Problem with homegrown British Muslims

[mears]

Don't you mean that US support for the invading Israelis made life worse for the Lebanese?

Uh, Hezbollah and Israel have made life worse for the Lebanese.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What about US support for the mujehadin against the Soviets? That had pretty similar effects on the Afghan people.

Should they be grateful or angry at the US?

Most people are hostile to invaders, and tend to unite against them. Most coutries are happy to see them gone.

Germany occupied France, the Netherlands, etc, just as the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan. I believe that the French and the Dutch were happy to be quit of the Germans, and I believe that they were and are grateful to countries like Britain, that helped foster the resistance against the Germans, and ultimately sent troops to bring about their liberation.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the US already had plans for the break-up of Yugoslavia - that it is generally agreed that their attack there was a war crime, and that the worst atrocities took place after they intervened - as a response to their attack. There are thousands of pages about this online, on history, legal and news sites - if you can be bothered to look. Here are a few to get you started. The bombing of civilians and infrastructure reminds one of Israel's equally criminal assault on Lebanon, doesn't it?

http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1467
Legitimate Targets?
How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hayden.htm

How bizarre for you to somehow argue that those who helped stop the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the Balkans, were somehow in the wrong.

http://balkansnet.org/ethnicl.html

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

In late 1994, after Bosnian and Croatian Serbs joined forces to launch an attack on the Muslim enclave of Bihac (located across the border from Serb-occupied Krajina), Croatia announced that it would enter the Bosnian conflict to support the Muslims.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/overview/croatia.htm


“Cause as many losses as possible to the enemy,” reads the directive, which bears the name of the man who is now the Hague tribunal’s top fugitive, VRS chief General Ratko Mladic.

“Force them to surrender and force the Muslim population to leave the area of Cerska, Srebrenica, Zepa and Gorazde,” it goes on.

http://www.iwpr.net/?p=tri&s=f&o=321651&apc_state=henh

 

[Bob_the_lost]

How bizarre for you to somehow argue that those who helped stop the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the Balkans, were somehow in the wrong.

http://balkansnet.org/ethnicl.html

That's interesting, i didn't know that the New york times was a member of the peacekeeping force.

 

[Ae589]

Should they be grateful or angry at the US?

While we are on the subject, current ops in somalia show US-backed warlords fighting popular islamist factions, as part of the war on terror. I believe Aidids son, the Aidid from Black Hawk Down, is one such warlord. WHile I know little about Somalia in general, I do belive this ad-hoc support for 'my enemies enemy' is sowing the seeds for further instability in the future (especiall when he reason people support islamist factions, as they did in Afghanistan, is for their only shot a security).

What do you think JC2/mears - is this a good strategy?

 

[ZAMB]

How bizarre for you to somehow argue that those who helped stop the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the Balkans, were somehow in the wrong.

http://balkansnet.org/ethnicl.html

I'm not saying it's wrong to stop ethnic cleansing - I'm saying that the US went into Yugoslavia with another agenda [of their own] - and that it was also responsible for war crimes there. These things are well documented - Iraqi leaders have already pointed out the similarities between the US agenda in Iraq and that in Yugoslavia.

When Iraq's leaders make a comparison with Yugoslavia, while it may not be a precise analogy, it is significant in another way. Both Iraq and Yugoslavia contained the elements that made them potential regional powers in strategic areas of the world in which the United States wanted undiluted authority.

In the case of Yugoslavia it is eastern and central Europe. Since the collapse of the USSR and the socialist bloc governments of eastern Europe in 1989-1991, the U.S. has moved in to become the dominant power. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have been transformed from Warsaw Pact countries to being members of NATO - a subservient part of the chain of command of a U.S. military-led alliance. The oil-rich parts of the Soviet Union around the Caspian Sea have likewise become the virtual puppets of the U.S. government and major U.S. banks and oil monopolies.

It was only Yugoslavia that resisted this trend. It had a strong military, a relatively developed economy and was resisting the U.S.-sponsored privatization schemes for the region. Yugoslavia, which had maintained relatively friendly relations with the U.S. during the Cold War, became perceived in the 1990's as an obstacle to U.S. plans for total hegemony in a vital region.

Yugoslavia, like Iraq, is a sanctioned country, a country that was bombed by U.S. and NATO warplanes, and then ripped apart by western powers who armed and financed ethnic armies inside the country. These sanctions have hurt all the people regardless of ethnic origin.

The U.S. objectives in both the Persian/Arabian Gulf and in Eastern Europe is to prevent the emergence of any regional power that dilutes U.S. plans for regional domination. Any socialist government is certainly a target. But so is any nationalist regime that has the power and potential to pursue its own aims.

http://www.iacenter.org/Iraq/iraqnext.htm

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm not saying it's wrong to stop ethnic cleansing - I'm saying that the US went into Yugoslavia with another agenda [of their own] - and that it was also responsible for war crimes there. These things are well documented - Iraqi leaders have already pointed out the similarities between the US agenda in Iraq and that in Yugoslavia.


http://www.iacenter.org/Iraq/iraqnext.htm

Iran is the true regional power in that area.

 

[Ae589]

I'm not saying it's wrong to stop ethnic cleansing - I'm saying that the US went into Yugoslavia with another agenda [of their own]

I'm sure they did, but in Yugoslavia, desert storm and Afghanistan, they had real, good (IMO) reasons to be there, and the agenda played second fiddle. In Iraq (again IMO) the agenda overshadows the good being done by a huge margin.

 

[ZAMB]

I'm sure they did, but in Yugoslavia, desert storm and Afghanistan, they had real, good (IMO) reasons to be there, and the agenda played second fiddle. In Iraq (again IMO) the agenda overshadows the good being done by a huge margin.

IMO they wouldn't have been in any of these countries if they hadn't wanted to further their own agenda.

 

[Ae589]

IMO they wouldn't have been in any of these countries if they hadn't wanted to further their own agenda.

Yeah - see the Tibet thread. Does it make it wrong though?

 

[yield]

Iran is the true regional power in that area.

Now, Yes. But before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the sanctions, they were comparable to Iran.

...

ZAMB - good link/article. I've been to the former Yugoslavia and that sounds about right.