Posted August 16, 2002

Srebrenica

I am against Bush's war on terror and I am against all forms of terrorism. I have many friends from the Balkans, most of which are Serbs and Croats. If anything, I should be biased toward their side, but I'm afraid that you guys might be a little off on the Srebrenica incident if I am reading what you're saying correctly. ...Even if it were 600 instead of 6,000, that's 600 too many and those responsible are still war criminals. Just as the body count in Jenin is irrelevant, the same is true regarding Srebrenica.

~ Kevin W.

Nebojsa Malic replies:

Of course any death in Srebrenica is a death too many. But no one seems to care about the truth. The Muslims wave the official story about as a 'bloody shirt,' while using the refugees as expendable political capital. Most Serbs simply raise the issue of Srebrenica Muslims' crimes against their Serb neighbors, which are indisputable but also irrelevant in to the debate. If you noticed, the page title: 'What really happened in Srebrenica?' has a question mark. This means we are not offering an answer, but merely asking questions no one else seems to be asking.

It may well be that some 7000 people died in the aftermath of Srebrenica's fall. Or it may be they did not. Without a serious, honest inquiry, how will anyone ever know for sure? There can be no justice, no peace, no reconciliation (if any) without the truth.

Selective Memory

Let's hope this new article ["Selective Memri"] ends all the fuss Joe Schwartz is making about Ran HaCohen's column. Who is the one with the real "selective memory"?

~ Khalid F.

Vacation

I am driven nearly mad by the news that Justin Raimondo will not be writing three columns a week until September. How dare he leave us all in desperation?

Does he really believe a vacation will help him think clearer? I am here to tell you that I am on a continuous holiday, and I can no longer think clearly at all. Please tell him to write something every other day; it need not be long.

~ Christopher Weber, Monte Carlo, Monaco

Armey

I think Justin has definitely dropped the ball again on his "Hail Dick Armey" piece. I mean really, wasn't this the same guy who called for the ethnic cleansing, the removal of Palestinians from Palestine, on MSNBC's Hardball? Anybody who could say that with a straight face has to be a warmongering idiot. Calling George Bush "a good man" at one point and the bit about Arafat being the "Palestinian pimpernel" also shows sudden extreme lack of foresight and peripheral vision akin to narcolepsy. Maybe there are some heroes out there but these guys definitely ain't them.

Despite this criticism I would say Justin is one of my two favorite columnists, Eric Margolis being the other. For the detailed analysis and being one of the few who will tell you what is actually going on.

~ Mark Carpenter, Ontario

AIPAC's Role

The key role AIPAC played in getting George Bush to launch his high-tech massacre in 1990-1991 was the best kept secret in the U.S. at the time. When Pat Buchanan had the reckless temerity to expose this he was castigated so badly that he never completely recovered. One of his leading critics was the Wall Street Journal and ironically it was they who published an article in January 1991, after the massacre, by David Powers which detailed the role Washington's most powerful foreign loyalist lobby played in Mr. Bush's War. Today this same group is now embarked upon their greatest "crusade" (our current George Bush's slip-of-the-lip), the destruction of all Israel's enemies. Once again most Americans are unaware of AIPAC's role. When the 9-11 attack happened the nation's response should have been "Why does anyone hate us so much that they would do this to us?' Instead the nations responded "How dare they!" After decades of suffering from US aggression the real question could have been "How dare they retaliate?"

~ World War 2 Vet

Retribution

No website deserves more credit that Antiwar.com for exposing the lies and intrigues of the War Party. Justin, in particular, has been a trailblazer in ferreting out details on the sordid "Israeli angle" to 911. Your site consistently posts articles that refute the pap and propaganda that passes for "diplomatic reporting" in the corporate media.

Why then does Justin consistently use a flippant phrase like "retribution against the Taliban" to justify the war crimes that "our boys" are committing in Afghanistan? The whole justification for this terrible war rests entirely on the assertions of the US War Party that Osama Bin Laden did it and that the Taliban were in cahoots. Since regular visitors of Antiwar.com know that many aspects of the official story are lies, where are the grounds for retribution? The Israeli angle alone creates a "reasonable doubt" that should restrain an honorable man from unleashing the campaign that has caused so much grief to thousands of totally innocent noncombatants in Afghanistan.

The bitter truth is that we, the citizens of the US, don't know who was really behind 911. We don't know, because the War Party doesn't want us to know. The War Party wants us to pay taxes and send our sons to die in Afghanistan and Iraq. We should be seeking "retribution" all right, but not against the Afghans.

~ Robert Jackson

Off the War Bandwagon

I agree with the poster concerning the reasons why Bush did not invade Iraq. The Bush did not suddenly become a good kid. He did not suddenly swear off war and violence. Quite simply, Bush's generals told them told him that they needed secure land bases near Iraq in order to stage their invasion. The secure land bases were largely in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis told Bush to go to hell. That left him with the unpalatable choice of going to war with Saudi Arabia in order to simply conquer the bases or backing off on his war with Iraq. He floated a trial balloon on Saudi Arabia by having his "think tank," the Rand corporation, loudly yell that Saudi Arabia was our enemy. This, of course, was fundamental nonsense, but Bush wanted to see how would fly. It didn't. ...

Next, he trotted out a gang of mercenaries that he grandly called "the Iraqi opposition." That was so idiotic that Bush nearly got laughed off the stage. With that, Dick Armey and some other politicians got off the war bandwagon, realizing that it was heading over a cliff.

~ Jerry G.

Previous Backtalk