Click to get your own widget

Thursday, June 29, 2006


This is part of a discussion on the blog of US economist Brad de Long . He has on a couple of occasions been severely critical of Noam Chomsky's fairly mild (by my standards) criticsm of the US government's criminality in Yugoslavia. Being somewhat annoyed about this I posted in fairly strong terms. The surprising thing is that in a blog which often gets up to 100 comments from often very well informed & intellectual Americans nobody has felt able to seriously dispute my evidence that their former President is indeed guilty of genocide. Since this thread is about to go into archive on his blog I decided to paste Brad's article, comments from the writer of the article referred, my comments & responses to it.

Michael Berube Is Shrill
No, he is not shrill because of the Bush administration--not right now. He is shrill because Noam Chomsky says that those primarily responsible for the Srebenica Massacre are... the Dutch government:

Michael Berube: My friend Danny Postel, senior editor of OpenDemocracy, calls my attention to this recent interview with Noam Chomsky in the New Statesman. Specifically, to this passage:

"Remember, the Milosevic Tribunal began with Kosovo, right in the middle of the US-British bombing in late '99 . . . Now if you take a look at that indictment, with a single exception, every charge was for crimes after the bombing.

"There's a reason for that. The bombing was undertaken with the anticipation explicit [that] it was going to lead to large-scale atrocities in response. As it did. Now there were terrible atrocities, but they were after the bombings. In fact, if you look at the British parliamentary inquiry, they actually reached the astonishing conclusion that, until January 1999, most of the crimes committed in Kosovo were attributed to the KLA guerrillas.

"So later they added charges [against Milosevic] about the Balkans, but it wasn't going to be an easy case to make. The worst crime was Srebrenica but, unfortunately for the International Tribunal, there was an intensive investigation by the Dutch government, which was primarily responsible--their troops were there--and what they concluded was that not only did Milosevic not order it, but he had no knowledge of it. And he was horrified when he heard about it. So it was going to be pretty hard to make that charge stick."

OK, this kind of thing really has to stop. Now.

For three reasons: one, because it is a pack of lies, and as a wise man once said, the job of the intellectual is to tell the truth and expose lies.

Two, because the defend-Milosevic crew has been getting more and more outlandish and bizarre every year, and, like unto loony LaRouchies, they have sometimes been discovered messing with legitimate progressive organizations. If real progressions don't speak out on this, it won't be long before we'll be hearing that poor Slobodan cried bitter tears of sorrow when he heard about the massacre of Srbrenica, even though it never really happened in the first place. And, insult upon injury, we'll be hearing about this from so-called "leftists."...

Posted by Brad DeLong on June 22, 2006 at 08:02 AM in Moral Responsibility | Permalink

You know, when I first read the interview, I read this just as Charles and Tom do: Chomsky, I thought, was claiming that the Dutch were responsible for the investigation, not for the massacre. Then I recalled that there was, indeed, a report in 2002 that blamed the Dutch government for failing to prevent the massacre:

It was quite a controversial report, with regard to both the Dutch peacekeepers and the alleged innocence of Milosevic. But it seems quite clear to me that Chomsky is citing this report with full approval, not only to clear Milosevic's name but also to insist that there were no Serbian atrocities prior to the NATO bombing.

Posted by: Michael Berube | June 22, 2006 at 09:47 AM

Michael McIntyre writes:

"One of the sources Michael [Berube] links addresses this issue. Here's what it has to say:

'Whether Milosevic knew that his police were sent to participate in the attack on the town is unclear. If he did, then the document will play a key role in proving genocide charges. If he didn't, it will still provide important evidence of crimes against humanity. For the former, intent has to be established; for the latter responsibility is enough.'"

That's not all it has to say, though. I can't imagine why Mr. McIntyre decided to quote the fifth paragraph and ignore the first three:

"Slobodan Milosevic had a hand in the Srebrenica massacre in July 1995, Europe's worst atrocity since World War II, according to a copy of an official Bosnian Serb document which IWPR has obtained. Up to now, it had been widely assumed that by the summer of 1995 Serbia had cut off ties with the Bosnian Serb leadership and that the former's forces had not taken part in the Srebrenica operation.

"The document, dated July 10, 1995, is an order from Bosnian Serb minister of interior Tomislav Kovac instructing his subordinates to move a unit that included members of Serbia's interior ministry police, MUP, which were fighting around Sarajevo, to eastern Bosnia to participate in the Srebrenica operation.

"Under the Serbian constitution, the president of Serbia, a post that Milosevic held at the time, is directly responsible for the actions taken by his republic's police force."

Posted by: Michael Berube | June 22, 2006 at 01:09 PM

"OK, this kind of thing really has to stop. Now."

Sounds more like somebody interested in stopping the constant uncovery of facts than one interested in the truth. One can see why.

FACT The initial genocide in Srebrenica was the genocide of thousands of Serbian villagers by the Molsem militia. Some of it carried out while the Dutch troops were present.

FACT 7,000 of what was initially claimed to be a Moslem garrison of 7,500 reached Moslem lines & the Moslem leaders pretended they hadn't (the garrison has officially been incresed to 15,000 post mortem).

FACT The Moslem President was quite open that he had been told that a massacre of at least 5,000 soldiers at Srebrenica would be required to justify intervention.

FACT Most of the bodies found were not near the site of the alleged massacre of Moslems nor of the sites of mass graves originaly identified by the US but very near the villages where the primary genocide took place.

FACT Prior to NATO's bombing the majority of murders in Kosovo were racist murders of Serbs by our KLA friends, a not dissimilar number were of Albanian's murdered by our KLA for not being racist enough.

FACT At least the ratio murders of Serbs was proveably known to NATO at the time & the KLA was accepted as a terorist group.

FACT The claims made throughout the war of Yugoslav murders (500,000 according to the very highest standard of honesty of the State Dept) were in no way truthful.

FACT Milosevic went to great lengths, certainly far more than Nixon ever did, to ensure his forces didn't commit atrocities.

FACT the only evidence that Milosevic was involved in the Srebrenica massacre is that Wesley Clark said on oath that Milosevic had taken him aside & for unexplained reasons, confeesed to him. Clark then said, still on oath, that there was no link between NATO & the KLA.

FACT Wesley Clark had previously said there was.

FACT Under the NATO occupation of Kosovo the, officially disarmed, KLA have been given police uniforms & allowed to ethnicly cleanse 350,000 people, murder at least 6,000 & kidnap for sale, thousands of schoolgirls.

FACT William Clinton, Democratic President of the USA sent US officers to assist the Croatian Nazis in the Krajina Holocaust.

FACT 250,000 of the 580,000 Croatian Serbs are still unaccounted for.

FACT Milosevic's blood test revealed that, in custody, he had been poisoned by Rifampicine, a difficult to detect prescription drug.

FACT Former British Foreign Secretary Lord Owen went, of his own volition to Milosevic's "trial to say that he was the "only leader who was sincerely interested in peace" & "a man to whom any form of racism was anathema".

FACT Under the rules we susbcribed to at Nuremeberg there is a clear prima faci case that Clinton & all his accessories are guilty of war crimes & arguably of crimes against humanity.

If these facts lead to the conclusion that Milosevic was a very fine non-racist person indeed & Clinton, Albright, Wesley Clark, Gore & Clinton as well as most other NATO leaders are obscene lying Nazis guilty of genocide compared to whom Mr Dahmer was decent I would not dispute it.

Posted by: Neil Craig | June 23, 2006 at 10:13 AM


Could you cite sources for these facts?

Posted by: Martin Bento | June 23, 2006 at 10:58 AM

Martin: Of course he can't. it's the same pack of lies that Berube referenced in his post, and they are all rebutted in the links.

Posted by: Marc | June 23, 2006 at 02:19 PM

You can find them on or among others.

Since doing a 20,000 word post here on all of the above would be redundant pick a fact whose non-reporting you find particularly incompatible with an assumption our media have not lied & censored in the Nazi cause & I will cite.

Your choice.

At which point Marc may apologise.

Posted by: Neil Craig | June 24, 2006 at 05:25 AM


OK, fair enough. But I would like a few of them. What is the support for the following claims:

FACT 250,000 of the 580,000 Croatian Serbs are still unaccounted for.

FACT William Clinton, Democratic President of the USA sent US officers to assist the Croatian Nazis in the Krajina Holocaust.

(By the way, I think "Croatian Nazis" and "Krajina Holocaust" are very bad rhetoric. Yes, Krajina was ethnic cleansing and yes, the Croats had sided with the Nazis against the Serbs in WW2. But I don't think this is a continuation of that conflict, and using such terminology will just cause people to shut their ears to you.)

FACT Prior to NATO's bombing the majority of murders in Kosovo were racist murders of Serbs by our KLA friends, a not dissimilar number were of Albanian's murdered by our KLA for not being racist enough.

FACT...Clark then said, still on oath, that there was no link between NATO & the KLA.

FACT Wesley Clark had previously said there was [such a link].

Posted by: Martin Bento | June 24, 2006 at 08:43 AM


1 DISAPPEARING PEOPLE Try you will see a table there which, including not only those who registered as Serbs but also as Yugoslavs (mixed race, urban Serbian intellectuals etc now missing from the census) you find a shortfall of 750,000 however all this is apparently accounted for by 150,000 Serb refugees in Bosnia, 150,000 - 400,000 in Serbia & 100,000 elsewhere.

However that happy picture doesn't tie into the OSCE (a distinctly pro NATO Group, who say of Serb refugees from Croatia only "some 200,000 of whom now live in neighbouring Serbia & Bosnia" a discrepancy of between 100,000 & 300,000. The "elsewhere" is also particularly dubious since not only is there no noticeable vast numbers of Krajina refugees in other European countries but obviously gegraphically escaping from the only line of retreat from Krajina, etc leads only to Bosnia & Serbia. Taken together this leaves us 2-400,000 unaccounted for, with no noticeable urgency on our part to trace them. I hope that the euphemist "unaccounted for" rather than those merely genuinely unaccounted for are somewhat smaller.
2 CLINTON'S ROLE- "the Pentagon contracted Military Professional Resources, Inc (MPRI) to train the Croatian military.(16) According to a Croatian officer, MPRI advisors "lecture us on tactics and big war operations on the level of brigades, which is why we needed them for Operation Storm when we took the Krajina." Croatian sources claim that U.S. satellite intelligence was furnished to the Croatian military. (17) Following the invasion of Krajina, the U.S. rewarded Croatia with an agreement "broadening existing cooperation" between MPRI and the Croatian military. (18) U.S. advisors assisted in the reorganization of the Croatian Army. Referring to this reorganization in an interview with the newspaper Vecernji List, Croatian General Tihomir Blaskic said, "We are building the foundations of our organization on the traditions of the Croatian home guard" - pro-Nazi troops in World War II. "

& many other sources. Until these US officers went to Croatia for what was officially called "democracy training" the Croatian forces were merely a militia. The Krajina attack involved a speedy coordinated 3 pronged night attack with very close artillery support reminiscent of the better organised parts of Hitler's blitzkreig. Anybody with any militaryknowledge will confirm that this requires well trained & armed troops with a very experienced general staff. The only practical possibility is that, whatever the legal line of command held by Mr Gotovina (now on trial for war crimes) the Krajina Holocaust was trained for, organised & commanded by US officers.

(By the way Holocaust means "complete destruction" & I do not think any lesser term can reasonably be applied to what happened to the Krajina Republic. It is clear from the last sentence of the above quote that, whatever you think, the Croatians believe it is. The fact that they chose the same flag, same name for the currency & a leader who, according his PR flack James Harff of Ruder & Finn, had been "careless" in saying such things as "Hitler's New European Order can be justified by the need to be rid of the Jews" also suggest it is. When Saddam Hussein & Milosevic "a man to whom any form of racism is anathema" can repeatedly be described as "another Hitler" but the term Nazis cannot be used of the racist Croatians we are living in an Alice in Wonderland world.)
3) KLA MAIN MURDERERS & WE KNEW IT Statement from British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook (a different one from the one who testified for Milosevic) to Parliament
"18 Jan 1999 : Column 567

On its part, the Kosovo Liberation Army has committed more breaches of the ceasefire, and until this weekend was responsible for more deaths than the security forces" If the British government knew this then, since their intelligence services are interlinked,Clinton & his Nazi cabinet did also.

As to how the KLA treated & are treating Kosovo Albanians under our authority:
" You said many Albanians fled the KLA, the gangs. Do you know how many?

Cedda: Tens of thousands. 15,000 went to Vojvodina, 30,000 to Belgrade, many more"
4 CLARK'S STATEMENT ON OATH (actually only the end is by Clark - the bit before, since it deals with a picture of the KLA displaying severed heads has been left in to show what the KLA do & how very keen the allegedly impartial NATO funded "judge" was to keep out anything embarassing to NATO)
1 JUDGE MAY: That is unnecessary. Remove that picture, please.

2 This is nothing to do with the evidence. Return the picture, please, to

3 the accused.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, these men in KLA uniforms,

5 I mean, this man is holding two Serb heads that had been cut off. Is that

6 confirmation? I mean, are these allies of General Clark's infantry in

7 Kosovo?

8 JUDGE MAY: Now, let us deal with this in a way which is relevant.

9 The picture is not relevant. You can give evidence in due course about

10 it. You can call the witness, and you can produce these photographs if

11 there is relevance of them, providing you establish that, but we have to

12 deal with the general's evidence.

13 Now, there hasn't been any dispute that you made these comments to

14 him.

15 MR. NICE: Your Honour, if the Chamber's concerned about the

16 production of that photograph and the effect it may have unsupported by

17 any relevance, it could give consideration to redacting that part of the

18 transcript. It's a matter entirely for the Chamber. We don't press you

19 one way or the other.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE MAY: We'll consider that.

22 Yes, Mr. Milosevic. What is the point that you're trying to

23 establish as far as the witness's evidence is concerned? You can ask

24 other witnesses, you can call other evidence about the behaviour of the

25 KLA, and indeed you've done so. I seem to remember a very great deal of

Page 30502

1 cross-examination about it already. If you wish, you can call some

2 evidence, relevant evidence during the case, but I don't think we're going

3 to take it any further with this witness.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the KLA was a terrorist group.

5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Isn't that right, General Clark? Is that in dispute or is that

7 not in dispute?

8 JUDGE MAY: It may be a matter for us, but it's not a matter that

9 arises from the witness's evidence.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness is talking about

11 measures of repression against the KLA, and you see what kind of killers

12 they are. I have yet another photograph here, a group of 15 of them, with

13 severed heads. This is also not relevant for you; is that right, Mr. May?

14 JUDGE MAY: That is quite right. Quite right. You can call all

15 this evidence in due course. We are just dealing with a part of the

16 evidence which is given by the general. The generalised evidence about

17 the behaviour of the KLA, if it's relevant, you can give it in due course.

18 Now, time is limited. If you want to ask him about the

19 conversations, of course you can.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The general -- well, I mean the

21 general is speaking in general terms about the KLA, and you did not allow

22 me to show a picture yesterday of the three Musketeers where he is like

23 D'Artagnan with the leaders of these terrorists.

24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. General, you actually commanded these formations, these units that

Page 30503

1 cut off Serb heads.

2 JUDGE MAY: Now, time is very limited. You're plainly not

3 following instructions you've been given. Your cross-examination is

4 limited to what the witness has given in evidence. The behaviour of the

5 KLA is not relevant to that. What you said about the KLA most certainly

6 is relevant. You've asked questions about it and what other things you've

7 said about it, you've said to the general, that is relevant, and you can

8 ask and indeed you should. If you challenge it, you should deal with it,

9 as you did with the general, General Naumann.

10 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, may I just have -- ask the permission

11 of the Court to clarify that I did not command the KLA. We never gave

12 assistance to the KLA. We did not direct the KLA. We did not assist its

13 formation.
5 WESLEY CLARK'S IGNORANCE OF LINKS TO THE KLA I regret to say that I have been unable to find the original article by somebody who interviewd where he admitted knowing of the NASTO/KLA connection. However this on Clark:

"But he was more coy about whether the CIA had, as has been widely reported, trained the KLA in 1998-99 at top-secret bases in Northern Albania.

"I don't know about the CIA," he demurred. "US and the CIA weren't very well coordinated."

may be read, perhaps cynically, as suggesting that he knew perfectly well what the CIA were doing & this from his website (even mass murderers have websites now) is even more open:

"Despite public denials throughout the war, the CIA worked closely with the KLA to glean intelligence about the disposition of Yugoslav troops in Kosovo"

The official position remains that the KLA managed to build up from zero to 25,000 heavily armed men, armed often with "stolen" NATO equipment entirely on their own. Indeed NATO maintained a fleet in the Adriatic to police mandatory UN weapons sanctions. Unfortunately despite hundreds of "gun smuggling" trips NATO were able to intercept zero of them since they had taken the precaution of using speedboats. NATO, despite what, if Clinton & co are not NAZI war criminals, must be taken as sincere attempts, have so far been unable even to identify the country on the western coast of the Adriatic where these speedboats came from.

I trust this satisfies Marc.

Posted by: Neil Craig | June 26, 2006 at 10:55 AM

Neil, thanks for compiling that for me. I'll be looking at the sources as I get time. One thing that jumps out at me, however, is that the site listed as "Wesley Clark's website" is hosted in Russia. Someone in Clark's position is obviously going to host neither a personal nor a professional website in Russia. Clicking around, the authorship is credited to some Russian woman. Most of the material seems taken from other sources, so perhaps "web design" would be more precise than "authorship", but still, one cannot fairly call this "Wesley Clark's website"; it is a website about Wesley Clark.

Posted by: Martin Bento | June 27, 2006 at 04:19 AM

Thanks Martin I hadn't noticed the hosting of the site. It appears the quote I mentioned is actually a reprint from the Washington Post. I suspect it still reflects actuality.

Posted by: Neil Craig | June 27, 2006 at 05:21 AM

To quote from the article this thread was started on:

"as a wise man once said, the job of the intellectual is to tell the truth and expose lies"

Since this article will shortly be passing below the horizon it appears that what I have said is literally indisputable. Considering that, even when I disagree with him, Brad's blog is certainly intellectual I regard that, perhaps immodestly, as a significant matter.

Should someone wish to discuss it afterwards I hope they will contact me or visit my site.

That the conclusion was logically derived from the evidence seems also undisputed. That "these facts lead to the conclusion that Milosevic was a very fine non-racist person indeed & Clinton, Albright, Wesley Clark, Gore & Clinton as well as most other NATO leaders are obscene lying Nazis guilty of genocide"

I would also say that the fact that all this could be almost entirely censored by the mass media for 16 years should deeply worry anybody inclined to think that it doesn't matter because the Serbs are merely a small country of which we know little.

Why oh why do we have politicians & press corps who lie & thieve - perhaps because we have let them away with far far worse crimes.

Posted by: Neil Craig | June 29, 2006 at 05:30 AM


Now, the traditional Irish funeral is under threat from those bores in the European Union.

Stavros Dimas, the EU environment commissioner, wants a Europe-wide ban on some of the chemicals used by embalmers. He says that the chemicals pose a danger to living organisms.

But they're used on dead people. What living organisms is he worried about, exactly? The maggots and beetles that feast on the deceased?
Incidentally this is a short section of a longer article by Spiked's Brendan O'Neill which I found not directly but through John Ray's Greeniewatch from Australia. Small world.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006


A very good item on Techcentralstation which deserves wider circulation & probably won't get it from the dead tree press. As somebody who said at the time the passive smoking scare was nonsense it is frustrating to see the UK Parliament (OK the House of Lords, who actually have more experience & fewer political axes to grind) saying I am right. Here are some highlights but the entire article is worth it:
The way the UK government looks at risk policy has been shaken up by a new report published recently by the Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs..... there are few areas of government that impinge so consistently, directly, and often unfortunately on the lives of its citizens.

.... found significant problems with the way in which the government thought about and managed risk. And while the report focuses on risk in the UK, its implications about risk and public policy extend to any democratic government.

...... government risk policy has "given insufficient weight to available evidence and placed too great a reliance on unsubstantiated reports that often have their origin in the media." This is hardly a minor matter since two of the most important aspects of risk management -- detecting and evaluating risk -- depend on accurate and objective scientific data. If the government proceeds without such evidence, or, worse, relies upon or creates evidence that it knows to be dubious, the risk management process is corrupted from the outset and the public is profoundly misled. Rather than risk policy being driven by science, science instead is "harnessed" to serve the ideological objectives of those managing risk. In effect, risk becomes a cover for far-reaching value decisions that are passed off as scientifically mandated.

A primary instance of this, as the report notes, has been the management of the "risk" of public smoking. Here the evidence is clear not only that the government acted against the best available scientific evidence which showed an insignificant risk (as the report notes the "decision to ban smoking in public places may represent a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health concern"), that alternatives to smoking bans were not given proper attention, and that it acted more with a mind to inaccurate media reports and pressure from special interests groups whose purposes were driven more by making it difficult for smokers to smoke than by protecting the health of nonsmokers.

This tendency to allow risk policy to be driven by a combination of bad science, media frenzy and special interests is unfortunately not confined to smoking policy.. ....patently false claims such as overweight and obese people live shorter lives than those of "normal" weight and scientifically unproven claims that curtailing food advertising or providing nutritional information will change the way in which people eat

.... There is also the problem that the government fails to appreciate the way in which its risk policies frequently erode personal freedoms and civil liberties. This occurs in a number of ways. {I am not at all convinced that government as a whole or as individuals are not perfectly well aware of 7 getting a buzz out of telling people what to do - Neil}

For instance, many risk nannies reject the core principle of a free society that individuals should, to the greatest extent possible, be left free to make their own decisions about how to act and to live their lives....

... the default position for government policy is that regulation to control risk should almost always trump liberty- a position that is fundamentally at odds with a free society. This is particularly evident in the debate about passive smoking, where the government appeared to refuse to even consider that restricting public smoking might involve a liberty-limiting issue.....

The third major flaw in the government's management of risk that the report finds lies in the use of the Precautionary Principle....It is anti-scientific because .... risk assessment is about making the most intelligent choice possible in the midst of the uncertainty. No responsible scientists can guarantee that a product or process will never harm humans or the environment -- as the precautionary principle requires -- for such predictions lie outside the compass of science. In effect the precautionary principle asks of science and of risk policy what neither can provide: a god-like omniscience.

.....many "risks" are simply the creation of special interest groups and a scientifically-challenged media.


This table appears on the Wikipedia site on the current whereabouts of the Serbs of Croatia < > giving the entirely pro-Croatian Nazi line:

State Number
Croatia 202,365
Serbia and Montenegro 150,000-400,000
Bosnia and Herzegovina 150,000
Elsewhere in the world 100,000
Total 600,000-750,000

To which I added:
However while the above table may represent the official Croatian position there are 2 very massive problems with it.

Firstly the 100,000 refugees Elsewhere in the World is not supported by anything. Were there to actually be 100,000 Krajina refugees in Hungary, Slovenia or western Europe generally it would have been expected to be noticed as, for example, much smaller groups of Roma from the Czech republic or indeed Kosovo Albanian refugees there who decided not to return have been commented on. There simply is no evidence of survivors on this scale. Further a glance at the map above also shows that Serb refugees fleeing Croatian Nazi death squads only route of escape led to Bosnia & Serbia not western countries.

Secondly & even more seriously, the table gives a combined total of survivors in Bosnia & Serbia of between 300,000 & 450,000. However the OSCE report on the subject says specifically of the refugees from Croatia that only "some 200,000 of whom now live in neighbouring Serbia & Bosnia". Since the OSCE is a pro-western body it is inconceivable that they would distort figure in a manner beneficial to the Serbian case, quite the reverse.

This means that there is a discrepancy between the people known to be alive under Croatian Nazi authority & those "accounted for" of between 200,000 & 450,000 human beings.

Since the western powers assisted Tudjman, the Croatian Nazi leader by supplying him with weaponry, in the case of Kohl's Germany & officers & command systems, in the case of Clinton's USA, despite, or because of, knowing that he was already on record as saying that "genocide is commanded by the word of the Almighty" their total lack of concern as to what happened to several hundred thousand innocent men, women & children must be taken at face value. The manner in which the media of these countries has also been able to censor virtually all reporting of this genocide also displays not only a total lack of any honesty but a similar lack of human decency.
Reference * OSCE Report on Croatian treatment of Serbs [}

That was yesterday. Today it has been deleted. Together with the OSCE reference. there is no dispute that the arithmetic & sources are entirely correct. I will be repasting it & will NOT be deleting other comments from the Nazi side. It is quite obvious that my points are at least valid.

It has been noticeable that, where authors names are identified, the contollers of Wikipedia articles on the Yugoslav wars are overwhelmingly drawn from citizens of the Croatian Nazi regime. This was fisrt obvious when a commetor pointed out that the article on Tudjman was a verbatim copy (entirely against wikipedia's official rules) of a hagiography produced by the regime.

I hope the wikipedia moderator will not continue to censor, or encourage others to censor undisputed facts in the interests of genocide. Being purely a lying agent of racist Nazis intent on covering up genocide might reflect badly on them.

I have been officialy banned from Wikipedia for "trolling" but without any dispute as to the truth of what I have posted. So no suggestion that Wikipedia is indeed in any way open access or subject to public participation if you aren't putting forward racist propaganda.

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

British Blogs.