Click to get your own widget

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

REPORTING OF PALESTINIAN DEATHS

You will have seen a fair bit of coverage on the BBC etc of the Israeli's killing of a Palestinian family on a beach. This is the alternate story.
Jerusalem—–June 11…….An Israel Defense Forces intelligence officer has confirmed that the explosion that killed eight Palestinians on Friday, was caused by a stockpile of Hamas explosives.

“Shortly after we stopped defensive firing at Hamas rocket launch pads which were deployed behind Palestinian human shields, members of Hamas scrambled to fire more rockets at our positions,” said Col. M. “We have eyes on every meter of Gaza, from the sky, from the ground and from the sea. One of their rocket tripods collapsed inadvertently setting off an explosion of a stockpile of Qassam rockets. The Palestinians killed their own children. And this was not the first time.”

Hamas terrorists fired rockets and mortar bombs from a crowded Gaza beach at southern Israel. Some of the rockets fell near the Israel city of Ashkelon. Some 17 rockets were fired between Saturday and Sunday morning. A man at a school in the Israel town of Sderot was wounded, Israel officials said.

While I do not assume that just because the Israeli government say something it must be true this story does ring more true the alternative - that Israel either deliberately or through incompetence shelled them.

What is disgraceful is that the BBC, ITN & press haven't reported this side of the story.

Not to do so is clearly dishonest & biased, even racist, reporting. There is no suggestion here that Hamas did this deliberately, as the Bosnian Nazis certainly deliberately shelled Sarajevo but surely this is only a matter of time if they can be certain the western media can be relied on to lie on their behalf.

Comments:
Try…

Beach deaths 'not Israel's fault' at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5074792.stm
 
Thanks for that. There are 2 points I would make. Firstly this is not the main BBC news but merely the online version where they tend to put news items they want to have reported but don't really want anybody to see (for example they have mentioned the Bilderburg Group there). Secondly, but more importantly, this news item is clearly slanted & makes no mention whatsoever of the suggestion that it was a Hamas rocket. Instead introducing the straw man argument of it being a mine, which they then dispose of, implying that it must have been the Israelis whatever they say.

Neat but hardly honest.
 
Well, the question of the accuracy of the original article is an issue. It quotes Israeli intelligence, perhaps not an unbiased source. See:

Revealed: the shrapnel evidence that points to Israel's guilt

at

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article994070.ece

which seems pretty plausible too
 
Well done, Neil, on pointing out the deeply ingrained bias of the Western media against Israel.

The bias against the Serbs was far more crude and brazenly (unashamedly) obvious as you so correctly pointed out with regards to the shelling of the Serbian parts of Sarajevo and adjoining Serbian suburbs of Sarajevo, like Ilijas, Grbavica, Ilidza, etc. - where the Izetbegovic Bosnian SDA Islamist Nazis' shelling and sniping of Serbian cvilians went UNREPORTED for THREE and a HALF YEARS!!

Of course what is this Western media bias against Israel all based on? A MASSIVE PACK OF LIES, that's what. Have a look at:

http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=1465
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov2.htm
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov3.htm

*********************************************************************************************************
Comments from a reader on the above articles on the IsraPundit site:


Ted,

this article by Dr. Gil-White that you have posted is superb. Every pro-Arab,pro-Islamist argument given by the Western media and many Western intellectuals and political leaders is completely demolished.

What argument is this? The oft-repeated argument that claims that the Palestinian Arabs
are “an oppressed people” and that supposedly, “…the Zionist Jews stole their land and have oppressed the Palestinians ever since”.

An honest Gentile scholar like Dr.Gil-White - an immensely great friend of the Jewish people and Israel - who knows the truth and can irrefutably prove it too with cold hard facts and rigorously documented,impeccable research(and is not afraid to do so) is what the Jewish people and Israel need so much right now.

The indisputable fact demonstrated by Dr. Gil-White, that the Zionist Jews did NOT steal the Palestinian Arabs’ land and that Jews have NOT been oppressing Palestinian Arabs ever since the creation of the state of Israel (more like the other way around) is a timely reminder of how the Western media repeats the same lies over and over thousands of times until these lies become their version of “the truth”.

All of the anti-Israeli,anti-Jewish/anti-Semitic lies propagated by the Western media, intellectuals and politicians: e.g., the justifications/reasons given for the Arabs’/Islamists’ terrorism against Israel and the West and the suicidal appeasement of the Arab-Islamists is thrown out the window.

Ted Belman’s decision to have Dr. Gil White’s vastly important work published on IsraPundit is to be deeply commended,being crucial at this moment in Israel’s history and is an absolutely essential service for not only all of our fellow Jews both living in and outside Israel, but also for the Gentile Western public that has been so thoroughly duped and misled by their media and political leaders.

WELL DONE, Ted, Dr.Gil-White and Israpundit!!

Shalom,

Nathan Pearlstein.

Comment by Nathan Pearlstein — June 14, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ted,

I almost forgot. To our Serbian friends of Israel reading Israpundit (I know there are quite a few of you out there!) PLEASE don’t get discouraged,good Serbian people! Dr. Gil-White, being dedicated to the truth, will also continue to defend your people from the easily disproven lies of the Islamist terrorists, Western media, intellectuals and politicians!

The Jewish and Serbian people have the same enemies today as they did sixty years ago: primarily Islamists and Nazis and their despicable (albeit politically correct and fashionable) lies spread by the Western mass media.

Keep visiting and contributing financially to Dr.Gil-White’s vastly important work at HIR in the defense of Israel and Jewry, everyone!!!

Shalom,

Nathan Pearlstein.

Comment by Nathan Pearlstein — June 14, 2006 @ 6:37 pm
 
I have looked for any eye witness reportage that there where rockets fired from that beach and cannot find any. Apart from the IDF claim, do you have any witness reportage stating that there were?

The facts seem clear. The IDF shelled a site a quarter of mile away, as is their want.
One shell was 'unaccounted' for and likely strayed.
One family was blown into little pieces.
An IDF report later tries to deny liability using the usual 'human shields' bit alongside the usual bumph about it being 'their own fault'
I ask you, if you took your precious family to the beach on one of the hottest days of the year and found militants firing missiles there, would you:
1. All sit around the missile launchers in full knowledge of the usual Israeli response and have a lovely picnic,
or would you:
2. clear off pretty quick?

Sensible Question. Do you really think Palestinians familes are crazy?
 
Ken
"The IDF shelled a site a quarter of mile away, as is their want"

Seriously. If they genuinely went in for deliberate mass shelling of civilians there would be as many palestinians left as Krajina Serbs. you may wish to reconsoder that claim.

By definition the only witnesses are going to be the IDF & Palestinians & I would not accept this Palestinian account < http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/June/15%20o/A%20Tragic%20Tale%20About%20A%20Picnic%20On%20A%20Beach%20In%20Gaza%20By%20Ali%20Al-Hail.htm > as entirely credible (its a 3 hankey job).

Anon again the Independent report you name makes absolutely no mention of the possibility of Palestinian shelling which is exactly my point about bias. That they extensively quote an "expert" from human rights watch, a pro-Nazi (at least in Yugoslavia) organisation whose word has been proven worthless confirms it.

It also appears that the shell fragments that Palestinian medicos removed from the bodies have unaccountably disappeard. Pity.
 
Ah well, even the Israelis are having second thoughts…

Doubts over Gaza deaths inquiry

Doubts have been raised about Israel's denial of military responsibility for the deaths of eight Palestinians relaxing on a Gaza beach last Friday.

Investigator Gen Meir Klifi had said it was unknown what caused the blast, but hinted it was a Palestinian-laid mine.

In a later interview he again ruled out Israeli shelling but said old Israeli munitions could have been to blame.


At http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5079464.stm
 
Oh, and re the Markale Market Massacre…

Bosnian Serbs Responsible for Markale Massacre, Expert Testifies

THE HAGUE - Berko Zecevic, an expert in designing ammunition who investigated the mortar shell that killed 68 and wounded 144 in Sarajevo's Markale Marketplace on February 5, 1994, concluded that the shell could only have come from the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) positions. His conclusion was presented in a report commissioned by the Office of the Prosecutor and introduced into evidence when he appeared in Court today…

Mr. Zecevic testified that, when he heard on television that authorities were unable to determine the source of the projectile, he offered his services as an expert to the judge investigating the incident. Working with two colleagues, their analysis revealed the direction from which the shell was fired and six possible locations from which it could have been fired (5 under VRS control and 1 under ABH (Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina) control). The site under ABH control was clearly visible to UNPROFOR personnel, who reported that no shell was fired from that position. The type of stabilizer fin (part of the projectile) found at the site was produced in one of two places, both under control of the VRS at the time. As a result of this and other technical measurements, Mr. Zecevic concluded the shell could only have come from one of the positions under VRS control.


At:
http://www.cij.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewReport&reportID=495&tribunalID=1&print=true
 
Dear Ken Waldron & anonymous,

Neil is 100% correct.

The point here is NOT who is to blame for any specific incident where civilians die (even though the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Israel are caused by the terrorist Islamist Arabs -erroneously referred to as "Palestinians" by the media to cloud the issue) but how the Western media deliberately skews its reporting so as to invariably preclude Islamist Arab terrorist responsibility for ANY INSTANCE where civilians die, and to lay the blame squarely at the Israelis regardless of the IDF's specific responsibility or not for a particular incident.

We saw this in the case of the market place shellings in Sarajevo where the Serbs were always invariably blamed for each incident even though subsequent UN reports revealed that the pro-Nazi Izetbegovic SDA fundamentalist Islamists were responsible in each and every case.

See "How the Economist attacks the Jews"
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/subtle.htm

For an analysis of how the media twists the facts about Israel and the Arabs, referring to the Islamist Arab terrorists as "Palestinians" see:

http://www.hirhome.com/israel/guide-israel.htm

For a thorough expose of how the media LIED through its teeth during the Yugoslav conflicts see:

http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/guide-yugo.htm
 
Hi Neil,

This may be regarded as 'off topic' but in reality it isn't as the same principles apply.I hope I don't appear pedantic but I just noticed this error regarding the accurate meaning of the word "Islamist" vs "Muslim" in the comments section of
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2006/04/20th-anniversary-of-chernobyl.html.

Bosnian Slavic businessman, Mr.Fikret Abdic, whilst being a Bosnian muslim (admittedly a moderate secular one)was unequivocally NOT an "Islamist":
an Islamist being a **radical muslim fundamentalist** whom misuses the religion of Islam as a **political tool** (something which Mr.Alija Izetbegovic was clearly guilty of as seen in his own writings and PUBLIC statements made in 1990 and much earlier in 1970).

Nevertheless, your response to Mr. Anonymous is absolutely 100% CORRECT since he accuses you of not having anything nice to say about ANY muslim which is clearly a blatant LIE.

No wonder, as you say, Mr. Anonymous disappeared up his own "jack plug" after this series of internet exchanges on Chernobyl, just as Mr. Anonymous also disappeared after 17 exchanges vis-a-vis the REAL Srebrenica massacre (vs the racist Islamist Nazi one propagated by the Western media - in particular the Guardian & ITN). See

http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2006/03/three-cheers-for-scottish-daily-mail.html

Rather much like Norman Fraser disappeared into the depths of the SLD party after it was also indisputably proved that you NEVER wrote letters to the press allegedly loudly proclaiming your Scottish Liberal Democrats membership as Mr. Fraser had earlier claimed in his "justification" for having you expelled.

No wonder these individuals all disappear after having their specious, spurious claims exposed to scrutiny: thus proving to have been exposed as liars they simply cut and run. Trouble is, the Guardian and ITN dont want their claims to be exposed to the same kind of scrutiny so simply IGNORE the scrutiny by pretending it doesn't exist.

Need proof? Have a look at the Guardian's photos of the alleged "scoop of the century" the alleged Bosnian "death camp" of Omarska. Where are the photos? THEY DON'T EXIST because Penny Marshall and her team NEVER visited any such "death camp". So the Guardian simply substituted ITN's published and broadcast pictures of the "accidentally"(?) FAKED Trnopolje refugee camp and then the Guardian simply LIED by calling it "Omarska".

Thanks to Emperor's Clothes, this scam was exposed and the Guardian had no choice but to change the name of the alleged Omarska "death camp" photo back to "Trnopolje" about 20 months later. (By the way,that's the supposed ITN Trnopolje "death camp" with broken down 5 foot tall CHICKEN WIRE with two strands of rusted old barbed wire on top with a SMILING Mr. Fikret Alic as the "emaciated Trnopolje death camp inmate" whom the Guardian & ITN failed to report suffered from a severe childhood disease - most likely Tuberculosis). See

http://emperors-clothes.com/villainy.htm

and

http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2006/03/three-cheers-for-scottish-daily-mail.html


Cheers,

Peter.
 
World News



The Times June 14, 2006


Israelis deny slaughter in Gaza
From Stephen Farrell in Gaza City and Ian MacKinnon



ISRAEL denied responsibility yesterday for the explosion on a Gaza beach last week that killed eight Palestinian holidaymakers, but failed to offer an alternative explanation for the tragedy.
Speaking shortly after another airstrike left 11 Palestinians dead, including two children, Amir Peretz, the Israeli Defence Minister, said: “The accumulating evidence proves that (Friday’s) incident was not due to Israeli forces.”



Flanked by Dan Halutz, the Chief of Staff and Major General Meir Kalifi, Mr Peretz was presenting the results of the official inquest into last Friday’s carnage on the beach.

After showing slides and detailing Israel’s version of the timings, Major General Kalifi, who led the investigation, said that the blast took place between 4.54pm and 4.57pm, a few minutes after Israeli artillery finished firing.

He also said that the size and shape of the blast crater, according to aerial photography, was not consistent with Israel’s 155mm artillery, and that shrapnel recovered from Palestinian victims in Israeli hospitals cleared Israel: “The probability that one Israeli shell hit at this point is close to nothing.”

One military official suggested that the most likely cause was a Hamas beach mine, planted to foil Israeli commandos.

However, sceptics noted that the Israeli team did not visit the site. They also pointed out that a mine would have had to remain intact for hours on a beach trampled by Palestinian holidaymakers, only to explode after Israel began shelling the area.

Numerous onlookers said that the fatal shell was the third in a series of about five, the first two landing just north of the picnic site and prompting the Ghalia family and other bathers to begin packing up.

The Times found two other identical fresh craters nearby, roughly where the witnesses indicated. After carrying out an independent inspection, Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst with Human Rights Watch, said yesterday that he was “quite certain” that the Israeli findings were wrong.

Mr Garlasco, a former Pentagon official and specialist in battle damage assessment, produced shrapnel that he recovered from the beach marked “55MM”.

“It is highly likely that it was an artillery-delivered 155mm shell,” he said. Mines tended to cause lower body injuries, whereas most of the victims suffered head and upper torso wounds, he added.

“We have to look at all the possibilities, but all the evidence points to a 155mm shell fired by the Israelis as what killed the Palestinians on the beach.”

-So now former Pentagon officials are also'Liars'.

Sorry son - I don't care who your sympathies lie with but the large blockage in your noddle makes your comments and thus your blog useless - Wipe-off time.
Back in a few years to see if you've grown up and developed some kind of nose for the truth. Cheerio.
 
Neil,

The crucial point is the one raised by YOU. Suppose that these
people were really killed by an Israeli attack. If this were true, then the Arabs should be displaying the evidence - including Mr. Garlasco of "Human Rights Watch": a George Soros organization notorious for LYING on behalf of Islamist terrorists both in ex-Yugoslavia AND Israel (the individual quoted here in The Times excerpt by Mr. Ken Waldron as "Mr. Garlasco, a former Pentagon official").

HRW is notoriously guilty of lying on behalf of the Islamist terrorists in both Israel and ex-Yugoslavia, despite the fact that HRW has a few American "Jews" as its board members leading some to erroneously believe that it is pro-Israel which HRW -through its public lying on behalf of the Islamists has clearly proven time and again to be the exact opposite.

Funny how Mr. Garlasco, the "former Pentagon official" quoted in The Times (whom apparently, according to Mr. Waldron, is somehow miraculously incapable of lying because he is a "former Pentagon official") is in Mr. Garlasco's own words, "quite certain" that the Israelis are guilty but then Mr. Garlasco produces absolutely ZERO evidence to PROVE it - but then this is typical of the "honesty" and credibility of the George Soros funded "Human Rights Watch" organization - a propaganda arm of the US elite [note I did NOT say Israel or Zionist elite].

See "The Circle of Deception:Mapping the Human Rights Crowd in the Balkans"
by Gilles d'Aymery
http://www.swans.com/library/art7/ga110.html

AND

"Our Masters of Propaganda: Washington pulls out the stops in its own propaganda war"
by Stephen Gowans

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/masterspropaganda.html

If the shell fragment evidence from the Arabs' bodies on the beach has disapperead, as Neil Craig has already stated above and which Mr. Garlasco naturally FAILED to produce in order to prove his case, then the first hypothesis should naturally be that the Arabs are lying. All other arguments fall beside this one.

And yet your case Neil, is stronger still, because the hypothesis that the Arabs
are lying should, for any rational being, be the first hypothesis, until proven incorrect, for two very important reasons:

1) The Arab leadership does NOT care about loss of Arab life. This hardly requires special documentation, because we all know that the Arab leadership is fond of strapping bombs around the waists of tender teenagers
so that they can go blow themselves up. But if a documentation of the
manner in which the Arab leadership preys on the unfortunate Arabs were
needed, you can send people here:
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/ihrally2.htm#1994

AND,

2) The Arab leadership has repeatedly lied through its nose about supposed
Israeli atrocities. For example, they lied during the First Intifada:
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/ihrally2.htm#1987

AND they lied about the supposed Jenin "massacre."
http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/ranta.htm

AND they lied about the Deir Yassin "massacre" in 1948 [just as the Bosnian Izetbegovic SDA Islamists lied massively about Srebrenica]
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/deir-yassin.htm

In kindergarten, we all learn a very basic rule, which I like to call "The Boy Who Cried Wolf Principle." How does this rule work? Suppose that you
know this person, whom we will call Daniel Lam, and suppose that Daniel Lam, in the
past has lied to you repeatedly, dramatically, and shamelessly about topic A.

The next time that Daniel Lam makes an assertion about topic A with the same
slant as assertions on topic A that have repeatedly been huge lies, you have to make one of two choices:

1) Make the provisional assumption that Daniel Lam is lying again (until proven
otherwise); or

2) Make the provisional assumption that Daniel Lam is, for the first time, telling the truth (until proven otherwise).

If you choose the second option you demonstrate that you are an imbecile who cannot reason (sort of like Daniel Lam above). This is what this guy Mr.Ken Waldron would have us do.


Cheers,


Pete.

PS: More on George Soros' HRW can be found here [this one lists some of the board members as American Jews in "a Zionist congregation". Reading carefully one discovers that this supposed Jewish "Zionist" board member advocates a DUAL-STATE solution for Israel (i.e. a state shared with the likes of Arab Islamist terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hizbollah!).
So much for the alleged "Zionism" and "pro-Israel" stand of this HRW board member.

George Soros - the international financier [convicted of insider trading criminal activities in Paris] himself is of Jewish extraction but totally anti-Israel and anti-Jewish in his actions and public statements.


The article is:

"Who is Behind Human Rights Watch?"
by Paul Treanor

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:OX0lfdcxaj0J:web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/HRW.html+%22Human+Rights+Watch%22+propaganda&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=5
 
Oh and by the way, Mr. Waldron, your Mr. Zivcevic "testimony" at the NATO-owned ICTY at The Hague is utterly DISCREDITED and thoroughly debunked by the secret United Nations reports at the highest levels - which of course were BLOCKED by Bill Clinton's people at the UN and thoroughly covered up by the "Coalition for International Justice",HRW, the Guardian, BBC, ITN,CNN, etc . [Clinton's people at the United Nations FORCED the publication of another UN report saying that it was "inconclusive" who was responsible for the massacre]

It also doesn't surprise me that you have quoted yet another US establishment elite and NATO propaganda arm of the NATO owned Hague ICTY, "the Coalition for International Justice": a US Washington elite government lobbying arm, who, just like their sister organization, Human Rights Watch, have also been proven to have lied again and again on behalf of the Izetbegovic Islamist SDA Nazis:

********************************************************************************************************************************************
Senior official admits to secret U.N. report on Sarajevo massacre

Deutsche Presse-Agentur, June 6, 1996

New York


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.
Yasushi Akashi, the Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and the former head of the U.N. mission in Bosnia, told the German Press Agency, DPA that the secret report is "no secret."

An international outcry over the massacre, in which 68 civilians perished at Markale marketplace, led directly to a toughening of Western policy towards the Serbs, who were widely blamed for the incident.

But there have been persistent rumours at the United Nations ever since that **a U.N. report clearly blamed the Moslems for firing on their own people** in order to create international sympathy and get the West to fight on their side against the Serbs.

Until Thursday, U.N. officials strongly denied the report existed, even after it was quoted in press reports.

Akashi told DPA that not only did the first report exist, but that some journalists already had a copy. He said the details were in a 1995 story by U.S. journalist David Binder, who quoted from the confidential report.

According to Binder, the report said U.N. peacekeepers were prevented by Moslem police from entering the site in the aftermath of the explosion. No doctors were allowed on the scene and the 197 victims were carried away to hospital within 25 minutes.

After studying the crater left by the mortar shell and the distribution of the shrapnel, **the report concluded that the shell was fired from behind Moslem lines**. U.N. monitors reported no Serbian shelling that day from points near the marketplace.

The official U.N. report that was **subsequently released** said the evidence as to who fired the shell was inconclusive, since it originated from an area where Moslem and Serb lines were very close. The two reports represented divergent views, but the United Nations chose to publish the neutral report **and keep the other secret**.

The incident led to a NATO ultimatum to Bosnian Serbs to withdraw their heavy weapons from around Sarajevo.

At the time, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said: "It's very hard to believe any country would do this to their own people, and therefore, although we do not exactly know what the facts are, it would seem to us that the Serbs are the ones that probably have a great deal of responsibility."
*********************************************************************************************************
United States Senate Republican Policy Committee

Larry E. Craig Chairman
Jade West, Staff Director

"Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base"

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm

Self-Inflicted Atrocities

Almost since the beginning of the Bosnian war in the spring of 1992, there have been persistent reports -- readily found in the European media but little reported in the United States -- that civilian deaths in Muslim-held Sarajevo attributed to the Bosnian Serb Army were in some cases actually inflicted by operatives of the Izetbegovic regime in an (ultimately successful) effort to secure American intervention on Sarajevo's behalf. These allegations include instances of sniping at civilians as well as three major explosions, attributed to Serbian mortar fire, that claimed the lives of dozens of people and, in each case, resulted in the international community's taking measures against the Muslims' Serb enemies. (The three explosions were: (1) the May 27, 1992, "breadline massacre," which was reported to have killed 16 people and which resulted in economic sanctions on the Bosnian Serbs and rump Yugoslavia; (2) the February 5, 1994, Markale "market massacre," killing 68 and resulting in selective NATO air strikes and an ultimatum to the Serbs to withdraw their heavy weapons from the area near Sarajevo; and (3) the August 28, 1995 "second market massacre," killing 37 and resulting in large-scale NATO air strikes, eventually leading to the Dayton agreement and the deployment of IFOR.) When she was asked about such allegations (with respect to the February 1994 explosion) then-U.N. Ambassador and current Secretary of State-designate Madeleine Albright, in a stunning non sequitur, said: "It's very hard to believe any country would do this to their own people, and therefore, although we do not exactly know what the facts are, it would seem to us that the Serbs are the ones that probably have a great deal of responsibility." ["Senior official admits to secret U.N. report on Sarajevo massacre," Deutsch Presse-Agentur, 6/6/96, emphasis added]

The fact that such a contention is difficult to believe does not mean it is not true. Not only did the incidents lead to the result desired by Sarajevo (Western action against the Bosnian Serbs), their staging by the Muslims would be entirely in keeping with the moral outlook of Islamic radicalism, which has long accepted the deaths of innocent (including Muslim) bystanders killed in terrorist actions. According to a noted analyst: "The dictum that the end justifies the means is adopted by all fundamentalist organizations in their strategies for achieving political power and imposing on society their own view of Islam. What is important in every action is its niy'yah, its motive. No means need be spared in the service of Islam as long as one takes action with a pure niy'yah." [Amir Taheri, Holy Terror, Bethesda, MD, 1987] With the evidence that the Sarajevo leadership does in fact have a fundamentalist outlook, it is unwarranted to dismiss cavalierly the possibility of Muslim responsibility. Among some of the reports:

Sniping: "French peacekeeping troops in the United Nations unit trying to curtail Bosnian Serb sniping at civilians in Sarajevo have concluded that until mid-June some gunfire also came from Government soldiers deliberately shooting at their own civilians. After what it called a 'definitive' investigation, a French marine unit that patrols against snipers said it traced sniper fire to a building normally occupied by Bosnian [i.e., Muslim] soldiers and other security forces. A senior French officer said, 'We find it almost impossible to believe, but we are sure that it is true.'" ["Investigation Concludes Bosnian Government Snipers Shot at Civilians," New York Times, 8/1/95]

The 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 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 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; Gen. MacKenzie, a Canadian, had been commander of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Sarajevo.]

The 1994 Markale "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. Ambasador Albright may have been involved in its suppression. [DPA, 6/6/96] For a fuller discussion of the conflicting claims, see "Anatomy of a massacre," Foreign Policy, 12/22/94, by David Binder; Binder, a veteran New York Times reporter in Yugoslavia, had access to the suppressed report. Bodansky categorically states that the bomb "was actually a special charge designed and built with help from HizbAllah ["Party of God," a Beirut-based pro-Iranian terror group] experts and then most likely dropped from a nearby rooftop onto the crowd of shoppers. Video cameras at the ready recorded this expertly-staged spectacle of gore, while dozens of corpses of Bosnian Muslim troops killed in action (exchanged the day before in a 'body swap' with the Serbs) were paraded in front of cameras to raise the casualty counts." [Offensive in the Balkans, page 62]

The 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 Serbs but by 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] government control,' or 'a mortar shell converted into a bomb was dropped from a nearby roof into the crowd.'" ["Bosnia's bombers," The Nation, 10/2/95]. At least some high-ranking French and perhaps other Western officials believed the Muslims responsible; after having received that account from government ministers and two generals, 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: A Magazine of American Culture, January 1997]

********************************************************************************************************************************************

MARKALE MARKET MASSACRE
http://www.aeronautics.ru/markale8.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In February 1994, for who knows which time, the mighty were playing their games with the small Balkan nations.

In Bosnia, American Administration continued its anti-Serbian activities that they started since the day they pushed old Yugoslavia off the cliff. By that time urgent internal problems inside NATO alliance had to be solved. The very question was: What should the role of NATO be now that Soviet Union is no more? It looked as if NATO should be dismantled. Peoples of the West demanded "Peace Dividend". In particular that was the demand of the American public which for last half a century was robed blind by the Administration for over trillion dollars. But the thief was not to release its victim.

At the same time, even though Bosnian Muslims were helped in any way possible by the NATO alliance masquerading as "neutral" UN troops, nothing seemed to be enough. The UN, under the US pressure, denied to the Serbs any advantage they had. It was denied to the Serbs to use their aviation through "deny flight" (and by proclaiming entire Bosnia for "no-fly zone"). Muslims (and Muslims only) were protected through formation of "Safe Havens". There they could train their soldiers and make ammunition and weaponry unimpeded. Atop of that "operation parachute" was equipping the Muslims of not just humanitarian aid. That, the Serbs could easily see in the content of the parachutes that strayed away into their territory. But none of this was to help Muslims to conquer entire Bosnia.

Much worse than all, Muslims had to wage a bloody war against Bosnian Croats at the same time. Finally, it was clear that Serbs and Croats, tired of war, were quickly approaching an agreement how to divide Bosnia... It was time to call Big Brother for help.



THE STAGE FOR MARKALE MASSACRE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Weak NATO:

Sun-Sentinel, Sunday, January 30, 1994 Editorial by Robert Fabricio (Quote:)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the very foundation of U.S. Defense strategy, is on brink of a breakup. Manfred Woerner, NATO's secretary general, has lost 30 pounds and developed chronic ulcers in the past year from the strain of trying to keep the alliance together. (End quote)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) Muslims of Bosnia in deep trouble

January 10, 1994: Franjo Tudjman, President of Croatia and Alija Izetbegovic, leader of the Bosnian Muslims meet in Bonn. The Muslim rejects Croatian plan.

January 17, 1994: At its session in Bjeljina the Assembly of Republika Srpska takes of the table the proposal to give Muslims 33.3% of Bosnia in the oncomming negotiations in Geneva. That because the Muslims already have rejected the offer.

January 18, 19, 1994: The Geneva negotiations resumed with all parties present. In separate talks the delegations of FR Yugoslavia and Croatia signed the Joint statement on the process of normalization of relations between the two countries. Respective diplomatic missions are to be opened in Zagreb and Belgrade.

At the same meeting Republika Srpska and the Croatian community of Herzeg-Bosna signed a joint statement on establishment of lasting peace and official relations between those two republics... Muslims sign nothing. And the war between Muslims and Croats is raging in the central Bosnia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Muslims get a hint

January 11, 1994: In a two days session the leaders of 16 NATO member countries meet in Brussels. In the part of the adopted final communique dealing with Bosnia, it is stated (Quote:)

On the basis of the authorization given by the UN Security Council and in accordance with the decisions made by NATO on 2 and 9 August 1993, we confirm our readiness to take air strikes in order to prevent strangulation of Sarajevo, safe zones and other endangerd areas in Bosnia-Herzegovina. (End quote)

Isn't it clear enough!? Three weeks later the Muslims stage the slaughter for CNN cameras... But before air strikes are to be legalized, NATO pushes U.N. to give it a green light...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"U.S. Endorses NATO Role In U.N. Plan for Bosnia" By John M. Goshko, Washington Post Staff Writer, Feb. 1, 1994

At a Jan. 11 meeting in Brussels, NATO leaders called on Boutros-Ghali to draw up plans for carrying out the operations and reiterated the threat, originally made last August, to use U.S. and other NATO combat aircraft if called on for help by the United Nations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...And, under pressure from those who actually pay for very existence of the U.N., the Secretary General caves in...

"U.N. CHIEF SEES NO REASON NOT TO USE FORCE IN BOSNIA" 2/1/94 1:17 PM by Evelyn Leopold UNITED NATIONS, Feb 1 (Reuter)

Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali signalled his preparedness Tuesday to use air power in Bosnia to maintain the credibility of U.N. and NATO threats. In a wide-ranging news conference, the U.N. chief also said he was strongly opposed to lifting the arms embargo for Bosnia, saying it would only prolong the conflict.

"There is no reason not to use force," he said in response to a query on airstrikes. "To the contrary, once we use force we will give credibility to the fact that we say we will use force.

"I believe it is important to use air force without any hesitation to impose certain decisions taken by the Security Council."

His statement left no room for doubt about his position on the use of air power in Bosnia after weeks of debate and recriminations among NATO allies, commanders in the field and the United Nations...

Boutros-Ghali said his special representative in the Balkans, Yasushi Akashi, had the right to call for air support to protect U.N. troops if commanders requested it. (End quote)

This is only FOUR days before the staged massacre!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NATO is not quite happy though...

"U.S. EMBRACES U.N. PLAN ON AIR STRIKES IN BOSNIA" By DOUGLAS JEHL, Times News Service, Jan 31, 1994

(Quote:) American officials had worried that Boutros-Ghali, who has insisted in the past that he alone had the authority to authorize the first use of outside force in Bosnia, would reserve to himself the right to call for the air attacks. They said his willingness to hand that power over to Yasushi Akashi, his representative in Zagreb, made the Western warning far more credible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARKET PLACE SLAUGHTER

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By February 1994, for anyone involved it was clear that Muslims keep staging massacres in order to gain simpathy of the Western media and to push the West to enter the conflict on their side.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Guardian, 7 February 1994, "You can't bomb people to the negotiating table" by Ian Black, diplomatic editor (Quote:) ...Belgium's General Francis Briquemont, the last UN commander of UN forces in Bosnia, summarized the position as he saw it in January (1994) in a pessimistic report to the civilian head of the UN in the former Yugoslavia, Yasushi Akashi.

The presence of the UN forces (UNPROFOR) in the "safe areas" established by the UN was being compromised and undermined, he wrote. "In Sarajevo the Bosnian Army provokes the Serbs on the daily basis. Since the middle of December, the Bosnian Army jumped another step by launching heavy infantry attacks from Sarajevo to the Serb-held suburbs of the city.

The Bosnian Army attacks the Serbs from a Safe Area, the Serbs retaliate, mainly on the confrontation line, and the Bosnian Presidency accuses UNPROFOR of not protecting them against Serb aggression and appeals for air strikes against the Serb gun positions." (End quote).

Sarajevo update

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An official report sent on July 14, 1992 by the then UNPROFOR commander in Sarajevo, Canadian general Lewis MacKenzie, to his superior, Indian general Satish Nambiar, and to ranking U.N. official Marrack Goulding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cryptofax Belgrade protect for New York

to: Nambiar, Belgrade, only info: Goulding, New York, only from: Unprofor, Sarajevo //comd/// most immediate date: 14 july 1992 number: Subject: Sarajevo update

1. The situation in Sarajevo continues to deteriorate in spite of the arrival of humanitarian aid and its distribution to previously blockaded locations. We are only keeping the airport open by accepting an almost unacceptable degree of risk. It could all fall apart very quickly.

2. UNPROFOR is being subjected to a smear campaign by the presidency side /Muslim/ which is denied by their leadership, including the president /Izetbegovic/, but is extremely effective. The attitude of the people on the presidency side is very negative, and there has been a number of incidents with our personnel being threatened in the performance of their duties. Very, very little appreciation has been expressed for the delivery of humanitarian aid (270 tonnes yesterday), or for the acts of bravery witnessed over the recent days, when peacekeepers placed their lives on the line for the local population. On the contrary, the locals are convinced by the media that we are bringing in help of all kinds for the Serbs.

3. My conversation yesterday has convinced me once and for all that the president (Izetbegovic) will only accept intervention or death for 'his' people as final solution (his words). There have been many opportunities for negotiations over the past few days, which he has rejected, including an overture by his SDA party, who wanted to meet with the Serbs. They had it all arranged, however the president ultimately decided that the meeting would not be approved until a complete cease-fire in BiH. My attempts to talk him into meeting with the other side at the working level, in order to sort out the details of demilitarization of Dobrinja, for example, were met by a stonewall. He indicated that if the international community was not prepared to intervene, than he was prepared to 'die twice', rather than deal with the 'aggressor'.

Indications in Sarajevo point to a desire by the presidency to perpetuate the current crisis. Most of the Serb guns are silent. However, they themselves are not entirely free from blame. The presidency on the other hand continues to initiate exchanges as they attempt to improve their tactical positions. This is extremely difficult, if not impossible to prove. However, some such tendency is certainly noticeable. Serbs could well be fooling us by backing off in Sarajevo, and going on the offensive elsewhere in bih. This might be the case, but i do not have 'eyes' in the rest of bih, so that i am not sure.

The shelling has reduced considerably in Sarajevo, but the presidency continues to perpetuate the myth that the city is being bombarded. This is not the case, however, it is the version of a man who expects international military help.

On the other hand, the Serbs want us to put unprofor personnel on each and every one of their positions, down to the lowest level. It is a tempting idea, but I have neither the resources, nor the mandate. I hasten to add that it would need to be accompanied by an enormous increase in confidence since such an undertaking would be extremely dangerous.

This situation could and probably will get worse. If intervention does not appear, and I personally consider such a move militarily impractical, the presidency (Muslims) will continue to target UNPROFOR, in their misguided frustration. They could target us, and try to make it look like the Serbs did it. Last night's deliberate attack in front of the ptt, could repeat, could have been fired from a presidency position. My greatest concern is for the unmo's at the heavy weapons concentrations on the presidency side. They are isolated and sitting on targets. their hosts are reflecting an anti-unprofor campaign, and the UNMO's are in a very precarious position. It is useless to deal with the presidency on the matter as they have given assurances over and over again that they ensure objective reporting. Nothing has changed.

The president must be forced to the table with Karadzic, a high profile mediator who stays around for an extended period of time. If this is impossible to arrange than there is no imminent solution to the crisis. If, as a member of the UN, Bosnia refuses to accept the UN's opinion that direct talks should take place, then Bosnia does not deserve the presence of a UN peacekeeping force. God knows they do not appreciate it, nor do they know how to take advantage of its presence.

We cannot afford to just wait and see what happens. Our personnel are slowly moving along the spectrum and have just arrived at the point of unacceptable risk. We are now being forced to kill people in order to protect our personnel and the humanitarian aircraft. One side appears to have decided to perpetuate the conflict and refuses to talk to the other side.

It is my opinion that the time has come for some tough decisions. however, they cannot be made here, for the obvious reasons. regards. (end of the report)

ANATOMY OF A MASSACRE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By David Binder, New York Times journalist Excerpts from 'Foreign Policy' #97, Winter 1994-95, pp.77-78

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[...]

"The international responses to the Markale massacre developed along a political fault line. Within hours of the explosion, the Clinton administration, while acknowledging there was no definitive culprit, pointed the finger of blame for the massacre at the Serbs. Amplifying the message were television broadcasters - especially on CNN - and newspaper editorial writers who flatly charged that the Bosnian Serbs had perpetratedthe massacre.

[...]

The suspicion of Muslim perpetrators was underscored in some minds by previous UNPROFOR reports, which I have seen, of incidents in which Muslim forces fired deliberately at Muslim civilians - with the aim of creating incidents that could be blamed on the Serbs. Yet other UNPROFOR reports in 1992 and 1993, which I have also seen, list incidents in which Muslim forces sought to provoke Serb reactions (which usually bocame overreactions) by firing directly at Serb positions during putative ceasefires. An indicator of the thinking in some U.N. quarters was the final massage of the departing head of UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Lieutenant General Francis Briquemont, on January 9, 1994: 'In Sarajevo, the (Muslim-led) BiH army provoke the BSA (Serbs) on a daily basis. This is very easy for us to notice as the BiH mortars are generally located near UNPROFOR units.'

[...]

According to the final UNPROFOR report of its Markale massacre investigations, a 120 mm mortar shell fell between 12:10p.m. and 12:15 p.m. into the market detonating upon hitting the asphalt. Such shells weigh about 26 pounds and carry 5 pounds of high explosives. The market area, 100 feet by 164 feet, is faced by seven to eight-story buildings on the north and east sides. Mortar bombs tend to spray shrapnel in a characteristic splash pattern in the direction of the launch. By establishing the outermost "wings" of a shrapnel splash, a baseline can be drawn. When that line is bisected by a perpendicular line drawn through the center of the impact, the direction of the launch can be determined. Additionally, if the hole made by the shell and the alignment of the tail fin are properly measured, the angle of descent can be determined.

A French UNPROFOR lieutenant accompanied by a warrant officer arrived five minutes after the detonation and stood watch at the marketplace until officers specialized in artillery - a French lieutenant and a sergeant major- arrived about 2. p.m. to analyze the crater. The specialists took acompass sighting based on "the shrapnel scrape pattern" to measure the direction of the projectile. They reported the mortar shell bearing to be "0620 mils," or a northerly direction. They also removed the shell's tailfin. At 3 p.m. a French captain, also assigned to examine the site, marked lines formed by the characteristic "wings" of the mortar fragment splash and reckoned the bearing to be 0800-1,000 mils, a far more easterly direction. With that direction in mind, he reckoned the descent angle as sharp - 1,400 mils, or about 79 degrees - to carry the shell over an adjacent 60-foot-tall building. Elis estimate would most likely have placed the weapon's launch site behind Muslim lines. four hours after the explosion, a Canadian major made a third, independent investigation and came to the conclusion paralleling that of the initial analysis of the French lieutenant, but differing considerably from the second analysis, by the French captain. The Canadian reported that the bearing was from the north-northeast and has a shallower angle of descent,closer to 70 degrees."

Too little, too late

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deutsche Presse Agentur interview with Yasushi Akashi of June 6, 1996

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Quote:...]

Akashi told DPA that not only did the first report exist, but that some journalists already had a copy. He said the details were in a 1995 story by U.S. journalists David Binder, who quoted from the confidential report.

According to Binder, the report said U.N. peacekeepers were prevented by Moslem police from entering the site in the aftermath of the explosion. No doctors were allowed on the scene and the 197 victims were carried away to hospital within 25 minutes. After studying the crater left by the mortar shell and the distribution of the shrapnel, the report concluded that the shell was fired from behind Moslem lines.

ARTICLES CORROBORATING MUSLIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR MARKALE SHELLING

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

London' Independent quotes Paul Beaver, editor of Jane's Defense Weekly February 9, 1994

"I find it difficult to contemplate that a 1200mm mortar could cause this number of casualties even in a confined space like market... I'm not aware of such a high number being killed by a single shell"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A British newsletter called "Intelligence Digest" in the March 11, 1994 issue:

Reports are continuing to persist that the Bosnian Serbs were not after all responsible for the devastating attack on a Sarajevo market, supposedly carried out by mortar, that sparked the latest round of international intervention in the Yugoslav civil war. One source of the persistent doubts is Dr. Sevket Karduman of New York, an American doctor of Turkish extraction who was in the emergency ward in Sarajevo where the dead and wounded were taken after the explosion. Dr. Karduman reported that 80 % of the injuries were from the waist down; that there were burns on legs and some cases of heavy bleeding from open fractures; and that there were hardly any foreign bodies or shrapnel wounds, most of which were internal.

[...]

Experts reviewing Dr. Karduman's evidence have concluded as follows:

1) No shell could have caused such devastation.

2) The nature of the inuries indicates that they were caused by a cone-shaped explosive device placed among the crates in the market.

3) The device contained a propelling charge (which accounts for the high percentage of internal injuries), a phosphorous bomb (which caused the burns), and some shell head of hand grenades.

4) The device was probably detonated by remote control.

5) It probably weighed no more than 15 kilograms.

6) Had a shell fallen of a table, as claimed by early news reports which were trying to explain the absence of a shell crater, the injuries would have been mainly to the upper part of the body.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Herald Tribune, Feb. 9, 1994 Jonathan Eyal, Director of studies at Britain's Royal Services

"The Bosnian Muslims will exploit the attacks. Paradoxically, air strikes will be a signal for their wider offensive which everyone is predicting for the spring."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Nation" on October 2, 1995.

Mr David Binder writes about the Markale 2 incident, explaining that the Muslims were responsible, but he also mentions the Feb. 5, 1994 -- Markale 1 -- massacre:

"The Canadian specialist, an officer with extensive service in Bosnia, said in a telephone interview. . . . .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 market.

A U.S. Administration official who may not be identified further says, "It is impossible to see the street level" of the marketplace "from the distance and location of the Serb gun positions," meaning the Serbs would have been 'shooting blind.'

Further, such a shot from such a distance would have had a high trajectory, he says; however, since 'there was no distinct whistle...a shell could not have fallen from a very great height'."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BBC MONITORING SERVICE Feb. 15, 1994 Source: Ostrankino Channel 1 TV, Moscow, in Russian 2200 GMT 13 Feb 94

SARAJEVO BLAST CAUSED BY MUSLIMS - SAYS OSTRANKINO TV COMENTATOR

"...fresh facts have became known, confirming the opinion that the investigators should be directed to the Muslim side.

A group of UN military experts has come to the conclusion that the mortar was located deep in the Muslim zone... the obvious exaggeration of the number of victims of the tragic incident is extremely suspicious. The head doctor of Sarajevo hospital said on Muslim radio that the number of killed totalled 34 persons, and not 68, as in the official version. Belgrade television this week several times showed pictures in which it could clearly be seen that, alongside human corpses, pseudo-corpses were also being loaded onto vehicles - models and dolls dressed in rags. Some pathologists claim that among the victims were people who had died several days before the tragedy.

The riddle of the explosions should be cleared up. For this purpose, Radovan Karadzic appealed for the holding of an international expert study. It is characteristic that the Muslims side immediately rejected this initiative. The command of the UN forces is also reserved in its attitude toward the holding of an inquiry. In the Bosnian Serb parliament it is being said that the action in the Sarajevo market place might have been mounted not only by the Muslims, but also by foreign special services.

Today, one thing is so far clear: this action could not, erther in a military or political sense, have been advantageous to the Serb side."

Lord David Owen: "Balkan Odyssey"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 260:

...General Rose was reportedly furious and went to the Bosnian Presidency to persuade President Izetbegovic and his military chief, General Delic, to attend. Those around General Rose have never made any secret of the fact that at that meeting he told the Bosnian Muslim leaders that he had just recieved technical information which pointed to the mortar bomb having come not from Serb-controlled areas but from a Muslim-controlled area. If this information were made available there would be a very different outcome in the NATO meeting, and if Izetbegovic tried to stall the UN negotiations in order to wait for the NATO meeting he, Rose, would feel obligated to release the preliminary evidence of the UN investigation. If the government negotiation team were not at Sarajevo airport on Wednesday 9 February then he would call a press conference.

Same page, below and - page 261, top:

In addition, a senior ballistic expert in Zagreb has studied a map of likely trajectory patterns produced by UN investigators in Sarajevo and believed the angle at which the mortar had hit the roof of the market stall indicated that the firing point was more likely to be 1,100 - 2,000 metres from the impact than 2,000-3,000 metres, and that this would tend to indicate that the mortar had been fired from a Bosnian army position. When this highly charged information reached the UN in New York on Tuesday everything was done to clamp down on the number of people who saw it so as to reduce the chance of press leak.

THE AFTREMATH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) The Serbs insist on thorough investigation

But to no avail.

Dr. Karadzic's letter to the U.N. :

REPUBLIC OF SRPSKA PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC SARAJEVO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To H.E. Boutros-Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General, U.N.

8th February 1994

Your Excellency,

You are of course aware of the tragic event that took place in the Sarajevo market place on Saturday. Ever since, there has been a torrent of world-wide accusations against the Serbs. The campaign has been unprecedented in its ferocity, the level of emotion involved, but most important, in its blindness, both to the wider circumstances of the incident in Sarajevo and to the circumstances of the incident itself.

As you know, UNPROFOR concluded that `the round could have been fired from either B&H or BSA positions'. Our own indications, from sources in Muslim-held Sarajevo, are that a shell reinforced with plastic explosive was hurled at the market place from a neighbouring building. In any event, although the culprit has not been identified, the world media and many politicians have declared the Serbs to be the perpetrators of the atrocity.

We have been here before. A sense of deja vu is overwhelming for those who are familiar with Muslim tactics in Sarajevo. In an effort to generate world sympathy for its aims, the Muslim leadership is not above sacrificing innocent civilians to attain those aims. The fundamental truth is that the Muslims are not interested in a peace settlement based on compromise. They want the whole of Sarajevo and the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Nothing else will do for them. Hence, Your Excellency, there has been no significant progress in the peace talks.

The day before yesterday we met the co-chairmen of the ICFY and agreed with them to start exploring the possibility of pacifying the Sarajevo district in advance of an overall peace settlement. But we absolutely insist that the matter of the market place massacre be cleared up first. We demand a thorough and impartial investigation, to be carried out by UNPROFOR, with experts from the Serbian amd Muslim sides taking part. Particular attention should be paid to ballistics and to pathological findings with regard to the victims. At stake here is the fate of a whole people as well as the fate of an entire region of Europe. I urge Your Excellency to exert your influence in order to allow the truth to emerge.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Radovan Karadzic President, Republic of Srpska

Dr. Karadzic's letter to Clinton and Yeltsin :

REPUBLIC OF SRPSKA PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC, SARAJEVO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8th February 1994

Dear President Clinton, Dear President Yeltsin,

I maintain with full responsibility that the Sarajevo market place incident constitutes a gross deception and not a very skillful one at that.

What took place was an explosion that killed and injured several people. Everything else was stage-managed. There was NO mortar attack. Here are the facts:

1. There were very few goods on offer in the market place and only a few stalls. Witnesses did not see three hundred people at the market immediately before the incident. They saw only a few. It would be quite illogical that in a small market place where few goods were being sold, there were as many as three hundred people. The Muslim side has refused an investigation which should be carried out by UN experts with the participation of Serbian and Muslim experts.

2. The whole deception would be demonstrated if conversations with the survivors and pathological findings regarding the cause and time of deaths were allowed. Namely, all the witnesses, including Muslim witnesses, declared in the Muslim media that this was `a strange shell, for the characteristic whistle of the shell could not be heard before the explosion'.

3. There is a trace of only one shell on the spot where it exploded, but it could not have landed from the suggested angle and it could not have been fired because there was no whistle before the explosion. The explosive device was in fact hurled down from a neighbouring building, a device reinforced with plastic explosive.

4. It is quite clear from TV material that corpses several hours old were being manipulated on the market place and these `corpses' even included plastic and textile human-size dummies.

Mr. President Clinton and Mr. President Yeltsin,

This kind of incident should be the subject of a thorough ballistic and pathological investigation, but this has been rejected by the Muslim side. What is at stake here is the fate of an entire people as well as the fate of peace in a region of Europe. We must not allow the international community, including the United States and Russia as the leading powers, to be deceived by one side in the conflict. That would be a great shame. We ask you to use all means at your disposal in order to arrive at the truth. This is too serious a matter for the decisions and policies of the great powers to be based on Muslim claims alone.

In the name of the Serbian people, which longs for a just peace, I extend to you the considerations of my highest regard.

Dr. Radovan Karadzic President, Republic of Srpska

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) NATO finds new reason to exist

The truth never mattered for the Machiavellians. NATO issues an ULTIMATUM to the Serbs.

PRESS RELEASE (94)15 9th February 1994

DECISIONS TAKEN AT THE MEETING OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL (NATO) ON 9TH FEBRUARY 1994

The COUNCIL:

(1) expresses its indignation at the indiscriminate attacks which have once again struck the people of Sarajevo in recent days;

(2) notes that the siege of Sarajevo is continuing, and that consequently the Bosnian Serbs bear the main responsibility for the tragic loss of civilian life that results from it;...

(10) decides that, ten days from 2400 GMT 10th February 1994, heavy weapons of any of the parties found within the Sarajevo exclusion zone, unless controlled by UNPROFOR, will, along with their direct and essential military support facilities, be subject to NATO air strikes which will be conducted in close coordination with the UN Secretary General and will be consistent with the North Atlantic Council's decisions of 2nd and 9th August 1993;...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release February 9, 1994 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT The Briefing Room 6:05 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Over the past year, our administration has been working to do what we could to help to end the tragic conflict in Bosnia and to ease the suffering it has caused. Like people everywhere, I was outraged by the brutal killing of innocent civilians in the Sarajevo market last Saturday. The events of the past year and the events of the past few days reenforce the believe that I have that more must be done to stop the shelling of Sarajevo and the murder of innocents.

Therefore, the United States, working with our allies, has developed a series of proposals to address the situation in Sarajevo and to reinvigorate the negotiations to bring the bloodshed and the aggression in Bosnia to an end. As a result, just now in Brussels, NATO has decided that if any Bosnian Serb heavy weapons are found within 20 kilometers of Sarajevo within 10 days -- or after 10 days -- or if there is any further shelling of Sarajevo, NATO commanders stand ready to conduct air strikes against Serb artillery positions. NATO would carry out such strikes in accord with procedures it agreed on last August...

NATO is now set to act. Anyone -- anyone -- shelling Sarajevo must recognize this fact and be prepared to deal with the consequences...

Our nation has clear interests at stake in this conflict. We have an interest in helping to prevent a broader conflict in Europe; that is most compelling. We have an interest in showing that NATO, history's greatest military alliance, remains a credible force for peace in post-Cold War Europe.

These interests do not justify unilateral American intervention in the crisis, but they do justify the involvement of America and the exercise of our leadership... I have directed the Secretary of State to have the United States play a more active role in the negotiations.

Q: Mr. President, did you talk to President Yeltsin today about this, and what is Russia's reaction to this ultimatum?

THE PRESIDENT: I did not talk to him today, although I tried to for a couple of hours and there were technical problems that we couldn't get through.

Q: Mr. President, can you tell us more about the diplomatic track? Do you have any new initiatives going into the Geneva meetings tomorrow? There have also been reports that you are going to pressure the Bosnian Muslims to back off some of their demands in order to make peace easier.

THE PRESIDENT: No -- well, that's not exactly true. First of all, I don't think we or anybody else can impose a peace. What the United States has agreed to do as a result of the new energy brought to this whole matter by our European allies is to talk again to the Bosnian Muslims -- as you know, I have been very sympathetic with their position, and have made no secret of it -- to ascertain what their legitimate bedrock requirements are, and to share with them as clearly and honestly as we can what we think both the political and the military situation is; and then, using that as a basis, to go back to do what we can to facilitate an end to this conflict and an agreement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Muslims get NATO as an ally

America gets overtly Bonian Islam fundamentalist as an ally. Muslims get NATO to be their aviation.

Already three weeks after the massacre, on Feb 27, 1994, NATO aviation downs four Serbian planes killing the pilots. To murder Serbs becomes a free game.

A month later, on April 10, 1994 (which is also the anniversary of formation of World War II Croat Nazi state), NATO starts air raids on the Serbian positions round Gorazde. (The Muslims started offensive from that "Safe Haven" and the Serbs tried to stop them).

But why did the slaughter had to be staged in front of the cameras?

Islam fundamentalists of Bosnia already had Western media as its own propaganda mouthpiece. That was nothing new. Massacre had to be staged for the cameras, again and again - as a propaganda ploy. As an excuse for racist hatred against whole (and at that ancient, Christian!) nation - the Serbs... And later on as an excuse for Western genocide and ethnic clensing of the Serbs from their ancestral lands.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"TEN DAYS OR ELSE: GIVE INTERVENTION A CHANCE" By WILLIAM SAFIRE, Feb. 9, 1994, N.Y. Times News Service

WASHINGTON Whenever the West pretended to be ready to bomb the Serbian artillery shelling Sarajevo, the Serbs would pretend to agree to stop the slaughter. Then we didn't bomb and they didn't stop.

This time had better be different. Public opinion is finally beginning to put political heat on feckless leaders...

We would take out aggressor bridges, supply depots, port facilities; if countrywide tactical air support does not help Bosnian forces turn the tide, smart bombs will find unmanned targets and out will go the lights in Belgrade...

Pictures can energize diplomats. Almost as stunning as the images of death in the marketplace was last week's photo of the visit to Sarajevo of Pakistan's prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, marching alongside Turkey's prime minister, Tansu Ciller.

These were not merely two women showing humanitarian concern. These were two elected leaders of large, powerful Muslim countries telling Christendom that their co-religionists in Bosnia would not be humiliated and annihilated without serious global consequences.

That helped the message get through: intervention now or disaster later.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"INSIDE WASHINGTON"(PBS)

With Host GORDON PETERSON

Joined by: Nina Totenberg(NPR), Charles Krauthammer(syndicated columnist) Carl Rowan( Chicago Sun Times ) Evan Thomas( Newsweek )

Broadcast weekend of February 12, 1994

MR. THOMAS: There has to be a TV camera there, though. We keep saying we're not influenced by TV images, but this wouldn't have happened if there hadn't been a CNN camera at that marketplace.

MR. PETERSON: Is it news if CNN isn't there?

MR. KRAUTHAMMER: Well, you know, the same week there was a news story which was the last item on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. Sixty-five thousand people were driven out into the desert in Sudan and they're going to die there. The same week, but there were no cameras so obviously it has no effect on us.

MARKALE MARKET MASSACRE (No. 2)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Western injustice is brutal and swift. They have centuries of experience in dealing with lower race people. With the Aborigines.

DAY 1: Open threats

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NBC TV "MEET THE PRESS" August 27, 1995

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPEAN AND CANADIAN AFFAIRS RICHARD HOLBROOKE AND FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER BRENT SCOWCROFT DISCUSS FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES

SPEAKERS LIST: BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS RICHARD HOLBROOKE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPEAN AND CANADIAN AFFAIRS BRENT SCOWCROFT, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER BOB NOVACK, COLUMNIST.

MCMANUS: Secretary Holbrooke, let me follow that last point. You said that you're not seeing very much movement from the Bosnian Serbs. What leverage do you have on them? What are you telling them that should move them closer to you?...

HOLBROOKE: Doyle, I'd rather not go into the diplomatic details. I think secret negotiations have a right to remain somewhat secret. But I do want to make one thing clear. If this peace initiative does not get moving -- dramatically moving -- in the next week or two, the consequences will be very adverse to the Serbian goals.

One way or another, NATO will be heavily involved, and the Serbs don't want that. NATO will either assist the U.N. withdrawal, or there will be more active NATO air over the skies. These are not things the Serbs should want...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The threat was repeated by all major media.

Subject: U.S. says Serbs face NATO action if talks fail Date: Sun, 27 Aug 95 16:20:02 PDT

SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina (Reuter) - U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke said Sunday the Bosnian Serbs faced tough NATO action unless there was swift progress toward a negotiated settlement of the Bosnian war....

"If this peace initiative does not get moving, dramatically moving in the next week or two, the consequences will be very adverse to the Serbian goals," Holbrooke, an assistant secretary of state, said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOSNIAN SERBS RISK NATO ATTACK, U.S. ASSERTS By STEVEN GREENHOUSE, N.Y. Times News Service, 8/27/95

WASHINGTON Administration officials said Sunday that unless there is quick and significant progress on an American peace plan for the Balkans, the Bosnian Serbs could face a new round of NATO air strikes that might be extended to a six-month bombing campaign intended to "level the playing field" while the Bosnian army receives weapons from abroad.

Appearing on the NBC News program "Meet the Press," Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration's chief negotiator on the Balkans, said, "If this peace initiative does not get moving dramatically moving in the next week or two, the consequences will be very adverse to the Serbian goals."

Administration officials acknowledged that the threats are clearly designed to ratchet up pressure on the Bosnian Serbs before peace talks resume in Europe this week. The talks were delayed by the deaths of three American diplomats in a road accident outside Sarajevo nine days ago.

DAY 2: Muslims slaughter civilians for the camera

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shell Hits Sarajevo Marketplace, Killing At Least 33 By LIAM McDOWALL Associated Press Writer, August 28, 1994

SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina (AP) _ A shell crashed into a crowd near the central marketplace in Sarajevo today, spewing shrapnel that killed at least 33 people and wounded dozens. The deadly attack jeopardized a new round of peace talks.

Pandemonium broke out and pools of blood were everywhere. Some people had legs and arms blown off.

Bosnian television showed at least 40 people lying in the marketplace, many dead. One old man lay with his head split open, his motorcycle still between his legs. Many of the dead were children, women or old people.

Some bodies fell apart as people tried to pick them up to load them into cars to take them to hospitals. Other cars, bodies hanging out of them, sped off to hospitals, horns blaring.

The Bosnian army said today's carnage was caused by a 120-mm mortar shell fired from Serb positions south of Sarajevo. The Serbs denied the shell was theirs and accused the Muslim-led government army of firing on its own people to scuttle peace talks...

DAY 3: Guilty!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: UN says it ``urgently'' considering strike at Serbs Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 5:10:06 PDT

SARAJEVO, Aug 29 (Reuter) - The United Nations said on Tuesday its military commanders were ``urgently'' considering a strike against Bosnian Serb forces, adding that the exposure of U.N. troops to Serb retalitation had been minimized.

After a U.N. statement blaming the Serbs for Monday's bloody shelling of Sarajevo, military spokesman lieutenant-colonel Chris Vernon said the risks of Serb retaliation to a NATO strike were now at their lowest since the Bosnia mission began because peacekeeperws had moved out of Serb areas...

In a statement firmly blaming Bosnian Serbs for Monday's shelling of Sarajevo which killed 37 people, the U.N. said investigators had ``concluded beyond all reasonable doubt'' that Serbs fired five 120 mm mortar rounds into the captial.

"The evidence is basically overwhelming," spokesman Alexander Ivanko told reporters in Sarajevo.

"There are a number of options. One of them is the use of (NATO) air power...both the force commander, General (Bernard) Janvier and the UNPROFOR commander, General (Rupert) Smith, are in urgent consultation as we speak," he added...

(End quote)

DAY 4: Bombing Christians for the benefit of Muslims

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NATO Planes, U.N. Troops Answer Sarajevo Massacre With Bombardment By SRECKO LATAL Associated Press Writer.

SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina (AP) _ Dozens of warplanes from NATO countries unleashed bombs on Serb targets around Sarajevo today in the biggest assault in the alliance's history. Bosnian and Western leaders hoped the open-ended strike would finally force the rebels to make peace...

The NATO assault, backed by the heavy guns of the U.N. rapid reaction force, was in retaliation for a Serb mortar attack on a Sarajevo market that killed 37 people Monday. NATO chief Willy Claes said the offensive would continue and possibly grow more severe until the Serbs are brought to heel.

More than 60 aircraft from several NATO countries flew from bases in Italy and the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt to carry out the attack, said Maj. Panagiotis Theodorakidis, a NATO spokesman in Naples, Italy...

Two waves of aircraft, including U.S. Navy F-18 and F-14 fighters, struck in the dead of night, beginning just after 2 a.m. (8 p.m. Tuesday EDT)....

Between the nighttime and daytime raids, the multinational rapid reaction force, positioned on Mount Igman, southwest of the city, fired more than 600 shells on Serb positions surrounding the Bosnian capital, Briere said.

The overnight raids left bright flashes of light tinging the sky. The spectacle awoke Sarajevans, and many were hanging out their windows to watch the assault on their Serb foes. ``I feel good, oh yes!'' declared 58-year-old Musrata Sabic, leaning from her balcony for a better view. ``I feel good, probably for the first time in this war. It looks like they are skinning them alive!''

With the international community expressing determination for the first time to strike the Serbs until they stop threatening the capital and other U.N. ``safe zones,'' the NATO campaign could mark the turning point in the 40-month-old Bosnian war.

It could force the Serbs to accept peace terms they have rejected. But if the Serbs react defiantly as they have to past NATO raids, the U.S.-sponsored peace mission could wither, leading to a pullout of U.N. troops and the flow of direct Western military aid to the Muslim-led Bosnian government.... (End quote)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, the "rebel" Serbs have to be punished for what Muslims have done. The "rebel" Serbs have the same guilt like Jews in Nazi Germany - they exist. They settled in Bosnia some 1,300 years ago. Thus they are occupiers, aggressors and rebels...

Western justice is ready to punish them for resisting Muslim government. The punishment is random murder of men, women, children."
 
Oh and by the way, Mr. Waldron, your Mr. Zivcevic "testimony" at the NATO-owned ICTY at The Hague is utterly DISCREDITED and thoroughly debunked by the secret United Nations reports at the highest levels - which of course were BLOCKED by Bill Clinton's people at the UN and thoroughly covered up by the "Coalition for International Justice",HRW, the Guardian, BBC, ITN,CNN, etc . [Clinton's people at the United Nations FORCED the publication of another UN report saying that it was "inconclusive" who was responsible for the massacre]

It also doesn't surprise me that you have quoted yet another US establishment elite and NATO propaganda arm of the NATO owned Hague ICTY, "the Coalition for International Justice": a US Washington elite government lobbying arm, who, just like their sister organization, Human Rights Watch, have also been proven to have lied again and again on behalf of the Izetbegovic Islamist SDA Nazis:

********************************************************************************************************************************************
Senior official admits to secret U.N. report on Sarajevo massacre

Deutsche Presse-Agentur, June 6, 1996

New York


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.
Yasushi Akashi, the Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and the former head of the U.N. mission in Bosnia, told the German Press Agency, DPA that the secret report is "no secret."

An international outcry over the massacre, in which 68 civilians perished at Markale marketplace, led directly to a toughening of Western policy towards the Serbs, who were widely blamed for the incident.

But there have been persistent rumours at the United Nations ever since that **a U.N. report clearly blamed the Moslems for firing on their own people** in order to create international sympathy and get the West to fight on their side against the Serbs.

Until Thursday, U.N. officials strongly denied the report existed, even after it was quoted in press reports.

Akashi told DPA that not only did the first report exist, but that some journalists already had a copy. He said the details were in a 1995 story by U.S. journalist David Binder, who quoted from the confidential report.

According to Binder, the report said U.N. peacekeepers were prevented by Moslem police from entering the site in the aftermath of the explosion. No doctors were allowed on the scene and the 197 victims were carried away to hospital within 25 minutes.

After studying the crater left by the mortar shell and the distribution of the shrapnel, **the report concluded that the shell was fired from behind Moslem lines**. U.N. monitors reported no Serbian shelling that day from points near the marketplace.

The official U.N. report that was **subsequently released** said the evidence as to who fired the shell was inconclusive, since it originated from an area where Moslem and Serb lines were very close. The two reports represented divergent views, but the United Nations chose to publish the neutral report **and keep the other secret**.

The incident led to a NATO ultimatum to Bosnian Serbs to withdraw their heavy weapons from around Sarajevo.

At the time, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said: "It's very hard to believe any country would do this to their own people, and therefore, although we do not exactly know what the facts are, it would seem to us that the Serbs are the ones that probably have a great deal of responsibility."
*********************************************************************************************************
United States Senate Republican Policy Committee

Larry E. Craig Chairman
Jade West, Staff Director

"Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic
 
Who Is to Blame for Grief on a Beach?

By Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post
Friday, June 16, 2006; Page A25

It was another one of those pictures that goes instantly around the world. A young Palestinian, wailing in wretched sorrow, grieving over her dead father, stepmother and five siblings who had been killed by an explosion on a Gaza beach. Then came the blame. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (he's the moderate) immediately called the killings an act of Israeli "genocide" and, to dramatize the crime, legally adopted the bereaved girl.

The sensational coverage and sensational charges raise the obvious question: Why would Israel deliberately shell a peaceful family on a beach?


The Israeli government, clumsy as ever, seemed to semi-apologize by expressing regret about the deaths, implying that perhaps they had been caused by an errant Israeli shell targeting a Palestinian rocket base. But then, a few days later, an army investigation concluded that it was not Israel's doing at all.

First, because the shrapnel taken from the victims (treated at Israeli hospitals -- some "genocide") were not the ordnance used in Israeli artillery. Second, because aerial photography revealed no crater that could have been caused by Israeli artillery. And, third, because Israel could account for five of the six shells it launched at the rocket base nearby, and the missing one had been launched at least five minutes before the one that killed the family.

An expert at a local chapter of a human rights group disputes the Israeli claims. Okay. Let's concede for the sake of argument that the question of whether it was an errant Israeli shell remains unresolved. But the obvious question not being asked is this: Who is to blame if Palestinians are setting up rocket launchers to attack Israel -- and placing them 400 yards from a beach crowded with Palestinian families on the Muslim Sabbath?

Answer: This is another example of the Palestinians' classic and cowardly human-shield tactic -- attacking innocent Israeli civilians while hiding behind innocent Palestinian civilians. For Palestinian terrorists -- and the Palestinian governments (both Fatah and Hamas) that allow them to operate unmolested -- it's a win-win: If their rockets aimed into Israeli towns kill innocent Jews, no one abroad notices and it's another success in the terrorist war against Israel. And if Israel's preventive and deterrent attacks on those rocket bases inadvertently kill Palestinian civilians, the iconic "Israeli massacre" picture makes the front page of the New York Times, and the Palestinians win the propaganda war.

But there is an even larger question not asked. Whether the rocket bases are near civilian beaches or in remote areas, why are the Gazans launching any rockets at Israel in the first place -- about 1,000 in the past year?

To get Israel to remove its settlers, end the occupation and let the Palestinians achieve dignity and independence? But Israel did exactly that in Gaza last year. It completely evacuated Gaza, dismantled all its military installations, removed its soldiers, destroyed all Israeli settlements and expelled all 7,000 Israeli settlers. Israel then declared the line that separates Israel from Gaza to be an international frontier. Gaza became the first independent Palestinian territory ever.

And what have the Palestinians done with this independence, this judenrein territory under the Palestinians' control? They have used their freedom to launch rockets at civilians in nearby Israeli towns.

Why? Because the Palestinians prefer victimhood to statehood. They have demonstrated that for 60 years, beginning with their rejection of the United Nations decision to establish a Palestinian state in 1947 because it would have also created a small Jewish state next door. They declared war instead.

Half a century later, at the Camp David summit with President Bill Clinton, Israel renewed the offer of a Palestinian state -- with its capital in Jerusalem, with not a single Jewish settler remaining in Palestine, and on a contiguous territory encompassing 95 percent of the West Bank (Israel making up the other 5 percent with pieces of Israel proper).

The Palestinian answer? War again -- Yasser Arafat's terror war, aka the second intifada, which killed a thousand Jews.

This embrace of victimhood, of martyrdom, of blood and suffering, is the Palestinian disease. They are offered an independent state. They are given all of Gaza. And they respond with rocket attacks into peaceful Israeli towns -- in pre-1967 Israel proper, mind you.

What can Israel do but try to take out those rocket bases and their crews? What would the United States do if rockets were raining into San Diego from across the border with Mexico?

Now look again at that terrible photograph and ask yourself: Who is responsible for the heart-rending grief of that poor Palestinian girl?

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061501794.html
 
Meanwhile, back on the beach…

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1089712.ece

The Independent examines the timings of the Israeli Intelligence report and concludes:

Hospital casts doubt on Israel's version of attack that killed seven Palestinians

‘…the written hospital admission registration book at Kamal Odwan hospital in Beit Lahiya, where the dead and some of the most seriously wounded victims of the explosion were taken, times the arrival of the first eight victims as being at 5.05pm, 10 minutes earlier than when the army said last week the first ambulances arrived at the scene.’

The Guardian at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1799835,00.html

Points out the effect of this:

The [Israeli] army concluded that the deadly explosion occurred between 4.57pm and 5.10pm based on surveillance of the beach by a drone that shows people relaxing until just before 5pm and the arrival of an ambulance at 5.15pm.

But hospital records, testimony from doctors and ambulance men and eyewitness accounts suggest that the military has the timing of the explosion wrong, and that it occurred while the army was still shelling the beach.


So it increasingly looks like Israel was indeed responsible for the incident and that no Palestinian conspiracy is required to explain it. By the same token, no-one in the British media appears to be saying that the shelling was deliberate. Is all the sound and fury above necessary to support the notion that the Israelis never make a mistake and that such mistakes should not be reported?
 
Im[plicit in this is the assumption that the Israeli army are intinsically less accurate in recording timing than Palestinian hospitals & presumably that Israeli institutions are not run with the general high standards of competence of Palestinian ones. While this is obviously the default position of the Guardian, Independent etc I would require some evidence that it is truthful.

Once again your sources have chosen to censor any suggestion that the muntions were Palestinian or even to ask what happened to the fragments your well run hospital removed from the bodies. This, yet again, proves my point.
 
"Sorry son - I don't care who your sympathies lie with but the large blockage in your noddle makes your comments and thus your blog useless - Wipe-off time.

Back in a few years to see if you've grown up and developed some kind of nose for the truth. Cheerio."
=========================================================================================================
Mr. Anonymous/Ken Waldron, (I may be wrong but I suspect you are one and the same person)

If you indeed did write that, then what happened to the above intention to stay away from this blog for several years since it is run by someone with a "blockage in their noddle" who doesn't "have a nose for the truth" and is therefore so "useless"?

"Sound and fury"?!

The whole point of Neil Craig's article post and my defense of it is that the British media FAILED to report on the possibility of Palestinian Arab involvement but instead intentionally implied Israeli guilt by default.

Since when is the Guardian and the Independent a NEUTRAL source of information in matters pertaining to the Middle East vis-a-vis Israel and the Arabs?


You place heavy weight on what the Palestinian Arabs say through the above British mouthpieces for their anti-Israeli propaganda but you totally dismiss what the Israelis say by calling their version of events a "Palestinian conspiracy".

I've heard of ridiculous "conspiracy theories" before but that one takes the cake.

For a reminder of the Guardian's credibility,go back to reading the Guardian's preposterous fantasies on the non-existant Omarska "death camp" with a photo of the Trnopolje "death camp" somehow "accidentally" substituted for it; a "death camp" surrounded by Chicken Wire on the wrong side of the "fence", which was somehow "accidentally"(?!)FAKED by ITN's cameramen.

Oh yes, and the Guardian's non-existant photos of the "death camp" of Omarska conveniently covered up by substituting a photo of the Chicken Wire Trnopolje "death camp" instead labelled as the non-existant "death camp" of Omarska which has no photos of it for some bizarre reason.

A very strange "accidental" journalistic "mistake" not rectified for 20 months: so we end up with a story about "death camp of Omarska" with no photos of it but a photo of "death camp of Trnopolje" instead. Still not corrected and no explanation even after 20 months have elapsed.

There's a red hot REAL conspiracy by the British press for you if there ever was one.

Same paper, different LIES.
============================================================================================================================================

"Lies the London Guardian told me... or, The Return of Villainy"

http://emperors-clothes.com/villainy.htm
 
Wrong Mr North, I am not Ken Waldron, or Daniel Lam or the Man in the Moon.

My point is that Mr Craig’s original posting alleged that this story was not reported in the British media when in fact it had been. Rather than check his facts he wanted to allege a conspiracy which is easily disproved.

As to the credibility of the Guardian, the weight of evidence that Omarska and Trnopolje existed and that non-Serbs were murdered there is overwhelming. There is a long list of books, articles and witness testimony to prove it. The Guardian is only one source among many. The articles published in ‘The Emperor’s Clothes’ are mendacious trash. Your capacity to ignore the bulk of the evidence and argue about a fence is puzzling but speaks more eloquently about the quality of your thought than I ever could.
 
Fair enough Norman (since you ddon't deny being he). We both accept that these allegations represent the very highest journalistic standards of the Guardian etc. We both accept that the photos the Guardian titled as showing Trinoplje & Omaraka camps represent their closest attempt at the truth. Our differenceis only that I believe that the fact that
the same photo was used for both camps cannot be truthful & you believe it is.

As a purveyor of "mendacious trash" you may be able to point to a single issue on which Emperor's Clothes have proveably been non-factual. Indeed if you are attempting to be remotely honest this time Mr Fraser, you must be able to.
 
"As to the credibility of the Guardian, the weight of evidence that Omarska and Trnopolje existed and that non-Serbs were murdered there is overwhelming. There is a long list of books, articles and witness testimony to prove it."


BALONEY, Mr. Norman Fraser or whomever you really are or may claim to be. You are LYING and you know it. Where is your evidence?
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY.

In logic it is only possible to prove a POSITIVE and logically impossible to prove a NEGATIVE. In other words, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim to provide EVIDENCE to prove his/her case.

It is not up to Mr. Neil Craig or me, or your perhaps your imaginary friend "the Man in the Moon" to PROVE that Trnopolje and Omarska were NOT "death camps" - it is up to YOU and your friends Ken Waldron,Daniel Lam,Christianne Amanpour,BBC,ITN, the Independent and the Islamist fundamentalist terrorist employment agency - known otherwise as the Guardian - to actually PROVE that Trnopolje and Omarska WERE indeed "death camps".

This, you and your silly dishonest whining friends above have UTTERLY FAILED to do.

All you and your friends have done is made an ASSERTION and expect it to be accepted at face value as being an indisputable proven fact with ZERO evidence provided by you to support it.

In other words you are an advertising man peddling your unproven wares to the world with absolutely ZERO evidence to support the validity/quality of the product you are advertising.

Merely telling us that it is "overwhelming" and that there is "a long list of articles and books" to support it does NOT constitute PROOF of its veracity.

Neither does unsubstantiated (mostly anonymous and discredited) "witness testimony" and hearsay constitute proof either, despite what your friends at the Guardian and the authors of the "long list of articles and books" which contain such unsubstantiated nonsense, say that it does.

The fact that there are so many "books and articles" peddling such discredited unsubstantiated nonsense speaks volumes about the innate corruption of the media and book publishers - all eager to make a quick buck/pound/euro out of it all - whose sole motto in life is "money makes the world go around".

In the same vein, you allege, again with ZERO evidence, that Emperor's Clothes is "mendacious trash". An ad hominem labelling attack and nothing more.

Again, you have provided absolutely ZERO evidence that Emperor's Clothes has LIED EVEN ONCE in this comments thread - just like you utterly failed to do in the "Three Cheers for the Scottish Daily Mail" comments thread on this blog - where you simply cut and ran after failing to provide any evidence to support your charges.

Your claim that Emperor's Clothes and I are merely "arguing about a fence" and that this is somehow "puzzling" is as dishonest and misleading a 'straw man' argument as there ever could be, and speaks volumes about your (abysmally low) standards of debating integrity much more than anything I or Mr. Neil Craig could say about it.


The fact that ALL of your sources have brazenly LIED that Omarska was supposedly a "death camp" and COVERED UP the real reasons why they could not explain why this so-called "scoop of the century" had ZERO photographic/video evidence to support the charge of "death camp" - cuasing your precious Guardian to substitute a photo of the refugee collection center, Trnopolje, in its place and label it "Omarska" also speaks volumes about the "credibility" of your sources.

Funny how NOBODY among your "long list of books and articles" - which incidentally you do not name - have ALL FAILED to produce even one photograph of this "death camp of Omarska".

We can see Penny Marshall of ITN and her Guardian friend Ed Vulliamy LYING to the public by substituting a photograph of the Trnopolje refugee collection center (why not? Since almost all of the Western public doesn't know what Omarska looked like, why not LIE by substituting a photo of Trnopolje in its place? IN FOR A PENNY, IN FOR A POUND.

We can see in the Emperor's Clothes film "Judgment", that Trnopolje, the so-called "death camp" where the so-called "inmates" are repeatedly telling the arrogant Penny Marshall and friends from ITN and the Guardian whilst they have postioned themselves in order to be standing from WITHIN a small old agricultural compound and transformer station surrounded by a small broken down CHICKEN WIRE fence less than five feet tall (which a five year old child could have knocked over), that in answer to Ms. Marshall's LEADING question:

"They treat you badly?", one of the muslim refugees - a man by the name of Mekmet - responds, :

"No,no,no,no.I think very,very kind".

Again Penny Marshall tries to get him to say that the refugees are being abused and to imply that Trnopolje is a "death camp".

"No,no,no.I think very safe. But I think, very hot."

Again Marshall keeps trying to get him to say that its a death/concentration camp:

"No,no,no. It's a refugee camp!"


The arrogant Ms.Marshall persists, pointing to the tall thin man in the black t-shirt standing next to Mekmet:

"This one looks awfully thin"

In response, the tall guy in the black t-shirt obviously insulted, scowls. It is as if he was saying to Marshall: "What an inslolent, rude, arrogant bitch you are!"

While Mekmet is saying "No,no,no,no,I think very,very kind" and "No,no,no..it's a refugee camp!" the famous emaciated looking Fikret Alic is standing behind him further back on Mekmet's right - Alic is holding his shirt in his hand(it was August so it was a boiling hot day).

We can then see Fikret Alic SMILING soon after another refugee in the background gestures him to come forward as if to say to the arrogant Penny Marshall: "You want thin? I'll give you thin!! Here take a look at him!!"

After this, we see all the refugees walking freely about outside - NOT fenced in - where they were the whole time - while it is clear from where Marshall and her ITN camera team and Ed Vulliamy of the Guardian had positioned themselves that they were INSIDE the small fenced in agricultural compound/transformer station area. We can even see the overgrown weeds and old wheelbarrows on the INSIDE of the fenced in area where Marshall and her team were standing - in order to shoot their footage from behind
the CHICKEN WIRE fence.


There's your so-called "death camp" for you, Mr. Anonymous/Mr. Fraser.


Finally, your claim below:

My point is that Mr Craig’s original posting alleged that this story was not reported in the British media when in fact it had been. Rather than check his facts he wanted to allege a conspiracy which is easily disproved."

I suggest to you that the British media did NOT report that there was very little evidence to actually PROVE the Israelis were guilty, or that Hamas terrorists had possibly been responsible WITH THE SAME WEIGHT as they had reported (and assumed) Israeli guilt automatically BY DEFAULT; instead of doing their honest journalistic duty of being impartial/unbiased/neutral.

This has nothing to do with any kind of "conspiracy" theory on Neil Craig's or my part but is his observation of the innate corruptness and dishonesty of the British media.
 
Neil,

my sincerest apologies: one of the previous comments about the bogus "testimony" by a certain Berko Zecevic, should have been directed to Mr.Norman Fraser/Mr."Anonymous" instead of Mr. Ken Waldron.

But since Mr. Waldron and Mr."Anonymous"/Mr. Norman Fraser appear to share virtually identical views on all these subjects,it probably doesn't make any difference considering the above.

All of them can't get their facts straight about the Israelis or the Serbs fighting Islamist Nazis and not "moderate secular democrats committed to a multi-ethnic society"[Guardian/ITN/BBC quote] since both can't seem to accept the abundant evidence that the late Izetbegovic's SDA party is still composed of radical Islamist fundamentalists - who glorify the foul deeds of the WW2 Bosnian Islamist Nazi SS divisions against Serbs,Roma and Jews - and who deliberately bombed their own people (as well as Serbian civilians) in ALL of the so-called "market place massacres"in order to lay the blame at the Serbs so they could get US/NATO military might to fight for them.

In 1992, Izetbegovic even had the brazen audacity to name his newly formed personal praetorian body-guards, the "Handzar", after the notorious WW2 Bosnian muslim Nazi SS division guilty of genocide against the Serbs, Jews and Roma peoples in Bosnia.

For proof, see the MAINSTREAM Bosnian muslim Sarajevo magazine "Svijet", glorifying this despicable Nazi SS division in an article in 1997 - well after the Bosnian war ended - with full color photographs accompanying the text praising this Islamist Nazi SS division!

http://www.tenc.net/bosnia/svijet.htm


Similar praise to the Handzar SS division was given in 1991 almost a full year BEFORE the outbreak of war in Bosnia in the Bosnian muslim magazine "Vox" - where we see a color drawing of the SS Handzar troops stepping on the decapitated heads of Serbs with the text caption reading: "Handjar Division is Ready!! (oh these Bosnian Islamists are just so "committed" to a "tolerant multi-ethnic Western style democracy"!).
See

"Srebrenica: The Untold Story" at

http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/051.shtml

Mr. Waldron, Nr. Norman Fraser/Mr. "Anonymous" also can't accept the fact that the Arab leadership in the Middle East couldn't give a hoot about the lives of ordinary Arab civilians (whether or not they were killed by the IDF or the Islamist terrorists themselves)just like Izetbegovic couldn't give a hoot about the lives of ordinary Bosnian muslim and Serbian civilians in Sarajevo (as numerously documented by several UN commanding officers on the scene at the time - see previous comment posts).

But then what else would you expect from the radical Islamists in the Balkans and Israel - people whose ideology/political philosophy stem from brazen, unashamed WW2 Nazis like Yasser Arafat's political mentor in the PLO/Fatah movement,the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem: Haj Amin Al-Husseini,a personal friend of Adolf Hitler and the chief organizer behind Heinrich Himmler's creation of the infamous Bosnian muslim Nazi SS divisions: "Handzar" and "Kama" (who along with the Croatian Ustasha murdererd 750,000 to 1.2 million Serbs, Jews and Roma peoples from 1941 to 1945).

See
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/amin_en.html
 
As usual Mr North, much bluster and few facts. 'Moderation' permitting I continue this dialogue of the deaf under the 21 June posting on Trnopolje and Omarska.
 
Ahhh, Mr. Fraser!

Changed your mind have we, about cutting and running like you did in the "20th Anniversary of Chernobyl Update" as well as the "Three Cheers for the Scottish Daily Mail" thread on this blog?!
Got tired of making up stories about Mr. Neil Craig and being exposed for the liar that you are on this blog and felt compelled to answer?
********************************************************************************************************************************************
Anonymous said...

As usual Mr North, much bluster and few facts. 'Moderation' permitting I continue this dialogue of the deaf under the 21 June posting on Trnopolje and Omarska
********************************************************************************************************************************************
On the contrary, Mr. Fraser - in your case its a hell of a lot of bluster and HOT AIR (nice way of saying LIES) with ZERO facts from your end (e.g., still waiting for you to provide even one SHRED of evidence to PROVE that Emperor's Clothes has LIED even ONCE - unlike your Guardian pro-Islamist Nazi employment agency friends who have repeatedly lied in Goebbels fashion tens of thousands of times over the last 16 years).

I think the only person whom has repeatedly proven himself totally STONE DEAF and DUMB to the evidence and facts(when I write "DUMB",I don't mean mute, by the way) is clearly YOU, Mr. Fraser.

You have repeatedly proven yourself STONE DEAF to easily proven FACTS and very,very DUMB as far as logic and providing ANY kind or real evidence to prove your case is concerned.

Cheers! (And have a nice day ,Mr. Norman Fraser!)


Peter Robert North.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.