agree with you. Have listened to BBC reports and also our local commercial
and state-funded media reports, and the blatant ignoring of reality of
the situation so that their little Albanian buddies are absolved of their
crimes is nauseating. Thanks for your information.
Jim Rendevski, Melb, Australia
you. I believe the question is no longer "if" or "how"
the media are excusing Albanian violence, but rather "why"?
But whether their motivation is simple laziness, deliberate malice, or
simply fear of embarrassment once the truth about Kosovo comes out, their
conduct has been more than shameful.
you for your detailed report on the absolutely outrageous events in Kosovo,
equaling in its essence to the Nazi holocaust. I am glad that you bring
the issue up and you expose the lies of the mainstream imperial media,
which downplays the events or else blames it on the Serbs. Your weekly
columns, as well as the numerous other columns at Antiwar.com about the
situation in Yugoslavia are invaluable as far as presenting the truth
about the tragic events of the last 12-13 years in that part of the world
and counteracting against the ugly smear campaign of the mainstream media
against the Serbs. They have done a great deal in helping me assess the
situation in Yugoslavia in a broad perspective (though I was against Clinton's
meddling from the beginning, I didn't realize to what extent I was right
before I discovered this wonderful website).
wonder if you could help encourage other columnists at Antiwar.com to
take a closer look at the current events of the last week in Kosovo and
write more about it, expressing their rightful criticism and indignation
at the violence of the Albanian mobsters and the entirely ineffective
behavior of NATO and KFOR in "protecting" the Serbs against these criminals.
I think that this is an extremely urgent matter and I strongly feel that
the events in Kosovo should be more highlighted and brought out on the
front, rather than just stuck somewhere at the bottom of the home page,
as if it is just another minor occurrence in the world among many other
probably realize that this is a tragedy of an enormous caliber and more
rightful outrage should be voiced in greater detail about this. I am writing
this because I greatly appreciate the harsh criticism by all the contributing
columnists of Antiwar.com against Bill Clinton's illegal war in 1999.
Thus, I feel that this website could elucidate the present catastrophic
consequences of this war in greater detail. I sympathize with your cause
entirely and I wish you the greatest luck in your noble work.
you may well be aware, every writer operates with a day or two of time
lag. My special Kosovo column didn't appear until Saturday, the fourth
day of the pogrom, simply because that's the soonest I could get it together.
Raimondo has written about Kosovo on Friday ("The
Déjà Vu War"), and Antiwar.com has published Chris
Deliso's timely piece as well. I'm not too excited about the Kosovo
news being at the bottom of the page, either but truth be told,
there is so much information coming out of there, it could easily take
over the entire front page. Other things are happening maybe part
of the reason the pogrom started at this stage in the news cycle
and much as I'd like folks to drop everything and focus on Kosovo, that
wouldn't be reasonable. Now, there are a couple of sites with dedicated
news feeds to the situation (I put the links on the
'blog), which I've found very useful.
you for your words of encouragement. I hope we will manage to convey the
full extent of the disaster in Kosovo in the coming days, and expose the
things its makers would prefer remain hidden.
is there no mention of the gold and silver mines?
find them unimportant in the current context. This isn't about money.
It's about land and hatred.
reading your article concerning the latest violence in Kosovo, I am curious
what is your opinion about the strained relations between the Serbian
Orthodox Church and the Macedonian Orthodox Church? I know it is a different
topic, yet it is a big source of tensions between Macedonians and Serbs.
all the MOC predates both Pech and Trnovo. The MOC was instrumental in
educating Sava and establishing the SOC. Additionally the MOC was closed
in 1767 by the Ottoman Sultan with the help of Greeks. I am a bit confused
why the SOC and Greek Orthodox Church are against the recognition of the
MOC because it declared its independence in 1967? I find "canonical"
reasons a weak excuse to mask the SOC and GOC true intentions the
denial of the Macedonian nationality. What is your perspective Nebojsa?
said it before, and I'd like to say it again: any problems that Serbs
and Macedonians may have pale in comparison to the threat they both face
from Albanian expansionism. That is, of course, not to deny that problems
exist, and this seems to be a big one.
I have seen so far indicates that a vast majority of Serbs have no issue
with Macedonians being a separate nationality unlike many Greeks,
Bulgarians and Albanians. From what I hear, it is not the Serbian Orthodox
Church (SOC) per se questioning the legitimacy of the Macedonian Church
(MOC), but most of the patriarch of the Orthodox Church in general, on
grounds of canonical procedure. I believe this may also have something
to do with the fact that the current MOC established by the Communists,
bypassing the Church. The MOC refuses to reapply for canonization, while
the Orthodox synod refuses to recognize what they consider a Communist
usurpation. I imagine some of the SOC's objections also keep in mind the
illegitimate "Montenegrin Orthodox Church," which was also set
up by the secular authorities (i.e. the Montenegro government).
all honesty, I think making this dispute into a national issue only seems
to complicate its resolution. I am sure that some time in the near future
Macedonians will get their national church recognized. But if some people
west of Skopje have their way, there might not be a Macedonia left.
for your article "Kosovo burning". It
is a good informative article. However, what I am missing in the story
protests and burning of mosques in Serbia about a hundred people were
arrested and that stopped the violence. However, in Kosovo to my knowledge
no Albanian has been arrested during several days of violence.
the policy of impunity for Albanian violence against Serbs that has been
UN policy from the end of the war. I don't expect this violence to stop
as long as it goes unpunished. Even independence for Kosovo will not change
that. The prospect of pilfering with impunity is just too attractive so
the next incident will be used as an excuse to start again.
~ Wim Roffel,
trying to process the flood of information coming from the region, I somehow
left out the important bit about the Serbian police arresting almost 80
vandals (by Thursday morning, anyway). As far as I know, no Albanian has
been detained by either KFOR or the Kosovo Police. Of course independence
won't make things better, since it is obvious what Kosovo is like when
run by the KLA and its sympathizers. The argument put forth by Rugova,
Taqi, Haradinaj and Holbrooke that the pogrom shows the need for independence
that it should be rewarded, in effect is almost more revolting
than the pogrom itself.
Ashdown is always described as the "High Representative" in
the Balkans. I assume he is the "UN's" High Representative
or is he? Who pays his salary?
not entirely sure about that. From what I understand, the HR represents
the 'Peace Implementation Council' of countries from the former 'Contact
Group' i.e. the arbitrarily self-appointed guardians of peace and
justice, among whom are the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy and Russia.
These are the people who define his powers, anyway. That is why I call
him the 'Viceroy', a more apt description of his position and influence.
and US Bluffs
puzzled about your comments on the Taiwan election. I've enjoyed reading
your observations in the past, as my wife grew up in Chengdu, and your
stories often provide insights about what people in China are thinking.
I assumed you were some sort of "pacifist," given you're writing
for this website, but your latest essay seems to advocate the idea of
the P.R.C. violently overthrowing Taiwan's government. You wrote "if
Beijing were to cruise across the Straits and restore order..."!
This is an impossible proposition if the P.R.C. military were to
cross the Straights, then I'm sure you will agree that "order"
would the opposite of what occurred. Of course, several atomic bombs could
create the order of a graveyard in Taiwan, but it's pretty clear that
a PRC military action would be violently unpopular with the vast majority
of Taiwanese people, and would involve a massive violation of individual
rights. So looking at the way your essay ended seeming to advocate
the P.R.C. use of force to attack innocents in Taiwan, while finding the
potential U.S. use of force to defend these innocents distasteful, I sense
that the underlying motivation here is not "antiwar" but rather
essay was a parody of violently nationalist sentiments widely held in
the PRC, then my apologies for not getting the joke.
I was being a bit ironic in this column in no way do I advocate
Chinese military intervention in Taiwanese affairs. Instead of expressing
my own personal opinion, I tried to present a possible scenario, based
on what I believe the interests of Beijing and Washington might be.
Brats Detract From Big San Francisco Antiwar Protest' (aka Antiwar
protesters rally in San Francisco)
must take exception to the characterization of protesters who chose not
to follow the state-sanctioned parade route in San Francisco as spoiled
brats. We do have the right to peacefully assemble of course. All the
laws that limit that right, from permits to protest pens placed out of
sight of news cameras and the government officials we have reason to protest
to, are attempts by the government to limit that right, and to tame us
in our methods of protest. "All right, if you must, you may protest
HERE and march to THERE, but you may not go to this place."
For a long
time, the permit process was used mainly to prevent protest, and as a
pretext for arresting unpermitted protesters. Now it is used primarily
to contain protest and control its expressions. So some jurisdictions
are not satisfied with determining the route (or okaying it, which is
really the same thing) but they decide whether signs can be carried (potential
weapons) and of course ban the participation of puppets altogether.
we should be asking is, "How much control should WE grant THEM?"
If we concede to the state the right to determine who may protest, and
where and whether we will be allowed to demonstrate through signage the
root of our discontent, we have ceded control of our movements entirely
to the state.
have to say, you have proven my point. You sound like a little kid who
won't do what his parents say just to be a contrarian.
It is all
well and good for you to make these symbolic gestures equating traffic
laws with fascist control by the state. But this is about bigger things,
like the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
ask you to restrain yourself when the issue is one of such importance.
comment applied to people blocking traffic and damaging property. We believe
nobody should need permission from the State to assemble anywhere on public
curious why there are no organized protests against the terrorists and
their actions, that are targeted for civilians, while you continue to
protest against the government trying to stop the terrorist. Yes would
it not be great to sit the leaders down and talk peace! But like one antiwar
representative said on TV when asked if they would ask Osama bin Laden
to the peace conference their response was no!
of those people in Spain was the result of a planned attack by a terrorist
group. On 9-11 our country was a planned attack and I ask what action
by our government brought that attack on. We had not used any military
action against these people. Yes by going after these groups that target
civilians, they are continuing violent attacks, but when had they stopped
when we did nothing?
get me wrong, I have nothing against your protesting, but I am curious
why there are no protesting against the actions of terrorist groups that
use violence and violence only and its targeted at civilians. Thanks for
~ John Harvey
have been many protests against the terrorists. Last week, 12 million
protested in Spain.
We are not
protesting the government for fighting terrorism. We are protesting the
government targeting non-terrorists as an excuse for their being unable
to battle terrorism.
is using Kosovo to appease the Russian public's dissatisfaction with the
genocide against the Serbs. Unfortunately his words are Orwellian. He
tells us "Russia cannot merely watch what is happening there"
while he is doing just that. Russia turned its back on the Serbians before,
and it shouldn't surprise anyone that they are exhibiting the same cowardly
behavior. As this reflects on Russia's image everywhere, it only emboldens
the extremists in Chechnya and elsewhere to continue their struggle since
no one fears fighting a coward. Not even a big one like Russia.
~ Ioan Tirlui
perhaps, Putin is trying to throw Kosovo into Empire's face so Washington
would get off his back about Chechnya? Though Washington cares about Chechens
even less than Moscow cares for Serbs, both pawns in their power game.
Western media makes much out of the Serbs' supposed Russophilia, I would
wager most Serbs are less enthusiastic. After all, it was Russian envoy
Chernomyrdin who brought NATO's armistice proposal to Belgrade that enabled
the Alliance to occupy Kosovo without actually having to fight for it.
to David Brooks: That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore
that seems to be the protector of all. surely you can comprehend that
look over the past 30 years which is in my lifetime whom is to blame for
majority of the terrorist acts and yes i do mean the poor muslim nation
1. the terrorist
acts in bosnia (muslims)
2. the terrorist acts in russia /chechnya (Muslims)
3. the terrorist acts in nigeria (Muslims)
4. the terrorist acts in kenya (Muslims)
5. the terrorist acts in morocco(Muslims)
6. needless to say the terrorist acts in the u.s. (Muslims)
7. the terrorist acts in bali duh let me see (Muslims)
8. israel etc, etc, etc
you go defending the poor Muslim nation give a thought to all the other
nations that have been subjected to their acts of terror, and all because
they are too much of a coward to fight a conventional war and in the name
of islam or allah or whatever they send woman and children to their deaths!
so chew on that
of all": I like that, kind of superheroish. I'm not sure what it
has to do with my essay on David Brooks, but I like it.
By the way,
is no-caps the new all-caps?
Clarke and the White House Reaction
keep wondering why the fact that the administration was focused on Iraq
after 9/11 continues to be treated as if it is a new revelation. It was
well documented in Bob Woodward's book, Bush at War, in which he
described the attempt by the White House to link Iraq the very evening
of the attacks on America. By now, one would think it's old news.
appearing in the Washington Post this morning by
National Security Adviser, Rice, and the
Office of the White House Press Secretary, are practically identical.
I noted that there is absolutely no mention of Saudi Arabia or Hizbullah's
Mughniyeh, who were also considered to be linked to 9/11 and Al-Qaeda.
Instead, both White House releases highlight the "crucial role of
Pakistan" in the terror fight. The politics implied by these official
statements are clearly designed to boost Pakistan's image, regardless
of the fact that US authorities are not allowed to interview Khan, the
Pakistani scientist who so blatantly gave away his country's nuclear secrets.
that this White House will spin and spin and spin its message to make
sure the American public continues to be deceived about what really happened
since Bush came into power. How that public can still support a leader
while some of his top officials have risked their reputations by coming
out and telling the truth shows just how powerful ignorance can be. This
blind dedication to the conservative ideology has trumped reality once
again. One can only hope that Bush administration supporters will finally
open their eyes and truly see the tainted goods they've been sold by defeating
this president in the upcoming election.
this administration to serve another term will set a course for the future
that can only be more disastrous.
Consequences of Bush's War
points about the Iraq War are spot on. Furthermore, am I the only one
who thought it out of place to promise tax cuts and then go off to war?
What ever happened to a Republican Party of Fiscal Responsibility? My
father-in-law, who is 76 and has been a Robert Taft Republican all his
life, thinks they have lost their collective minds in Washington. This
imperial pretension to intervene in every quarrel on the planet has left
us despised. Neither political party has the courage to say enough! It
really is too bad we cannot seem to realize that the best way to promote
democracy is, to paraphrase John Quincy Adams, become a shining beacon
of democracy at home. Keep up the good work.
are expensive. Missiles have a cost. Tanks, helicopters and fighter aircraft
absorb millions of dollars. Instead of killing stone throwers, what if
is Israel used the cost of every bullet to buy books for Palestinian children.
Instead of assassinating Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, what if is Israel used the
cost of every missile to pay the salary of a teacher to work in the refugee
camps of Gaza. Instead of destroying homes, what if is Israel used the
cost of every armored bulldozer or tank to build health clinics or community
centers in the West Bank. Instead of building a Wall, what if is Israel
used the money to build a university for Arabs and Jews. Instead of funding
war, what if Israel worked for peace. The savings would be tremendous.
Antiwar Movement Is Not Progressive
article was great, however I respectfully disagree with one line.
is why I believe an election boycott is the best way to nurture this movement."
the boycott of the 2002 election which led the current Administration
and the War Party to claim a mandate to rule.
vote is the same as accepting the status quo. It is to trust the state
and the ruling party to govern honestly and truthfully.
a latecomer to democratic governance, it was participation not avoidance
that has brought in a government willing to challenge the state of war.
understands that the polls are unreliable. When a President states the
those who are not for us are against us, and his drones apply that policy
in the workplaces, churches and government offices, will many answer the
polls honestly? If and administration controls the press the polls that
are printed are suspect, but who can prove it.
that will vote, those are the ones the politicians will perform for. We
voters hold their future in our hand. They not only look at the
votes the main opposition got, but they look to a the minor parties, and
wonder how they can be cajoled into casting the 'right' vote next time.
Voting isn't just for the present. Whether our choices win or lose those
votes will affect the future in substantial ways.
not betting on a football game and picking the winner. This is making
use of the one true voice given to us by our Constitution. It is the one
way that each and every American reaffirms their support of Constitutional
Law specifically and the rule of law generally.
To be sure
the ruling party will be out in force, and if they can convince the opposition
that their vote doesn't count, or that they are wasting their time or
that no one cares, the better for them.
everyone to vote. There is no need to make your vote count, it already
does the moment the ballot is cast. It becomes part of the history of
our democracy. We all need to know that besides Democrats and Republicans
that there are many other opinions and ideas: Libertarian, Green, Progressive,
Socialist and Communist just to mention a few. Without your ballot, the
winner will presume that you are on their side, and who can argue, if
you choose to abdicate your responsibility to choose otherwise.
sense of human values, a sense of decency, a sense of what is right and
fitting that led us to cry out against the war and to call on our government
to stay its hand."
out loud is not enough. Few of us have a platform from which we can be
heard. Neither do we all have competence in the oratorical or literary
arts. But we have our vote, we are free to accept or reject the one responsibility
that we have to each other.
should discover in these shared values a new democratic vision, more powerful
and more real than the democratic vision on which the nation was founded.
In it lies the redemptive vision for a second American revolution."
In the end
I think we agree. But never in my life has the need for all to vote been
more clear in my mind. Voting is the essence of a truly democratic vision.
~ Paul S.