Click to get your own widget

Friday, May 28, 2010


Nato's more civilised predecessors

Three parallel international investigations, by war crimes investigators from Serbia, the European Union, and the Council of Europe, have failed to uncover any evidence that the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) trafficked the organs of captives, according to sources close to each investigation.

Dozens of predominantly Serb captives were allegedly taken to a "yellow house" near Burrel in central Albania from June 1999 to May 2000, where their organs were systematically removed and sold, according to accounts presented by Carla del Ponte, former war crimes prosecutor at The Hague Tribunal in her 2008 autobiography.

But the failure to find either the original sources, or any new evidence since 2004, may mean that the story was unfounded.

The Council of Europe report, due to be published next month by investigator Dick Marty, is expected to focus rather on political demands to the governments involved, rather than to uncover new facts.

"The fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever in this case," said Matti Raatikainen, head of the war crimes unit of Eulex, the European Law and Justice Mission in Kosovo... All the reports and media attention to this issue have not been helpful to us. In fact they have not been helpful to anyone."

...the real work of finding the remains of 1,861 people still missing from the war and its aftermath...

Three of his seven sources referred to the possibility of organ-trafficking, and identified the house near Burrel...

A chemical spray, used in a downstairs room, found widespread traces of blood, of uncertain provenance, on the floor. Family members offered contradictory explanations.

Medical equipment appropriate for surgical interventions was found on the rubbish dump.

Some investigators wanted to pursue the case. Others felt the evidence, even then, was too thin.

Most serious of all, Montgomery's original sources had disappeared. One was dead, killed in a supposedly unrelated case. The others could not be found.

Even the Serbian authorities, who have propagated the tale of the yellow house most consistently ... "none of the efforts to investigate have received meaningful co-operation on the side of the government of Albania".

"In order to get rid of this issue," he urged Albania, "make available a proposal for an independent investigation and offer genuine co-operation."

The end of the "fairy-tale" of organ-trafficking, as one Eulex prosecutor calls it, would still leave war crimes investigators with plenty to do.

This month, a mass grave was found near the southern Serbian town of Raska. Three lorry-loads of bodies - around 250 in total - believed to be Albanians killed by Serb forces in Kosovo, were reburied there in early June 1999.

The red soil encasing the bodies, according to eye-witnesses, suggests the bodies were originally buried in the Drenica valley in Kosovo, and moved to Serbia to destroy the evidence.

Prosecutors say they believe the Serbian military were responsible. Excavations at the same site two years ago failed to find the grave, which is now believed to lie beneath a car park and office building.

Revenge killings

Some 228 were the bodies of Serbs who went missing after 10 June 1999, the end of the war, at a time of revenge killings by Kosovan Albanians

highlights mine
Well that's pretty conclusive. Not one but 3 completely separate investigations have concluded the story "may" be unfounded (despite a casual reading suggesting it is unfounded the BBC are covering themselves buy not actually promising that). And what thorough investigatorial reporting from them to get all 3 separate still officially secret conclusions from the 3 separate investigations. And what an extraordinary coincidence that 3 such investigations should all be concluding at the same time.

Or not as the case may be.

Carla del Ponte surreptitiously made mention of this organlegging in her biography in April 2008 & it passed unnoticed except on the blogsphere. In due course the EU appointed an "investigator" who, months 15 later, had "not yet started official investigations" & has now with no visible activity, concluded them. If the "other 2 investigations" are truly independent the BBC has had to go on 3 investigations of their own to find this/these still officially secret conclusions & has been astonishingly successful 3 times.

Alternately the 3 separate investigations are a charade. They were never separate, except for some Serb activity, hampered by the fact NATO bought & paid for their political leaders, there has been no investigation. The BBC have had briefing on "all 3" from 1 source, which itself proves complicity.

There is only 1 possible reason why the NATO powers would wish to claim 1 largely inactive "investigation" as 3 & that is because they themselves are specifically complicit in the genocide & organlegging.

The BBC will know this & therefore know perfectly well that the story they are producing is not "news" but a propaganda front for their masters whom they know to be involved in this & that by doing so they undeniably prove themselves accomplices in genocide & organlegging.

Other points of clear dishonesty - the statement that there is "simply no evidence whatsoever" could not under any circumstances have been said by anybody remotely honest (in this case the head of the EULEX "investigation". The article admits that medical equipment had been found as had the presence of blood "of uncertain provenance". That phrase is either meaningless or indicates the necessary testing has not been done to prove it is human blood - either is incompatible with the "investigation" being remotely honest. Witness statements are still evidence even if they have been murdered &/or "Disappeared" (using the term as a verb in the South American sense). It is conceivable somebody could argue that there is insufficient evidence to convict (though it is far more than the evidence used by the NATO court to convict many Serbs) but it is specifically impossible to honestly say "none whatsoever".

The use of the term "revenge killings". In the same way Hitler referred to exterminating Jews as revenge for starting WW2. The BBC do no refer to 9/11 as a revenge killing. To do so would have been far more accurate than their current lie since bin Laden did have so legitimate beef with the US government if not with the civilians murdered. By comparison the use of the term here is simply a typical lie by the BBC to support racial genocide.

I have written this to the BBC & various employees. I will, of course, allow it or any of them who either wish to dissociate themselves from their employer's Nazism or to defend against the charge to do so here.

I write with respect to your recent online report about the alleged 3 "investigations" into organlegging by NATO police.

Can you confirm whether
1) BBC surreptitiously obtained the forthcoming results of all 3 allegedly totally independent "investigations" in 3 wholly unrelated pieces of investigative journalism in breach of the law each comparable to Messrs Woodward & Bernsteins or

2) Whether it/they were given to you by one or more linked person, or indeed some governmental briefing & proving they were not therefore 3 separate investigations but one.

I suspect, from the lack of multiple by-lines & mass coverage of the story it has to be the latter. However if it is then this is proof positive that it is not 3 wholly separate investigations but one cover up. In such circumstances the BBC would certainly have enough experience to realise this & that you are being asked/instructed to promote what you know to be a pack of racist lies for the purpose of supporting racial genocide & crimes so obscene even the Nazis didn't match them. The only reason why our & other NATO governments would promote this cover up of genocide is because they hired, trained & organised the KLA & appointed them as our "police" for this & similar purposes. Which leaves the BBC in what decent people would consider a morally untenable position.

You are being instructed to propagandise & lie in the Nazi cause to promote racial genocide (which you must know is continuing) & thereby make every BBC employee involved in news or management personally an accessory to racial genocide & organlegging. As even Hitler did not attempt the latter this would make it impossible for any such BBC employee to claim even moral equality with the people who ran Hitler's gas chambers.

There is no dispute that the BBC has for over a decade, deliberately censored any reporting of genocide, such as the Dragodan Massacre, indeed, despite initially lying about the BBC's willingness to censor massacres & genocide your representative, Damian Whyte felt it wiser to change his mind & not reply when presented with the irrefutable evidence that the BBC censors continuously & deliberately to promote racial genocide.

Lying continuously & deliberately to promote not only genocide but the dissection of the victims while still alive, a practice which is continuing, is a further step so far beyond inhumanity that even the BBC may hesitate to take it.

If so I look forward to your full reporting of these murders & their manner with at least as much enthusiasm as you reported every allegation against Jews in Gaza, along with the evidence that the "investigations" have been aimed, by our & other NATO governments, not at uncovering the truth but at protecting the guilty, including the leaders of our & other NATO governments.

Anything less would be inconsistent, not only with your public service remit, but with anybody in responsibility in the BBC being able to claim any slightest trace of integrity or humanity.

I must also ask you whether you can, on any factual basis, deny that the decision of the BBC not to give far more coverage to the more than 1800 innocent civilians killed by NATO's police, an action more newsworthy because our government is involved than to the 80-1400 in the "Gaza war" is inconstant with any suggestion that the BBC is other than racially anti-Semitic as well as racially anti-Slavic (2 prejudices also shared by Mr Hitler).

I trust you that I have at all times gone out of my way to give the BBC the benefit of any reasonable doubt which may exist. I regret that your actions have allowed so very little room for any doubts.

Neil Craig

Labels: ,

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

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

British Blogs.