactly how little time they were given to leave in the clothes in which they stood up, but there is also quite a large body of evidence at the Hague that says otherwise. Oh, and you'd also have to explain why Bishop Artemije of Rasca-Prizren, hardly known for his Albanian sympathies, wrote an open letter saying that "[NATO's] bombing gave the pretext to the expulsion of a great number of Albanians."

So not only are my two eyes the hapless victims of "an obvious NATO lie" but so are millions of citizens of Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, the dozens of countries that accepted refugees, the UNHCR, the World Food Programme, everyone in Serbia beyond the toadies of the SPS-JUL-SRS government and the Serbian Orthodox Church. The Church that Milosevic described as 'guardians of Serbdom.' I never knew NATO had so much power.

Precisely the genocide & ethnic cleansing of 350,000 people OK, let's do some maths. The last official Yugoslav census in 1981 counted 209,498 Serbs living in Kosova. The Serbian census of 1991 recorded 194,190 - an emigration rate smaller than that both of Serbs leaving Bosnia-Hercegovina and of Albanians leaving Kosova in the same period. By your estimates, we can confidently calculate that there are at most minus 150,000 Serbs in Kosova today.

It does seem strange that both the Kosova and Serbian governments estimate that there between 120,000 and 150,000 Serbs in Kosova today. Perhaps you can explain this mass immigration.

3) All the elections under Milosevic were free & fair, at least by UK standards.

Isn't it strange that the world's press stays so silent about the violent breakup of British opposition rallies, the arrest of British opposition leaders, the fact that British opposition parties get no TV or radio time, the thousands of dead people remaining and young people missing from British electoral rolls, or even the bulk ballot-stuffing? And when the Tories, LibDems or Nationalists do win control of anything, isn't it always the way that the courts just go ahead an annul the result? Or maybe this is more delusional poppycock.

a continuous stream of racist pro-Nazi lies Well, let's look at what real Nazis think: there are over 6,000 threads on Stormfront Srbija all in warm agreement with your sentiments. By contrast, there is no Stormfront Kosova. You could try here, here, here or here, though I appreciate you would find the last position a bit mealy-mouthed and bloodless. Still, at least they're still on your side.

And the KLA's contribution to Kosova's liberation was quite small. It was mostly NATO's doing, as you will find if you actually bothered to read the papers of the time instead of rehearsing propaganda too far to the right even for the Serbian government.

Hasan Prishtina

Mark, thank you for your definition of 'whataboutery.' I now know it means 'challenging the wild and baseless claims made by a rightly-thinking poster by using evidence.'

While we're on the subject of evidence, can you supply any for the assertion that I'm a "KLA groupie?" What I'm in favour of is ending the will to genocide and the view that people are not sub-human or genetically inferior because they happen not to be Serbian. You'll find such scandalous views are also shared by a lot of people in Serbia, but as they didn't vote for Milosevic or the SRS, I'm sure they'd be accorded "free and fair" treatment.

In the last nine years, you will know, perhaps to your regret, that the lickspittles of NATO have been in power in Belgrade. This may have something to do with the state of affairs in the Presevo valley. If those that Mr Craig suports are returned to power, we can expect a resumption of the demolition of sixteenth-century mosques and the bulldozing of Albanian cultural monuments so rudely interrupted by Clinton and his clique.

On the subject of whataboutery, here's the body parts story, suitably interpretated for Mr Craig. But investigators have examined del Ponte's allegations. Where was the factory? Why has no forensic proof come to light? (This is not opinion plucked out of the air, but the view of Judge Stefan Trechsel of the ICTY.) How did the people get there and how were they extracted without anyone noticing on a long, mountainous road full of traffic with few passing places? "Mixing up genres, juxtaposing crimes that have gone to trial, and these non-verified theories from witnesses she doesn't know anything about, even their identity, encourages confusion between rumour and fact, and risks encouraging all kinds of revisionists..." Florence Hartman, ICTY. Who could put it better than that?

neil craig

Well I am willing to accept you have been there. And we have your word that 90% of oppression under the autonomy regime was of Albanians.

The New york Times, not known for its support of Serbia says differently

""The [Albanian] nationalists have a two-point platform," according to Becir Hoti, an executive secretary of the Communist Party of Kosovo, "first to establish what they call an ethnically clean Albanian republic and then the merger with Albania to form a greater Albania. "

Mr. Hoti, an Albanian, expressed concern over political pressures that were forcing Serbs to leave Kosovo. "What is important now," he said, "is to establish a climate of security and create confidence."

The migration of Serbs is no ordinary problem because Kosovo is the heartland of Serbian history, culture and religion. Serbs have been in this region since the seventh century, long before they founded their own independent dynasty here in 1168.

57,000 Serbs Have Left Region

Some 57,000 Serbs have left Kosovo in the last decade, and the number increased considerably after the riots of March and April last year, according to Vukasin Jokanovic, another executive secretary of the Kosovo party.

Mr. Jokanovic, former president of the Commission on Migration set up after last year's disturbances, said the cause of Serbian migration was "essentially of a political nature."

The commission has given four basic reasons for the departures: social-economic, normal migration from this underdeveloped area, an increasingly adverse social-political climate and direct and indirect pressures.

Mr. Jokanovic, a Serb, called the pressures disturbing and said they included personal insults, damage to Serbian graves and the burning of hay, cutting down wood and other attacks on property to force Serbs to leave"
As did many other papers before the west started supporting Albanian genocide. Clearly both cannot be remotely true so while I accept what you say as representing the highest standard of honesty to which Albanian racist terrorists aspire I will go with the NYT et al.

2) When NATO bombed an Albanian refugee column killing over 300 of them they were returning to their homes having been persuaded by the Yugoslav authorities that what the KLA had told them about a Serb campaign of cleansing was a lie. It has been suggested that this strike happened because KLA ground observers called it in - of course this may be an insult to the KLA (even though they did murder large numbers of Albanian civilians) & it may have been entirely NATO's fault.

In any case a higher proportion of the Serbian than Albanian population fled Kosovo during the bombing which could not possibly be the case if the cause was Serbian cleansing rather than NATO bombing & KLA genocide.

"It does seem strange that both the Kosova and Serbian governments estimate that there between 120,000 and 150,000 Serbs in Kosova today. Perhaps you can explain this mass immigration."

Well I would explain it by the fact that there used to be 200,000 more whiten is why it is emigration. There also used to be another 159,000 more Gypsies, Jews, Macedonians, Vlachs, etc etc who, under NATO's benevolent rule, are no longer there.

3) The claim that Milosevic's elections were faked because opposition candidates were censored is the opposite of the truth. Not only were they free to speak papers 7 broadcasters were free to publish - indeed if anything the censorship was the other way since the west was funding not only the opposition parties but broadcasters - & they were the ones who deliberately bombed the Yugoslav TV (a war crime since it was a civilian target).

By comparison where is the free opposition press & media in Britain which has dared not to censor reporting not only of the genocide in Kosovo but also of the kidnapping of children to sell to brothels & of teenagers to sell their organs to our hospitals?

I have challenged Oliver to denounce or deny such obscenities - are you Hasan going to deny them. I note you do not deny Mark's barb that the Serbs have not treated Albanians in Presevo infinitely better than the KLA have treated their enemies. Indeed Belgrade still has 50,000 Albanians making it the only multiethnic capital remaining in former Yugoslavia.

Perhaps the fact that the British media, with Stalinesque unanimity, censored any mention of this, just as the censored any mention of the Nazi history of the Bosnian Moslem leader & several KLA leaders demonstrates exactly where the lack of a free press is most apparent.

I do not think any of the facts I have mentioned are "dubious" while I accept that what Hasan has ben saying, like what the BBC has said for the last 18 years, represents the absolute pinnacle of honesty to be expected from either entity.

Hasan Prishtina

Mr Craig, I will deal with your points as you make them.

1) Beqir Hoti was a Party functionary put in place by Belgrade who, like Riza Sapunxhiu and Veli Deva were put in charge of the arrest, jailing and, in many cases, murder of many of those who took part in the students' and workers' demonstrations of 1981. (The report to which you refer was written in 1982.) As with Azem Vllasi, once they had exhausted their usefulness, they were themselves dealt with by the authorities.

But since we're talking about reports, let's have a look at another one, this time written in Belgrade by the League of Communists of Serbia at the height of the 'genocidal' regime in Kosova. "The crisis in ethnic relations in Kosovo has worked out to the Church’s advantage. The Church is dramatizing and lamenting what it views as the ‘disintegration of Serbdom.’ But there is nothing like a disintegration of Serbdom; there is only a disintegration of statist and centralist politics." By the way, genocide usually involves killing people; how many Serbs were killed by Albanians during this period?

2) i) Fortunately, some of the survivors of this column made it out of Kosova. Ymer Qela: "We were just trying to escape Kosovo, and save our lives;" Haxhe Krasniqi: "They [the Serbian police] forced about 300 people into the house and 10 policemen, who obviously were using us as a shield;" Arsije Beqiri: "Serb police came on board and told us to get out of the bus right away...There was a line of tractors, on fire, with six or seven people still inside them...The Serb police shouted to us 'Where is the NATO now'...This is how they help you." The Serbs kept the debris alight for another whole day to extract the maximum propaganda value.

Everybody knows it was a mistaken NATO attack. However, I could not find then, nor have I met since, a single Kosovar Albanian or Turk (the Turks were expelled as well) who thought that it was anything other than a tragic accident and did not wish NATO well.

ii) Well I would explain it by the fact that there used to be 200,000 more whiten is why it is emigration.

Can you tell us when this was? There have not been 350,000 Serbs in Kosova at any time since ethnic origin was first recorded in the Yugoslav official census of 1921. The nearest I can get to your figure is 318,000, an estimate taken by the Austrian army in 1871, which coincides with Ottoman censuses which, of course, counted people by religion rather than ethnicity.

This of course was before the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of Albanians from the Nis and Vranje areas in 1878-1881, who fled to Kosova. Between 1881 and 1912, many Serbs from Kosova left for the relative prosperity of southern Serbia.

I am trying to wrack my brains for any time there have been 350,000 Serbs in Kosova. The only time I can think of is on 28 June 1989 at Gazimestan when Milosevic put the non-Serbs of the SFRJ on notice that he was going to impose his will on them by force.

iii) There also used to be another 159,000 more Gypsies, Jews, Macedonians, Vlachs, etc etc who, under NATO's benevolent rule, are no longer there.

Let's take the 1948 Yugoslav census: there are a total of 26,970 people who are not Albanian, Montengrin or Serbian. By 1971, the figure is 61,757. The 1991 Serbian census after what you term the "genocidal Albanian" regime of autonomy gives a figure of 124,029. The current Serbian estimate is 190,500. So on the Serbs' own figures, the "genocidal Albanians" have got rid of about minus 65,000.

3)i) I did not claim that "that Milosevic's elections were faked because opposition candidates were censored." That is just one of many reasons, which anyone who has read the comments above will know.

Well, it was big of Milosevic to allow seven outlets in 1999, something he didn't do in 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997. I know people who have a great deal more expertise than me in the Serbian media, and I've found out that these outlets had something in common: they couldn't be received outside the main cities, and print runs of papers such as Nasa Borba (before that too was taken over by the government) were often so small that the journalists would go out onto the Trg Republike and sell copies themselves. The only papers allowed large print runs and the only broadcast media with wide coverage was state-run, and gave 100% of favourable coverage to the regime.

Your comments about RTB are particularly interesting, as the regime and senior management knew that when it was to be targeted. You might like to read some of the things written by the families of the junior, and therefore expendable, employees ordered to remain in the building as sacrificial victims. Do you read Serbian?

i) where is the free opposition press & media in Britain which has dared not to censor reporting not only of the genocide in Kosovo but also of the kidnapping of children to sell to brothels & of teenagers to sell their organs to our hospitals?

I have seen pieces on the themes you describe on the BBC, in the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Spectator and the New Statesman. Put 'genocide,' 'serbs' and 'kosovo' into the Google for UK sites only and you get 60,700 entries. How exactly is this censorship?

ii) Indeed Belgrade still has 50,000 Albanians making it the only multiethnic capital remaining in former Yugoslavia.

According to the 2002 census, there are 1,492 Albanians in Belgrade. So where are the other 48,500? If what you say about Kosova is true, there is a case of genocide to answer.

89.9% of Belgrade's inhabitants are Serbs, a significantly higher proportion than the majority populations of Podgorica, Sarajevo or Skopje.

Who in the KLA has a Nazi history? The oldest senior figure associated with it is Adem Demaci who was 9 years old in 1945. Most of the KLA in exile were Marxists.

There is no "Stalinesque unanimity." The only reason you have not found these 'facts' as often as you would like is that they are not true. Good journalists check their facts, you know.


Perhaps I overreached myself in referring to you as a 'KLA groupie' earlier, perhaps not.Maybe you're actually Marko Attilla Hoare in drag ? I don't know. But what I do know is that you've worn a very effective pair of pro-Albanian blinkers while extruding the 30 odd paragraphs contributed here to date.
I particularly liked your attempt to ignore my comments about the relative tranquillity in the Serb governed Presevo Valley in the past decade with a bit of desperate projection about the 'NATO lickspittles' allegedly running things in Belgrade in the same period.Kostunica's performance in the past 6 months must have been a big disappointment to you.

The comments to this entry are closed.