Thursday, October 18, 2012
Radovan Karadzic - Stuff That Could Only Be Censored If Every Single UK/US MSM Outlet Is Run By Scum Matching The Guards At Auschwitz.
"I stopped our army many time when to were close to victory, looking for peace," Karadzic added. "I accepted four out of five peace proposals. In addition, I personally supervised humanitarian aid."
"Everybody who knows me knows I am not an autocrat, I am not aggressive, I am not intolerant," he told the judges. "On the contrary, I am a mild man, a tolerant man with great capacity to understand others."....
Karadzic advocated he was against the division of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that he was "pushed into a corner" by other parties. "All the time we defended ourselves", he said. "We had controlled over 60 percent of Bosnia. I knew it would be crazy to get more."
"I trusted the international community and often attacked our officers," Karadzic said regarding alleged war crimes by the Bosnian Serb Army.
"I tended to believe the rumors, the lies and the propaganda, although I knew their families were killed. I tended to accuse them, mostly not correct."
Radovan Karadzic's opening speech for the defence in his "trial".
Despite the coverage of the BBC and our own media generally it seems difficult to dispute this.
It is a matter of public record that the Bosnian Serbs did indeed accept all these cease fires - all offered when they were winning and all subsequently broken by the WW2 Nazi Izetbegovic leading the Moslem side.
Perhaps Karadzic can be blamed for accepting these cease fires and promises from the NATO side - thereby prolonging the war. However being trusting is not a war crime.
That the war was started by the Moslem Nazis is also a matter of record. Under the Bosnian constitution at the time the war started under the rotating Presidency arrangement the legal president at the time of the entity Karadzic is accused of making war on was Radovan Karadzic. Izetbegovic was the one using force to hold power.
The first fighting, if it may be dignified by the term, was when Moslem government forces from Sarajevo shot up the wedding party killing Nikola Gardovic, the groom's father and an Orthodox priest. I do not think anybody who is not so openly a Nazi as to believe slavic peoples have no right to defend themselves whatever the circumstances could ever claim that Karadzic and the Serbs were engaged in a war of self defence.
Indeed nobody who is not a wholly corrupt out and out Nazi has ever done so though almost every British politician, broadcaster or newspaper has done so repeatedly.
The main charges against Karadzic are over the siege of Sarajevo and the alleged marketplace bombings and sniping and over the Srebrenica massacre.
General Michael Rose, the British head of UNPROFOR, revealed in his memoirs that three days after the blast he told General Jovan Divjak, the deputy commander of ARBiH forces, that the shell had been fired from Bosnian positions.
When the sniper killings got to bad the French peacekeepers told Izetbegovic if his snipers didn't stop killing their own people to help western propagandists they would return fire on those shooting from his party headquarters building. It immediately stopped.
The only undisputed Srebrenica massacre is of the 3870 Serb civilians in surrounding villages, carried out by Moslem Nazi commander Nasir Oric, with the deliberate and active assistance of NATO "peacekeepers". Several of the different variants of the "official" massacre story have been disproven and there is no evidence to support the current 8,000 dead tale - fewer than 2,000 bodies have been found which is less than those acknowledged to have been killed in combat.
Certainly by comparison with almost every UK politician involved, Karadzic is deserving of approbation.
Of course none of this matters to the NATO funded "trial".
When Milosevic's "trial" was concluding with no evidence against him he was poisoned with 'Rifampicine" found in his blood test.
When Seselj was about to win the Serbian election he, despite having not even been a member of Milosevic's government, was "indicted" by the NATO funded "court". 10 years later he is still imprisoned despite his first "trial" having collapsed due to the fact there was absolutely no evidence against him.
Of course such things can happen without public outcry only if our media, politicians and judiciary are wholly completely and totally corrupt - willing to tell any lie and censor any fact in the cause of totalitarianism, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, genocide and indeed worse. So far that has clearly been the case.
When Britain and the other NATO countries are free these "trials" will be seen to be as pivotal in discrediting the modern Nazis as Stalin's show trials are in discrediting him. In much of the rest of the world this is already the case.
Slightly amended this has also gone out to 60 of the most prominent papers in the UK and US with this undernote
"Nominally this could statistically only fail to be published by at least one mainstream paper in the NATO countires if either (A) it was easily proven both factually untrue and illiterate by the standards of all these papers or (B) every last one of you were (except the Morning Star & Asia Times) wholly corrupt and willing to publish any lie and censor any fact so that you could personally have a small role in atrocities worthy of Hitler.
Don't worry - don't really expect you to publish it or any edited version. Such traces of honesty or decency would be out of character.
I just wanted to give Britain and America's journalists the opportunity to prove whether you have more decency than the guards at Auschwitz. Be comforted that my expectation was never that any of you would.
I'll let you know if I am wrong. For a journalist, more honest and far less racist than all of those in the British and US MSM put together try Julia Gorin.
" Christians are massively leaving post-war Bosnia-Herzegovina amid mounting discrimination and Islamization, according to a new report released Friday, October 12. "
First, the war crimes generally prosecuted by the victors (or the victors' friends). This no different at The Hague, despite a rather thin veneer of neutrality.
Second, the actions prosecuted generally were not criminal at the time and in the place they occurred. Even where the acts genuinely were heinous, it is a travesty of due process to insist on "laws" that simply do not legally apply.
Finally, the process of prosecution involves indefinite detention, loose evidence rules and other abuses of legal process.
Of course, it is not PC to question the trials, because the same concepts gained credibility when they were used to prosecute Nazis. Nazis = bad, therefore war crimes trials = good. Very advanced logic there.
Fact is, these trials have a lot more to do with revenge than with justice. Anyone caught up in the process can say goodbye to the rest of their life. Even in the unlikely event they are found innocent, they will have spent decades being prosecuted.
In those trials some of the defendents were aquited - in my view correctly. There really had to be evidence of atrocities or grave breaches of the rules of war. Even Otto Skorzeny was aquitted on charges of wearing allied uniforms when a British officer testified that the allies had, on occasion, done the same.
More queastionably almost all of the Nuremburg defendants were released on humanitarian terms between 1951 & '55 (coincidentally when Germany was becoming part of NATO).
This means that very shortly Selji will have imprisoned for longer, without any conviction, the first "trial" having collapsed thru no evidence, than some of those convicted at Nuremburg. In a country where free speech and the rule of law were of importance this farce would be widely reported by the media. Any mention of him remains censored as, so far, does my letter.