From: nyu
Subject: Re: Stopping Another Holocaust
Organization: New York University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:18:52 GMT


In article 14657@husc3.harvard.edu, stojanov@husc10.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic) writes:
> 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).

I missed this little bit in my last posting. No, actually
I read it in New York Newsday. But that isn't what you're
getting at Milan, so let me clear it up for you. I'm not 
Bosnian, not Croat, not Serb. My family isn't from there. 
I don't know anyone who is (I dated someone whose grandparents
were killed by the Croats in WWII but she was born here). I'm not a
partisan. I am offended by Serbian aggression and their calls for
a "Greater Serbia" and their ethnic cleansing, not because of any
"personal" attachements, except being a part of the human race.


> >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).

These Muslims (oh, I'm not one of those either) only have these three
choices because the Serbians in the region ignored the choice the
Bosnian-Herzegovinians of all ethnic backgrounds offered them. That they
all live together, not as Serb and Muslim and Croat but as Bosnian-
Herzegovinians. Bosnia-Herzegovina, despite the Muslim elected as
leader never tried to become a "Islamic state", no matter what
Sloban says. And it's so nice of the Serbs to "accept" all the Muslim
land they forced them off of.

> 
> 
> > 
> >> >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.

No, we are not asking for the bombing of Belgrade (find that once in
my postings, I challenge you.) It is the Serbs who have shown the 
inability to control their force in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I favor
cutting of Serbia from all imports until they stop supplying
the  "irregulars" in Bosnia-Herzegovina with heavy artillery and
air support. I also favor selective bombing of the Serbian artillery
positions around Sarajevo. I, unlike you and the Serbian "irregulars"
understand the difference between a military target and civilians.


> 
> 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.

No, the rabid nationalism of Sloban and his boys back in Serbia is the
major factor in these 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,


I keep giving you arguments, but a mouthpiece apologist revisionist
like you never will hear them. They're too "difficult"