From: stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Democracy
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:25:01 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Due to the certain changes, I would not have time any more in the next
few months to participate in the extensive discussions.

In article <1993Jan4.200613.12895@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic) writes:
>: 
>: No, read more carefully the article after the title one.  
>
>I did.  None of the following articles lend credence to your statement
>that the Serbs aren't trying to perform ethnic cleansing.  In fact, there
>are Serb POWs who tell of how they were *ordered* to rape and kill, or that
>they would be killed.
>
>Remember how you said to look to the leaders for how the war is being run?
>Well, the leaders in the field want their soldiers to rape and kill
>civilians in cold blood...

No, the article about history of rapes in war.  
Also, if you or me are caught by Muslims in Bosnia,
both of us would admit many things, just to survive!
Last time admission was taken as a proof of guilt was under 
Stalin.

>
>: 
>: Also, I hope that journalist would go to Serbia and Serbian 
>: territory to track women that were raped by the opposing side.
>
>They probably will.

I doubt.

>
>: The most interesting thing is that in the one of the article about 
>: history of the rape in war they still mention German army in WWI 
>: Belgium.  Well, that was proven to be the first known organised 
>: P.R. lie, made to turn England public opinion in stronger favour
>: of the war against Germany! 
>
>Yeah, and we KNOW how the German soldiers were really nice guys...  And
>the Holocaust was just a PR lie...
>

Well, should I remind you that we are talking of WWI?


>: I do not see how any rape case could be normal or even "normal." 
>
>You yourself brought up that "rapes are a consequence of war", thus that
>rapes are a "normal" part of war.  That is why I enclosed it in quotes.
>To use the above statement against me is just a personal attack.  Remember,
>you brought it up as "part of war" in the first place.  See below for
>what you wrote:
>

No, I am just responding to your arguments.  I have never 
used the word normal, with or without q.marks.  It seems
to me that when American soldier rape ( Viet Nahm, again )
we have the "normal" thing, when Muslims rape it is "normal,"
but when Serbs rape it is not "normal." That is " organised,"
"planned,""genocide!"

>
>No, you have been saying that the Serbs are getting a bum rap, and they
>are "just exercising self-determination".  You have not been saying that they
>are doing bad things.
>

I have not been denying that they are doing bad things. There is some
difference.  I admit that everyone is doing bad things.


>: No, this is your claim based on propaganda.  There is something that is
>: called innocent until proven guilty. 
>
>So, why didn't the Serbs let the Red Cross in to inspect their camps, only
>specific ones, the ones which the Red Cross WASN'T interested in?  Note
>that they *never* opened up some of their camps...
>

Which one?  At the end they opened all of them, actually closed 
most of them for good.  ICRC was stopped from seeing certain object
in one of the camps but that does not make those camps "death camps." 
There are rumors that there are more camps, but nothing confirmed.


>: Also, I am quite sure that rate of prisoners that come out of that camps
>: would be shown to be higher that percentage of German POWs that came out
>: of certain American and British camps!
>
>I wouldn't know.
>

Well, I know that you do not, because they do not scream about that here.

>: Closer to the present time, how many VK fighters survived being captured
>: by Americans?  Were they in "death camps, " "death prisons," or
>: the the whole country was turned into "country of death?"  
>
>These are straw man arguments.  We aren't comparing camps.  What is
>happening is deplorable, and shouldn't be happening, nor allowed to happen.
>

Gee, let's bombard  South Lebanese Army and those who armed
them, Israelies.  They, as I understand, run some pretty bad camps there.

Point is, the solution is the political one, i.e. giving Serbs the same
right for self-determination.



>: >: Slovenes deny right for self-determination of Serbs.
>: >
>: >Unfortunately, Serbs define self-determination as destroying the Croats and
>: >Muslims.
>: 
>: And Croatian and Muslim self-determination is destroying the Serbs.
>
>Where are the Croats and Muslims destroying the Serbs?
>

Where - on the territory they control in Bosnia and Croatia. 

Why - read Tudjman's book.  He states that it is a kind of historical rule to 
destroy minority which stands in the way of majority.  Serbs 
are made minority and the unfriendly one by his pre-election campaign and
initial moves as a president.  By refusing to adjust, they became
marked.


>: Slovenian self-determination triggered the domino effect, that 
>: destroyed everything, the whole country, yet you support all of them, 
>: except Serbs.  Man of high moral principles, no doubt!
>
>Why, yes.  The wars the Serbs are waging in former sections of
>Yugoslavia are almost unbelievable.  These ethnic conflicts didn't occur
>on such a scale when the other peoples seceded from Yugoslavia, only when
>the Croats and Muslims went for self-determination.

First, you have detached the sentence before this one, which connects
this passage to my comment about your moral principles. Second, Muslims
and Croatian rights for self-determination collided with Serbian. Thus,
war.


>
>I have absolutely nothing against Serbs, except what they are doing to
>the land and people of Yugoslavia.
>

Yugoslavia is gone some time ago. Not because of only
Serbs.

>How do you like their beautification project in Dubrovnik?

You mean the surroundings.  Nothing very bad happened to Dubrovnik.
Well, from P.R. point of view it was a very bad move. From military
point of view - I am far from expert.

>
>: No, they have much less money than both Croats and Muslims.  
>: After embargo no company is allowed to work for them!  Also, they
>: seem not to have realised the full importance of PR work.
>
>Somehow, I doubt this.  The capital of the former Yugoslavia was in
>Beograd, and this was a very bustling city.  Most of Croatia (from what
>I remember) was farmland and tourist-oriented.
>
>

Well what brings money - tourism, oil industry - INA was the biggest one,
and arms export ( also some food export ).
Muslims have oil-rich countries to support them, Croats have Germany and
Catholic church.  Poor Serbs 8-). Also, Croatian diaspora seem to be
more rich. 

>Scott Linn
>scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com

Bye,

Milan
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia