Great Documentry on kangeroo trial of Milosevic

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Bankotsu]

The west's agenda for Yugoslavia:




Kosovo and Washington’s Strategic Agenda for Europe and Eurasia

Some months before the US-led bombing of Serbian targets, one of the heaviest bombings since World War II, a senior US intelligence official in private conversation told Croatian officers in Zagreb about Washington’s strategy for former Yugoslavia. According to these reports, communicated privately to this author, the Pentagon goal was to take control of Kosovo in order to secure a military base to control the entire southeast European region down to the Middle East oil lands.

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Kosovo/kosovo.html

Correspondence between German Politicians Reveals the Hidden Agenda behind Kosovo's "Independence"


Mr. Gerhard Schröder

Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany

Bundeskanzleramt
Schloßplatz 1
10178 Berlin

Berlin, May 2, 2000

Highly esteemed Mr. Chancellor,



At the end of last week I had the opportunity to attend a conference in the Slovakian capital of Bratislava, jointly organized by the American State Department and the American Enterprise Institute (the foreign policy institute of the Republican Party). The main topics of the gathering were the Balkans and NATO enlargement.



The conference was attended by very high level political officials, as witnessed by the presence of a large number of prime ministers, as well as foreign ministers and defense ministers from the region.



Among the numerous important points of discussion, certain themes deserve special mention...



It would be good, during NATO’s current enlargement, to restore the territorial situation in the area between the Baltic Sea and Anatolia such as existed during the Roman Empire, at the time of its greatest power and greatest territorial expansion.

For this reason, Poland must be flanked to the north and to the south with democratic neighbor states, while Romania and Bulgaria are to secure a land connection with Turkey. Serbia (probably for the purposes of securing an unhindered US military presence) must be permanently excluded from European development.

North of Poland, total control over St. Petersburg’s access to the Baltic Sea must be established.

In all processes, peoples’ rights to self-determination should be favored over all other provisions or rules of international law.

The claim that, during its attack on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, NATO violated all international rules, and especially all the relevant provisions of international law – was not disputed.



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8304



Interview with Willy Wimmer: " Americans are Recommending Themselves as the Successors of Rome"

http://serbblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/interview-with-willy-wimmer-americans.html


Why is NATO in Yugoslavia?

We have been witnessing, since 1990, a long and agonizing crisis in Yugoslavia. It has brought the deaths of tens of thousands, driven perhaps two million people from their homes and caused turmoil in the Balkan region. And in the West it is generally believed that this crisis, including the civil wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, was the result of internal Yugoslav conflicts, and specifically of conflicts between Croats, Serbs and Bosnian Muslims. This is far from the essence of the matter.

The main problem in Yugoslavia , from the first, was foreign intervention in the country's internal affairs. Two Western powers, the United States and Germany, deliberately contrived to destabilize and then dismantle the country. The process was in full swing in the 1980s and accelerated as the present decade began. These powers carefully planned, prepared and assisted the secessions which broke Yugoslavia apart. And they did almost everything in their power to expand and prolong the civil wars which began in Croatia and then continued in Bosnia-Herzegovina. They were involved behind the scenes at every stage of the crisis.

Foreign intervention was designed to create precisely the conflicts which the Western powers decried. For they also conveniently served as an excuse for overt intervention once civil wars were under way.

Such ideas are, of course, anathema in Western countries. That is only because the public in the West has been systematically misinformed by war propaganda. It accepted almost from the beginning the version of events promulgated by governments and disseminated through the mass media. It is nonetheless true that Germany and the US were the principal agents in dismantling Yugoslavia and sowing chaos there.

This is an ugly fact in the new age of realpolitik and geo-political struggles which has succeeded the Cold War order. Intelligence sources have begun recently to allude to this reality in a surprisingly open manner. In the summer of 1995, for instance, INTELLIGENCE DIGEST, a respected newsletter published in Great Britain, reported that,


"The original US-German design for the former Yugoslavia [included] an independent Muslim-Croat dominated Bosnia- Herzegovina in alliance with an independent Croatian and alongside a greatly weakened Serbia." (7) (http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/gervasi/why.htm#7)

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/gervasi/why.htm


It Began With a Lie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjP_9LOyBuk


Kosovo, stolen(banned film)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp6C18Jb-Dg&feature=related


Area - Fated on Exile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMs8IfxSCt4&feature=related



British documentary substantiates US-KLA collusion in provoking war with Serbia

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/mar2000/koso-m16.shtml


CIA Aided Kosovo Guerrilla Army All Along

American intelligence agents have admitted they helped to train the Kosovo Liberation Army before NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia. The disclosure angered some European diplomats, who said this had undermined moves for a political solution to the conflict between Serbs and Albanians. Central Intelligence Agency officers were ceasefire monitors in Kosovo in 1998 and 1999, developing ties with the KLA and giving American military training manuals and field advice on fighting the Yugoslav army and Serbian police...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/192/38782.htmlAll of the lies and false propaganda of the west must be exposed.

There is no other way.

Chamberlain's agenda of instigating war between Germany and USSR had already been covered up and the truth suppressed for so long in the west that we cannot allow the same to happen with Yugoslavia.

In 1938 the west plotted to dismember Czechoslovakia, later in the 1990s it was Yugoslavia, so which country is next?



The last piece of evidence which we might mention to support the theory—not of a plot, perhaps, but that the Munich surrender was unnecessary and took place because Chamberlain and his associates wanted to dismember Czechoslovakia—is even more incriminating...

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html


Within two weeks of Hitler's annexation of Austria, Britain was moving. It was decided to put pressure on the Czechs to make concessions to the Germans...

The group which spread this version of the situation included Chamberlain, Lord Halifax, John Simon, Samuel Hoare, Horace Wilson, the Cliveden Set, the British ambassador in Berlin (Sir Nevile Henderson), and the British minister in Prague (Basil Newton). To make their aims more appealing they emphasized the virtues of "autonomy" and "self-determination" and the contribution to European peace which would arise if Germany were satisfied and if Czechoslovakia were "neutralized like Switzerland" and "guaranteed like Belgium." By "neutralization" they meant that Czechoslovakia must renounce its alliances with the Soviet Union and with France. By "guaranteed" they meant that the rump of Czechoslovakia which was left after the Sudetenland went to Germany would be guaranteed by France and Germany but emphatically not by Britain...

Moreover, in France, even more obviously than in England, fear of Bolshevism was a powerful factor, especially in influential circles of the Right. The ending of the Soviet Alliance, the achievement of a four-Power pact, and the termination of Czechoslovakia as "a spearhead of Bolshevism in central Europe" had considerable appeal to those conservative circles which regarded the Popular Front government of Leon Blum as "a spearhead of Bolshevism" in France itself. To this group, as to a less vociferous group in Britain, even a victory over Hitler in war to save Czechoslovakia would have been a defeat for their aims, not so much because they disliked democracy and admired authoritarian reaction (which was true) as because they were convinced that the defeat of Hitler would expose all of central, and perhaps western, Europe to Bolshevism and chaos. The slogan of these people, "Better Hitler than Blum," became increasingly prevalent in the course of 1938 and, although nothing quite like this was heard in Britain, the idea behind it was not absent from that country. In this dilemma the "three-bloc world" of the Cliveden Set or even the German-Soviet war of the anti-Bolsheviks seemed to be the only solution...

As early as March 17, 1938, five days after the Anschluss, the Soviet government called for consultations looking toward collective actions to stop aggression and to eliminate the increased danger of a new world slaughter. This was summarily rejected by Lord Halifax....


In the meantime the British had been working out a plan of their own. It involved, as we have said, (1) separation of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, probably through the use of a plebiscite or even by outright partition; (2) neutralization of the rest of Czechoslovakia by revising her treaties with Russia and France, and ( 3 ) guarantee of this rump of Czechoslovakia (but not by Britain). This plan was outlined to the Czech ambassador in London by Lord Halifax on May 25th, and was worked out in some detail by one of Lord Halifax's subordinates, William (now Lord) Strang, during a visit to Prague and to Berlin in the following week...


ll these events showed very clearly the chief result of Munich: Germany was supreme in central Europe, and any possibility of curtailing that power either by a joint policy of the Western Powers with the Soviet Union and Italy or by finding any openly anti-German resistance in central Europe itself was ended. Since this was exactly what Chamberlain and his friends had wanted, they should have been satisfied...

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/13.html#45


All of the west's lies, all of their plots, all of their propaganda filth to cover up their hidden agenda, all the brainwashing to hoodwink public opinion so as to get them to support their wars, all must be exposed to the light of day.

We cannot allow western false propaganda to keep on brainwashing people, hoodwinking public opinion.

We must sternly and firmly come out and oppose the false propaganda.

[Guerrilla22]

the trials at the Hauge are a huge joke. NATO probaly killed about as mant civilians if not more in Serbia during the two operations in the Balkans, yet Clinto didn't get put on trial. In fact, the US refuses to allow its citizens to be place on trial at the ICJ. :rolleyes:

[Bankotsu]

How USA engineered and manipulated elections to overthrow the Milosevic regime:



The phenomenon of “color revolutions” has been examined by the Russian political science in a number of point studies, particularly those which dealt with the 2004 events in Ukraine.



However, until recently, there was no broad study of the of the “non-violent” coup d’état technology. “Orange Networks From Belgrade to Bishkek”, a collection of essays prepared by the Historical Perspective Foundation and published in Saint Petersburg by Alateya Press in 2008, is intended to fill the gap.



Altogether, the essays comprise a detailed investigation of the technologies employed in the “color revolutions” first in Serbia in 2000 and later in several FSU Republics...

In 2000, Serbia became the starting point of a wave of color revolutions.

The authors of the essays in “Orange Networks From Belgrade to Bishkek” see the NATO attack on Yugoslavia and the October, 2000 unrest in Serbia as links in the chain of events organized not only to overthrow the political regime in Belgrade but also to induce an irreversible partition of the country.

In his essay, Belgrade-based political scientist and historian Petr Ilchenkov supplies unique information concerning the preparations for the protests which led to the ouster of S. Milosevic.

Serbia was the proving ground for many of the techniques which were subsequently refined and employed in later color revolutions.

The techniques include the creation of mass opposition movements and golem parties, the extensive application of communication technologies to mobilize mass public support, the pouring of large funds into spreading protest movement logotypes, acts of individual terror against authority figures, the formation of armed support groups backing the protests presented as “non-violent” by mass media, etc.

Notably, the revolution in Serbia did not translate into the country's prosperity, and most of its activists dropped out of politics after having played their roles...

http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=1372&search=orange%20networks



There is a distinct pattern of US covert aid in changing regimes in Eastern Europe, in which Ukraine fits the pattern.



The Belgrade vote in 2000 to beat Milosevic was organized and run by US Amabassador Richard Miles. This is well documented by Balkan sources. Significantly, the same Miles was then sent to Georgia where he engineered the toppling of Shevardnadze in favor of the US-groomed Mikhail Saakashvili last year, another pro-NATO man on Moscow’s fringe. James Baker III played a key role as well as many noted at the time.


http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/Ukraine/ukraine.html






The corporate media would like everyone to believe that an authentic, national popular movement independent of the U.S. and NATO is rising up against the Yugoslav government, and especially President Slobodan Milosevic. But to believe this would be a serious mistake.


That's because the media leave out that Washington and its European allies have subsidized this movement's leadership with huge sums of money, bolstered them with enormous political support, exhausted the Yugoslav population with war threats and sanctions, demonized Milosevic by spreading lies and false charges, and goaded the opposition to Milosevic to risk civil war.



The U.S. leaders don't just want to remove Milosevic, they want to smash Yugoslavia with a counter-revolution that overthrows whatever remains from the 1945 socialist revolution...


http://www.workers.org/ww/2000/yugo1012.php




After USA instigated the overthrow of Milosevic, they bundled him over to the Hague to rot and die.

We have to study carefully the methods of how USA operates to destroy their political opponents.

[Black Dagger]

Do you have to use such large, bold, underlined and coloured text? It's a bit offensive.

[RHIZOMES]

Oh no a mass-murdering nationalist got a kangaroo court

[Revy]

Both sides were aggressive and committed atrocities. I am not going to sympathize with Milosevic.

Rather than promote unity to keep the nations of Yugoslavia together, all he did was promote his rabid Serbian nationalism and chauvinism.

There was US/NATO imperialism but that was not the only imperialism. The actions of Milosevic cannot be rationalized.

[Pogue]

He shouldn't have got a trial at all...

[Charles Xavier]

Watch the Documentary, I'm not asking for your opinion on Milosevic. And the Documentary is not about Milosevic, its about the Trial and the falsified documents and false witnesses, secret witnesses, people given prison sentences if they don't testify against Milosevic, people getting paid to live in a western country for trying against Milosevic, people claiming they are well connected in intelligence however they are found to be lying, people being given immunity for war crimes if they testify against Milosevic. The whole trial never proved anything.

[Bankotsu]

The evidence seems to show that USA, Germany and others had a plot from early 1990s to dismember Yugoslavia into smaller weaker states so as to control the balkan region.

Yugoslavia had always had an independent foreign policy, Tito wouldn't kowtow to Stalin, which caused the tito-stalin split in 1948, so it is likely that the west saw a socialist Yugoslavia as an obstacle in the region to implement their political, economic agenda and so engineered the dismemberment of Yugoslavia.


Interview with Zivadin Jovanovic, last Foreign affairs minister of Yugoslavia, gives his views on why his country was targeted for liquidation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH1Xf4zFilE


More information, sources, here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=newsHighlights&newsId=19

[MarxSchmarx]

Watch the Documentary, I'm not asking for your opinion on Milosevic. And the Documentary is not about Milosevic, its about the Trial and the falsified documents and false witnesses, secret witnesses, people given prison sentences if they don't testify against Milosevic, people getting paid to live in a western country for trying against Milosevic, people claiming they are well connected in intelligence however they are found to be lying, people being given immunity for war crimes if they testify against Milosevic. The whole trial never proved anything.


I did. And I came away from it with the same sentiment I had going in:

Yeah, well, sometimes the ends justify the means. That fascist prick had it coming.

If anything, I now feel that the greater crime would have been to let him get away with it. However messed up, there was some degree of justice done to this capitalist dog who destroyed Tito's experiment.

[Bandito]

He shouldn't have got a trial at all...

This.
Especially in a bourgeoise court in Hague.
Yugoslavian people should have hanged him on the town square in Belgrade.

[Bankotsu]

New book on Yugoslavia:


First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0826516440?ie=UTF8&tag=amphibian07-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0826516440




During 1998-1999, the United States used the Kosovo conflict to reaffirm its hegemonic role in Europe. US officials deliberately undercut a potential diplomatic solution to the Kosovo war; instead of using diplomacy to resolve the conflict, the United States sought a military solution in which NATO power could once again be demonstrated. The resulting air war, in 1999, succeeded in fully establishing the continued relevance of NATO, thus affirming US hegemony in Europe and undercutting European proclivities for foreign policy independence.
– David Gibbs, "First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0826516440?ie=UTF8&tag=amphibian07-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0826516440)"
There's no issue of the recent past that has caused more friction internationally amongst those on the left than the question of what really took place in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s. Gibbs' new book explores many of the myths surrounding this very complicated and controversial slice of history, particularly those dealing with the supposed humanitarian motivation behind the Western powers intervention and the many alleged Serbian atrocities.


http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer73.html

[Bankotsu]

I did. And I came away from it with the same sentiment I had going in:

Yeah, well, sometimes the ends justify the means. That fascist prick had it coming.

If anything, I now feel that the greater crime would have been to let him get away with it. However messed up, there was some degree of justice done to this capitalist dog who destroyed Tito's experiment.

I don't agree. The main issue is U.S hegemonic policy to use ethnic conflicts as pretext to attack countries in order to implement their hegemonic agenda.

Why didn't U.S intervene in Rwanda, East Timor or Congo in 1990s but in Yugoslavia?

The reason is due to U.S political strategic goals in the balkans. The crimes in Yugoslavia is only used as a pretext for action.



"First Do No Harm" highlights the many inconvenient truths of the Balkan imbroglio. For instance, Berlin lit the fuse for the Yugoslav explosion by backing Croatian and Slovenian independence without insisting upon protections for ethnic minorities - most importantly Croatian Serbs. Writes Mr. Gibbs: "In retrospect, Germany's actions contained a heavy element of miscalculation and showed a tendency to underestimate the destructive consequences that the intervention might have."


Even more shocking was Washington's coldblooded and counterproductive Realpolitik strategy of targeting only the Serbs. Notes Mr. Gibbs: "Franjo Tudjman was just as racist and aggressive as Milosevic; the persecution of ethnic Serbs in Croatia was just as morally objectionable as the Serb-perpetrated atrocities in Kosovo." Little better were the Bosnian Muslims. Mr. Gibbs explains: "It is true that the Muslim soldiers engaged in significantly fewer atrocities than did their Serb counterparts, but this was because the Muslims had inferior weapons, not because of any basic moral difference between the two sides."

http://www.kosovocompromise.com/cms/item/analysis/en.html?view=story&id=2143&sectionId=2



A sharp exposé of US “humanitarian intervention” in the former Yugoslavia—but some false conclusions

Like other former allies and “assets”—Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan—he had outlived his usefulness. The Serb leader had become an impediment to American plans for the Balkans, a strategic part of the Eurasian continent within striking distance of Russia, the former Soviet republics, the Middle East and the Caspian Sea—regions rich in oil, gas and other critical natural resources...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/book-j13.shtml

The hegemonic strategic goals of U.S is missing in most discussions on the U.S interventions across the world.

Just like Chamberlain's real agenda in appeasing Hitler is suppressed in the west.

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't agree. The main issue is U.S hegemonic policy to use ethnic conflicts as pretext to attack countries in order to implement their hegemonic agenda.

Why didn't U.S intervene in Rwanda, East Timor or Congo in 1990s but in Yugoslavia?

The reason is due to U.S political strategic goals in the balkans. The crimes in Yugoslavia is only used as a pretext for action.



But I guess what does it matter if US geopolitical goals align with smashing the likes of Milosevic? The alternative is arguing, in essence, that because Milosevic is an enemy of the uS that he should be supported. If one wing of the ruling class destroys another, I don't see why we shouldn't cheer.

Rwanda and E. Timor are beside the point. Of course the US was hypocritical. But to say that Milosevic and his ilk should be allowed to carry on their atrocities b/c the US needs to be logically consistent is absurd.




The hegemonic strategic goals of U.S is missing in most discussions on the U.S interventions across the world.


Well, the video struck me as more a case of the Milosevic trial not falling under the rule of law and therefore basically abetting his claim denouncing its legitimacy. The point: how relevant is it for the left if the trial is legitimate? I posit, it really isn't for people like Milosevic.

[Bankotsu]

If one wing of the ruling class destroys another, I don't see why we shouldn't cheer.

Only to give rise to a more vicious capitalist order in Yugoslavia.:D

Not to mention the dismemberment of a state and the increased influence of USA in balkans and the stregthening of their hegemonic agenda.

[Bankotsu]

Some interesting news:

Ex-Bosnian Serb chief: US helped Iran arm Muslims
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gfog99sG-4NVtaT3GNxSpZ0V33KAD9AAGG3G0

Karadzic to blame self-interest of west for Yugoslav break-up
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a0950b2a-8dea-11de-93df-00144feabdc0.html


Karadzic: 'Great powers' orchestrated Bosnian war

THE HAGUE — The world's "great powers" orchestrated the Bosnian war for their own geopolitical ends, Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic, awaiting trial for war crimes, told AFP on Wednesday.

"The world can see from what was done in Bosnia the pattern of how some countries used and abused a small nation for their own ends, such as to enforce their own military alliances and to achieve imperial goals," said Karadzic in a written reply to questions submitted to him in detention in The Hague.

"The breakup of Yugoslavia and the war in Bosnia was envisaged by the great powers well before I came into political life," he added.

"They then set those events in motion through the use of their intelligence services and military."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jbO7ldGYfdn7Dge_dYH_WpjnKROw

[Charles Xavier]

blank