oblaik - 09:55am May 1, 1997 EST (#134 of 144)

Dear Editor:

I read with dismay Mr. Rosenthal's article "The Well Poisoners" that appeared 4/29/97. I found it to be both offensive and inaccurate. He appears to single-out both Egypt and Islam as the main culprits in discriminating against Copts and Christians respectively. He painted a disturbing picture of hate and racism that stands in a great contrast to the Egypt I knew, having lived there 25 years before I immigrated to the U.S., and to the socio-economic facts of the Egyptian society. Copts own 60% of Egypt's wealth, even though they represent only 15% of its population. There are more churches per-religious capita than there are mosques. Copts in Egypt do not live in secluded ghettos but rather live in mixed communities throughout the country. Egypt lobbied for Boutrous Ghali, a Copt, to assume the leadership of the United Nations. These are all but few examples of a tolerant society where both Christians and Muslims coexist. Having said that, to claim that there is absolutely no discrimination against Copts in Egypt would be an equally misrepresentative statement. Cases of discrimination against Christian professors seeking tenure in universities have been documented. Occasional harassment of Copts by street gangs occurs. Attacks on Christian-owned businesses and churches happen. These are hateful acts of discrimination that must be fought and never condoned. Statements made recently by the leader of the Brotherhood are both foolish and tasteless. He must be asked to apologize publicly and other Muslim leaders must distant themselves from such statements. On the other hand, there are many well-documented cases of reverse discrimination against Muslims in Egypt. Where Copts are in control of a university board (e.g. Ein Shams University) Muslim candidates for tenure are often overlooked. Many companies owned by Christians openly recruit exclusively from the Coptic community. Attacks on mosques in Upper Egypt do occur. Overall the Egyptian society is not an ideal one. But which society is? Similar acts of discrimination against minorities can still be found in the U.S. today. We all work hard to encourage tolerance and understanding among ethnic and religious groups, but the reality in Egypt is a far cry from the picture that Mr. Rosenthal painted.

Which brings me to my second point that Mr. Rosenthal's article is another evidence to his increasingly hostile attitudes towards Islam. It is rather curious why he adopted the "Christian cause" when in fact Muslims are facing systematic oppression and, in few cases, extermination in far greater numbers than any other ethnic group in the world. This is not an attempt to prove "we" suffer more than "others", but rather to provide a balanced view of human rights violations without singling out one group as the oppressed and another as the oppressor. While Mr. Rosenthal mentioned Christians suffering under the communist regime in China, he overlooked 50 million Muslim Chinese who face constant abuse by Chinese authorities and are denied their basic religious rights as recently reported in the New York Times. Islamic political movements (different from terrorist groups) across the Middle East are denied their basic human and political rights. Their leaders imprisoned, their families tortured, and their businesses confiscated. These cases have been documented by Middle East Watch. A case in a point is Algeria. While no one condones the atrocities currently being committed by both the regime and its rebels, the fact remains that the civil war started when a Muslim political party was about to take control of the government after succeeding in an open and fair elections. Had Mr. Rosenthal at that time expressed his anger over the reversal of the democratic process and his disapproval of the embarrassing acquiescence of both France and the U.S., I would have been more sympathetic to his advocacy of human rights. But like the rest of the U.S. and Weste

marmet - 10:18am May 1, 1997 EST (#135 of 144)

Marko K: I know it's necessary for you to say this in order to build more justification for Serbian aggression--but the Bosnian Muslims are not fundamentalist. You may say they are--but in case you haven't noticed, no one believes you. Maybe you can try something new like saying they are Islamo-pagans who sacrifice Serbian babies to the tree gods. Yes, try that one, and I'll get back to you about how well the public is buying it.

marko_k - 11:22am May 1, 1997 EST (#136 of 144)

Mr. Baker,

You declared yourself as a non-partisan participant. Having that in mind I can only but thank you for working so hard on the issues. I see that one of your messages (#123) was posted 12:33 in a morning and another one (#129) an hour later (at 1:23am). Prety hard work even if you happen to be on the West Coast.

Your answer to Mr. Makarov's questions that I reminded you about, despite the effort, are quite disapointing. You tackled only one out of many questions you have raised "forgeting" to explain where we can read about your claim that only 5% of Croats were supporting Ustashe, the claim that Malaparte's memoirs (supported by many other books) are fiction, the claim that Sanjak is a part of Bosnia etc.

In the only claim that you tackled - that Cetniks committed atrocities in Sanjak (which would in your mind then excuse mass participation of Bosnian Muslims in the Nazi SS) you had no clear reference. Instead of pointing to which part of Fiction Library we can read about these atrocities you refer to a "document" mentioned in a book published in Belgrade in 1979! It would be funy if it was not sad that you have to relly to such a reference.

Let us remind the readers here that in 1979 Croatian Communist Tirant Tito was still alive and that the authorless book referred to - was thus written during the HIGHT of the Communist rule. Atop of that the book is written by the Communists about their ideological enemy - the Royalist Chetnik movement. Should one say anything else? And you want to compare that garbage (and literally garbage) to the references Mr. Makarov provided; the references core of which are major world encyclopedias.

Whom would you quote next? Mr Hitler? He regularly called Serbs - bandits.

And one more detail - how in the world did you get to understand the content of the book? It was published in Serbo-Croatian only(!) - unlike Malaparte's works which one can read in any major world language. Did you suddenly learn the language somehow? In one of your posts you said you did not understand it... And where can we find the book you mentioned? We should get to Belgrade and then try to find someone who kept the garbage?

Expert you are - an expert in finding apology for Nazis. Who else but Ustashe repeats a lie about Judenfrei Serbia?

As Mr/Ms Marmet is concerned: About the Islam fundamentalism in Bosnia many books and Encyclopedia refer to their roots. And many articles were written in the West recently about jihad warriors participation, Iran's support of the Muslim fanatics of Bosnia. If needed I would be glad to provide you with references.

I would also like to point to a detail: When one clicks at your name ("marmet") in the message #135, or if one is to click at name "fedup" (let us say in message #110) - one could see that we have witnessed one of your many split personalities. Both times one can see that the two names point to the same e-mail address (qrb@life.sunysb.edu).

Regards, Marko K.

marmet - 11:41am May 1, 1997 EST (#137 of 144)

How brilliant of you Marko, to figure out that fedup and Marmet have the same address. Now, can you explain to me my part in this anti-Serbian plot? I realize I'm a collaborator of some sort--but my personality is so split that I'm confused about my exact role. I really don't know why "they" hired me in the first place.

Now, back to business. In your most recent post about Muslims I have gotten the best taste yet of how you twist the truth. Iranian jihad money started pouring in only after it became apparent that the West was going to stand around with its hands behind its back as genocide of Muslims took place.

There have been several requests yesterday that the Serbian side of the story be told without this spewing of hatred at the enemy. Questions were posted asking about why, in the Serbian view, Bosnia should not be independent from Serbia, and what America's stake is in siding against the Serb's. So far there has been no answer to these rational questions. I'm getting a little suspicious about the evasiveness here. Are we feeling guilty about something perhaps?

StSava - 11:49am May 1, 1997 EST (#138 of 144)

To Marmet

Apparently you do not live in the real world when it comes to Bosnia. I will not go on record by saying that all Muslims in Bosnia are fundamentalists but I will go on record in saying that all of the leadership is. Too often it is the respectable Muslim who turns a blind eye to Alija Izetbegovic's criminal past, a past in which he spent 10 years of his life in prison for killing Serbs. The first time in 1947 and the second in 1981 when he was the chief defendant in the Muslim uprising against the Serbian community in Sarajevo.

But please don't let me distract you from the truth, allow me to quote your own people. In the Sarajevo Muslim newspaper Ljiljan on November 29, 1993 in an article entitled ÒBosniaÑAn Exercise From the Koran,Ó it stated that the most important organizers of the Muslim struggle in Bosnia were the imams, the prayer leaders of mosques. These religious clerics are believed to be divinely appointed, sinless, infallible successors of Muhammad. The first illegal military formation in the Bosnian war was the ÒDzamijski GoluboviÓ (Mosque Doves). The young mufti of Tuzla, Hussein Kavazovic was the commander of a formation numbering in its ranks 15 imams with rifles in hand out killing Serbs and Croats. How revolting that your religious clerics are not above stooping to murder. Mehmed Karalic, a Medresa professor, is considered the founder of the infamous band of killers in this war known to the world as the 7th Muslim Brigade and according to this Muslim newspaper, he heads one of the most elite units of the Muslim army. By the way that Òelite unitÓ contains not a single non Muslim, how multi ethnic of you! I challenge you to cite one single Serbian priests who took up arms in this war or in WWII and murdered Muslims! I would even go so far as to challenge you to find a Roman Catholic priest who participated in the killing fields of this war, in spite of the fact that the Roman clergy did participate in the killing fields of WWII.

Hezin Halilovic Muderis did not accept just the moral function of an imam in war time as chaplains have over the years in the American military, he placed himself at the head of the local units.

In the Los Angeles Times article by Kim Murphy, June 12, 1993, the Croats and Serbs were quoted as saying that when Muslim forces took Travnik: ÒSome soldiers seemed to be Arabs...and spoke a language we couldn't understand...when they would attack, they would say, Allahu akbar, we were hearing this day and night.Ó

On February 6, 1993, the Serbs killed an Arab mercenary near Bihac. On his body they found a document intended to be hand carried to other Arab Mujahedin in Bosnia. It read: ÒArabian Mujahedin Fight For the Caliphate in the Balkans.Ó ÒWe except from you to take care in creation of the caliphate in the Balkans, because the Balkans is our way toward the conquering of Europe...you should know, brothers, that time works in our sake, and thus do not spare your lives, help with all available devices our brothers who fight for the sacred Islamic cause against the Christians in Bosnia.Ó

But let me be even more specific. Allow me to quote from Islamic Declarations the book by Izetbegovic himself in his own words: ÒThe Islamic movement must, and can, take over political power as soon as it is morally and numerically so strong that it can not only destroy the existing non-Islamic power, but also build up a New Islamic authority.Ó He also stated in that piece of trash, ÒThere can be no peace or coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic societies and political institutions.Ó ÒEvery good Muslim, through his formal engagement, including the political one, at all times and in all places, must above all serve Islam, by force if necessary.Ó

see part II

StSava - 12:03pm May 1, 1997 EST (#139 of 144)

Part II

On March 22, 1994 it was reported by the SRNAÑSerbian Press Agency #44226-05, that in the Novi Grad municipality of Sarajevo where the intellectual elite live, signs at the entrance of municipal buildings read: ÒCAUTION: Those entering must only greet and communicate in strict Islamic custom.Ó or what Marmet, Serbs are handed their heads?

Sefika Sjenar, a Sarajevo Muslim who has taken to Islamic costume, played a major role in the Islamization of Novi Grad. SRNA reported that she boosted that it was through her efforts that Òthe conversion of the municipality of Stari Grad to Islamic confession was achieved, after we cleansed it of Serbs.Ó

This constant denial by Muslims that the fundamentalists have not taken over Bosnia as thousand upon thousands of previously un religious Muslims are being forced to wear the veil and to pray 5 times a day is indeed arrogant...the facts, Marmet, fly in the face of your protest.

On February 24, 1994 also printed in Ljiljan, Mr. Zihada Kljucanin a Muslim journalists wrote: ÒThe souls of our Sehidi will not find peace until all Serbian souls are in jehennem (hell), for then the war can stop.Ó

His text was entitled ÒThe offspring of the Siman KmetÓ and it began by saying, ÒThere are 500 Serbian orphans in Ugljevik. Masallah! (what a good thing).

In the Bosnian village of Konjic, the Muslim army and criminals like Nasir Oric, converted the Serbian Orthodox Church into a public toiletÑa disgrace by any standard of civilized behavior. The steel drum originated in Jamaica because musical instruments were denied to black slaves. The Silent Kolo (dance) was forced on the Bosnian Serbs during Ottoman slavery for the very same reasons. When Srebrenica fell, the Serbian forces discovered that the Serbian church has been converted into a stable and that human excrement was smeared on the frescos and walls of the church. Apparently Marmet, your people haven't change much from the days of the Ottoman Empire and the enslavement of the Serbian people.

Wm. Dorich, President, SAVA, Serbian American Voters Alliance

marmet - 12:07pm May 1, 1997 EST (#140 of 144)

St Salvo

How clever of you to figure out that I'm a Muslim. I, myself, had not yet come to that conclusion. I was contemplating it, but having to wear a heavy black thing over my face pretty much dissuades me from making the final leap. Besides, my Irish-Catholic father and Ashkenazi Jewish mother might get upset.

Regarding Izetbegovic--I realize that alot of Bosnian Muslims and non find him a bit too much. Now, of course there are some heavy duty fundos engaged in the conflict (I mean Bosnian fundos not Arab or Iranian), but I'm sure there are Serbian Orthodox ones too, right? Nevertheless, there were Serbians who supported the coalition to start a Bosnian state. Apparently the fundamentalist thing wasn't a hot issue as was later insinuated.

StSava - 12:42pm May 1, 1997 EST (#141 of 144)

Your ignorance of the facts astounds me. No, there was no Serbian support for the coalition to start a Bosnian state, you can count the traitor Serbs on one hand.

When the Bosnian Muslims attempted to place a referendum on the agenda in parliament, the Serb delegates walked out. In their absence the Croats and Muslims then held an illegal vote in which they placed a referendum on an upcoming ballot. The 34% Serbs population of Bosnia boycotted that vote. The Yugoslav Constitution stated that all major decisions in that nation were by consensus, not majority rule, this was an illegal vote. None the less, the international community recognized the formation of this illegal state violating the sovereignty of the 72-year-old nation of Yugoslavia, a founding member of the United Nations who was the first to betray them. International law and every major agreement signed in this century pertaining to the Balkans was violated with impunity. Why should the Serbs have any faith in a Dayton agreement that they were bombed into signing? We don't hold a criminal responsible for confessions beaten out of them, why should we expect the Serbs to honor an agreement in which their leaders were prevented from attending negotiations for peace by inditing them without evidence? That evidence was not forthcoming until nearly one year later.

Please allow me to lift you out of your ignorance about my people. The London Agreement of 1915 contained an explicit commitment by the Entente Powers Òto respect the ethnic and historic rights of the Serbs to the entire territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, to the Adriatic coastline south of the city of Sibenik.Ó The London Agreement offered the Serbs a solution, approved by the Great Powers, which, if suggested today, would no doubt be condemned by some of them as an attempt to a solution of creating a ÒGreater Serbia.Ó

The Corfu Declaration of 1917 provided the platform for the subsequent unification of South Slavs into a single state. I remind you that the Croats and Slovenes were vassals of the Hungarian Empire at the time. The only people to give up their statehood to form this new nation were the Serbs and Montenegrins. Serbia had been internationally recognized as a nation at the Congress of Berlin in 1878 some 60 years earlier.

It is fully implicit in the Corfu Declaration that ÒThe right of secession, should the Yugoslav union be dissolved, resides with the constituent peoples of the newly created state, and not with the administrative units within it.Ó There was actually a recipe for dismemberment which the international community created, then conveniently ignored in 1991 because it did not serve the Muslim agenda.

In President Wilson's 14 Points in 1918 it specifically called for Òa free access to the sea to be given to SerbiaÓ (No. 11 of the 14 points). Today that is totally being ignore as Muslims fight over the water access in Brcko while not a single nation has demanded that the Serbs deserve the same right to access in the Adriatic.

The Treaties of Paris (1919) specifically those of St. Germain and Neuilly Trianon, established Òthe frontiers of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.Ó The Yugoslav Kingdom was treated as the legal successor of the Kingdom of Serbian and the Kingdom of Montenegro. How compelling that the Baltic states were allowed to return to their pre-Soviet borders of 70 years ago, but the Serbs are being treated as though there was never a Serbian or a Montenegrin Kingdom and their territories have been divided up between their greedy neighbors who never in history owned a single square foot of this land. We have even managed to successful ignore the Charter of the United Nations in which is enshrined the right to self-determination of the people. Slovenes, Croats and Muslims seem only worthy of these rights.

Wm. Dorich, President of SAVA, The Serbian American Voters Alliance, Pittsburgh

fedup - 01:45pm May 1, 1997 EST (#142 of 144)

Ok St Sava, next question. Marmet and Fedup are the same person, btw. No, it's not some mindgame I'm playing--I'm at a different computer with a different sign-on.

If the Serbs make up 34% of the population, why should that land be accorded to Serbia? Given the way Muslims were ethnically cleansed in this war, one can begin to understand how they might want to set up a state outside of Serbia's jurisdiction. I'm not stating that as fact--just a speculation. However, I distinctly recall that at the time of its recognition, the Bosnian parliament, or whatever it is called, was not just made up of Muslims--and there didn't seem to be any indication that government was planning on forced migration of Serbs in order to monopolize power. Now I ask you, StSava, in all honesty: the Jews have been treated savagely in Christian Europe--is there any reason to believe it's been any different for Muslims?

As of yet, no one has answered the question of what America's inherent interest is in alienating the Serbs in a conflict that does not serve our interest whatsoever.

avoice - 05:09pm May 1, 1997 EST (#143 of 144)

To Fedup aka aponine.

You asked me in e-mail whether I was truly in sympathy with the Serbian view or just being congenial. Here's my position.

I think that the only reason that the countries of Western Europe and the U.S.A. are supporting a Bosnian state is because they can't figure out anything else to do. It's almost as if they are stuck in one position because they recognized Bosnia early on. I am sure that they did not reflect on the consequences. They were blinded by their own attachment to democractic principles (ideology), one of which is self-determination. Thus they felt, well Bosnia-Hercegovina are to Yugolslavia like Scotland and Wales are to the United Kingdom (although this analogy is not the strongest) and if they want to divorce from the rest of Yugoslavia, more power to them. Who could complain? They I think viewed Bosnia as a nation or ethnic group of some sort which wasn't the case at all. The mistake was in recognizing the entity in the first place. I can't exactly blame either the Serbs or Croats in their reactions to this whole fiasco. All of a sudden land traditionally thought by the Serbs as Serbian and by the Croats as Croation ended up in a brand new-never-before-seen-in the-history-of-mankind country. All hell broke loose. No one involved was going to sit still for this. except maybe the Bosnian Muslims, who came out better in the original deal than they had a right to expect. There had never been a Slav Muslim state--ever. The Slav Muslims, and I have considerable sympathy for their plight too, were I think the people most likely to rule this country. These people are the remains of a Turkish occupation which is not particularly well spoken of by either the Croats but especially the Serbs. The Serbs at least spent most of the 18th century trying to get rid of the Turks from their homeland. There had been a Serbian kingdom before the Turkish occupation. I think in their eyes the creation of a Muslim directed state in Bosnia was seen as a complete turnabout of what had gone on over the past 200 years.

The sharp words I have exchanged with Messrs. Makarow and Dorich are based only on my view that their tactics and language are inappropriate to the goal of educating the public about the issues. It is no good in America to insult someone by calling him a Croat or a Muslim. Who cares? No one here much cares much how many Serbs were killed during WWII by the Ustashi or whether the Ustashi had the support of 5% or 83,234% of the Croation population responding to a recent poll. These are details eyond the scope of the people's interest, except of course a man like Michael Pravica who lost what, 68 relatives. I think an explanation of the very complicated historical context of Bosnia and Serbia would be more effictive. I mean, who between Messrs. Makarov and Dorich knows or care whether the Bahutus or Watutsi are on the righteous side in the Rwanda-Burundi-Zairian wars.

doctor13 - 05:15pm May 1, 1997 EST (#144 of 144)

America's interest(s) in alienating the Serbs in a conflict are, inherently, oil and greed. When something doesn't make sense, follow the money. Saudi Arabia wanted an Islamic nation in the belly of Europe, which also gave Iran its foothold in Europe ("Thus, Tehran and its allies are using the violence in Bosnia-Herzegovina as a springboard for the launching of a jihad in Europe . . . Bosnia-Herzegovina's Muslims have long been considered by the Islamist leadership in the Middle East to be ripe as a vehicle for the expansion of Islamic militancy into Europe," -- Yossef Bodansky, "Iran's European Springboard," September 1, 1993), and we wanted Saudi oil and money. Pure and simpe. We betrayed our ally in two world wars, that survived some of the worst atrocities during World War II known to man at the hands of Croatia's fascist regime, allied with their Bosnian Muslims buddies who helped them run the death camps which exterminated over one million Serbs, Jews and Gypsies. It was clear that the US was committed to an Islamic victory when James Baker in his book admitted to orchestrating a pro-Muslim bias in the US media to successfully humiliate and demonize the Serbian people.

Hitler, in order to justify his "final solution" of the Jews, first had to demonize them in order for the German people to accept the horrors that were to follow. "After all, the Jews are to blame for all of Germany's problems." And just as Hitler demonized the Jews, our government, with the help of a biased pro-Muslim media (James Baker made sure of that) have successfully vilified the Serbian people so successfully that Americans cheered when NATO pilots, primarily Americans, dropped over 6,000 tons of bombs, for over 15 days, on schools, hospitals, Orthodox churchs and farms. It made us feel good, because, "after all, they deserved it and we had to do something!" Of course, our decision to bomb the Serbian people was based on a stage Markale breadline massacre staged by the Bosnian Muslim government, and, confirmed by UN reports and other sources who the real culprits were.

It doesn't take much to destroy an entire nation when it suits our purpose. I wonder who will be the next to go?