From: stojanov@husc10.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Stopping Another Holocaust
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:34:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Aug12.083403.14657
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Just a finishing note on Mr.XX's posting.  He did not produce a single
argument up to now, excluding some highly illogical stuff about
phones in Sarajevo ( source: his private communication with family, I 
guess).  His only purpose is to avoid serious arguments and play
on the emotions.  I understand that, since his emotions are
running high, and he knows that he would not be able, together with
the rest of the world to make Serbs live under Muslim rule once again
( or to that matter Croatian rule once again).   Those emotions
do not give him right to twist my words.  So I will correct his attemtps,
and give him the last statement ( again full of real or false 
emotions, probably).  Nothing useful came from this discussion, anyway.


In article <1992Aug11.013604.3346@cmcl2.nyu.edu> nyu writes:

>> >As for Serbs being and
>> >"absolute majority" in
>> >55% of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
>> >being 55% of the population 
>> >spread throughout a region does
>> >not give these Serbs the right
>> >to declare any region their in
>> >as Serbian. Bihac a majority
>> >Muslim town that Serbs have surrounded
>> >is an example.
>> >
>> 
>> I do not understand.  Please be more clear.  Serbs 
>> do not claim Bihac, in the case Muslims accept
>> cantonization.  In the case of the split of B&H 
>> between Serbia and Croatia, they would claim Bihac.
>> So it is up to fundamentalists in Izetbegovic 
>> government.
>
>According to other posts here,(a fountain of information)
>Serbs actually make up only 31% of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
As you haven't complained about those numbers here, I
>assume they are correct (I guess you sell a different
>picture to us Jews.)

Shows lack of logic.  From being majority of population on 55%
on the territory, does not follow that Serbs are majority of the population
in Bosnia.  They are claiming those areas where they are majority, 
the same way Muslims claim B@H because they are majority there 
( together with Croats, but they have different agendas).  The 
same way Croats were claiming the communist made Croatia, because
they are majority there. 
According to Mr. Loncaric's posting Croats are strongly for cantonization.
So are Serbs, and where is then?

>
>Moreover, my point about Bihac was that despite not having any
>substantial interest historically or population-wise in the town
>Serbian "irregulars" are bombing civilians to attempt to take over
>the town. I hope you understand now.
>

Sorry?  Serbs are not claiming Bihac, but Bihac is surrounded by predominantly
Serbian villages, which refuse to be in Islamic state.  So Bihac's muslims
have three choices:

-To try to exterminate those Serbs, the same way they tried to do 
in the WWII.
-To form a city state
-To negotiate with Serbs a land corridor to Cazinska Krajina, where 
Muslims are majority (Serbs accepted this).


> 
>> >As for your respect for the Bosnian Serbs,
>> >it was the Bosnian Serb "foreign minister"
>> >who threatened kamikaze missions against
>> >Western European targets, including 
>> >nuclear facilities, if Europe becomes
>> >involved. Ahh, the progressive approach.
>> >
>> 
>> Equally progressive as bombing Serbs.  Fair game,
>> as they say.
>
>No. I can see how a person who considers the bombing of
>innocent civilians in Bosnia-Herzogovina to be a morally
>correct act might not understand the difference between 
>using controlled force against combatants and spreading a
>radioactive plague across a continent. I'm just sickened by
>your warped logic.
>

Listen more carefully to the news.  There is no controlled force in
Bosnia.  They claim that there would be a huge collateral damage,
that would make you feel good?  Also many are asking for bombing 
Belgrade, because bombing of Bosnian Serbs will not produced results.

And I do not agree with the Bosnian Serbs minister statement. Serbs
should be strong enough to make peace without that.  But I do 
understand the emotions that made him say that. 

And I do not find anything that is happening in B&H morally correct.
Starting with the Izetbegovic's refusal to go along with the document
about cantonization, that he has signed in Lisabon (Lisboa) or killing
that happened on the Orthodox wedding. Let me remind you that that
triggered the most of events. 

So you have a last word.  I have not seen a single clear statement why 
is what is happening in Bosnia not a civil war, but aggression.
I want to hear an argument if possible.  Probably not.  

Regards,
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish