← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident

Thread 37

Thread ID: 37 | Posts: 32 | Started: 2001-11-12

Wayback Archive

Texas Dissident [OP]

2001-11-12 23:18 | User Profile

[url=http://www.originaldissent.com/shpak01.html]The Neocons and Serbia[/url]

by Max Shpak

 According to Neo-Conservative pundits, there seem to be Good Muslims and Bad Muslims, and who gets what label depends on who Muslim insurgents are attacking. The Kristols, Safires, and Podhoretzes shed crocodile tears over the plight of well-armed KLA "freedom fighters" and Chechen rebels, while they cheer every Israeli effort to gun down rock-throwing Palestinian Arabs. That the neo-cons are hardly consistent in their affected sympathies is hardly surprising, after all, these are the same "experts" who told us that Kurdish rebels in Turkey were "terrorists" while Kurdish rebels fighting for the exact same cause (an independent Kurdistan) in Iraq were heroic "freedom fighters." The hypocrisy over the Kurds was so blatant that almost anybody could see through it, while the seemingly schizophrenic attitude of the neos to Muslim "freedom fighters" in Kosovo and Chechnya versus "terrorists" in Israel is a little more subtle.

 Basically, Yugoslavia was chosen to be Israel's whipping boy by the neo-cons. It is well known that Israel is central to the neo-con agenda, this fanatically "Israel First" attitude has lead Joe Sobran and others to quip that the neos seem to believe that Tel Aviv, not Washington, is America's capital. Since by definition Israel can do no wrong and America's security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever Israel's interests are at stake, reality demands a little damage control. While the neocons insist that Israel is of vital strategic interest to the United States and that protecting and subsidizing Israel is tactically equivalent to defending the US itself, reality dictates otherwise, and as a result, little adjustments have to be made.

 It is readily apparent that US aid to Israel comes at a huge cost to America. After all, it is Arab nations, not Israel, that provide us with oil, and it should be remembered that America's support of Israel has lead to oil crises when Arab oil nations decide to cut us off in protest. Furthermore, the bulk of Arab and Muslim hostility towards the US and the West is due to America's support for Israel and the Zionist cause. If it weren't for US military and economic aid to Israel, it is no great stretch to argue that there would be no Arab bombings of US military bases or embassies, no Bin Laden, and no efforts by Iraq or Iran to curry favor with China or Russia. On a more timely note, there would have been no attack on the USS Cole, and the lives of our sailors would have been spared.

 This leaves the neo-cons in quite a predicament. On the one hand, these scribbling shysters like to pose as "patriots" who love America, and yet they are more than happy to support policies which harm their country when Israel, the nation of their true love and loyalty is threatened. This calls for a little two-faced damage control. Thus, we get William Safire wailing about Russian "genocide" against Chechens, and Bill Kristol pretending to fret over the plight of Kosovar Albanians and Bosnians. Their hope is that by having America champion the cause of Albanian and Bosnian Muslims, the Arab world will forgive, or at least overlook, all of Israel's excesses.

 Hence, Yugoslavia came to play the role of whipping boy for Israel. Yugoslavia would be beaten for Israel's misbehavior, for like the princes of yesteryear, it was unthinkable that Sacred Cow Israel could ever be punished. Within months of the Kosovo "crisis," we heard such gems about "crushing Serb skulls" from Bill Kristol, together with all the saccharine, sticky moralisms about "human rights" and the evils of "nationalism." When the bombs dropped over Belgrade, nobody cheered louder than the Born-Again Zionist neo-cons. The more brutally Yugoslavia was bombed, they hoped, the more pro-Israeli activities they (and the CFR hacks in our government) could get away with in the future. In the back of their minds, the Kristols, the Krauthammers, the Podhoretzes, and the Safires sat back contentedly thinking, "Ah, the next time Israel shoots some Arab kids throwing rocks, we can bring up how we rescued their Muslim brethren from the evil Milosevic."

 Though this game may seem pervese beyond belief to any sane individual, it makes perfect sense in light of neo-con priorities. A neutral, objective individual would say that the natural way to deal with potential Arab hostility would be for America to remain NEUTRAL in the Middle East, and similarly, demand neutrality in the Balkans. But the neo-cons have a mission as apologists and cheerleaders for Israel, and the possibility of disengaging from our alliance with Tel Aviv is not even an option that can be entertained. Once this is realised, the fact that neo-cons pretend to fret over Albanians and Bosnians starts to make more sense.

 US aid to Israel, therefore, has implications which go far beyond our role in the Middle East. How much longer will America and the rest of the world have to pay for the annual tribute we pay to Tel Aviv?

Arator

2001-11-14 05:25 | User Profile

This piece suffers from an overbroadness that may cross the line into overt anti-Semitism.  At the very least, it is in error as to facts.

For example, consider this whopper:

Basically, Yugoslavia was chosen to be Israel's whipping boy by the neo-cons.

Israel's whipping boy?  Give me a break!  Yugoslavia was certainly chosen to be the US/NATO's whipping boy, but Israel was not a party to that mugging.  In fact, I distinctly recall comments by Israeli government officials and public opinion leaders at the time lamenting what we were doing, for two very good reasons:

1) These Israelis (unlike their American Neo-con co-religionists) remembered that the Serbs were the friends and defenders of the Jewish people against the Nazis and their minions in WWII.  Furthermore, they also remembered that the Albanians were in league with the Nazis and were/are virulent Jew-haters.

2) These Israelis recognized that what was taking place in Yugoslavia was a globalist demolition of national sovereignty which fundamentally threatened them.  After all, if the globalists could render Serbia a pariah nation for defending itself against an internal Islamic insurgency, bomb them, forcably peel away a goodly piece of her ancient homeland, and deliver it into the hands of the terrorists, they could in principle do the same thing to Israel.  In fact, I distinctly remember one Israeli government official worrying out loud that Israel might be the next target of US/NATO bombing.

So, I think it is a mistake to assume that all Jews, be they Israelis or American, are Neo-cons and sympathetic to the perverse aims of the Neo-con faction.  It is also a mistake to assume that the American Neo-cons who are nominally Jewish are pro-Zionist and/or pro-Israeli.  They are not.  The globalist agenda which the Neo-cons wholeheartedly support is a dagger aimed at the heart of every nation, including Israel.  Patriotic Israelis know this, fear this, and abhored our intervention in Yugoslavia as much as we Paleo-cons did.

Here's another howler:

Hence, Yugoslavia came to play the role of whipping boy for Israel. Yugoslavia would be beaten for Israel's misbehavior, for like the princes of yesteryear, it was unthinkable that Sacred Cow Israel could ever be punished.

So, somehow Israel is to blame for the murderous policy of American Neo-cons (some of which happen to be Jewish) and the American government?  The absurdity of this is highlighted by the following questions and answers:

Do all Jews share the same political views?  No.

Does the fact that some Jews are Neo-cons imply that all Jews are Neo-cons?  No.

Does the fact the some American Jews are Neo-cons imply that all American Jews are Neo-cons?  No.

Are all Jews of one mind when it comes to Israel?  No.

Are all Israeli Jews of one mind when it comes to Israeli policy?  No.

Are all American Jews of one mind when it comes to American policy and/or American policy towards Israel?  No.

Are Israeli and American Jews of one mind when it comes to American policy and/or Israeli policy and/or American policy towards Israel?  Absolutely not.

In sum, this article assumes a monolithic worldwide Jewish viewpoint which simply doesn't exist.  Furthermore, it assumes that this monolithic worldwide Jewish viewpoint is also the viewpoint held by the small sect of American Neo-cons, some of which happen to be Jewish.  This is absurd.

From this false premise, it leaps to even worse conclusions, such as the notion that Yugoslavia was Israel's whipping boy made to suffer for its sins.  In other words, it's all the Jew's fault.  Everything is the Jew's fault.  Damn the Jews to hell.  It's never OUR fault.

Well, Yugoslavia WAS our fault.  They were made the whipping boy not for the sake of Israel, but for the sake of a globalist agenda whose power center lies not in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, but in London, New York, and Washington, D.C.  This was an Anglo-American debacle, not an Israeli one.  It's time we AMERICANS excepted responsibility for what OUR government does in our name and quit trying to fix blame on either an American minority within a minority (Jewish Neo-cons, whose only influence is whatever the greater worldwide Anglo-American power elites decide to give them) or on a small beleagered country who is as much a victim of our globalist government's perverse machinations as Yugoslavia was and is (Israel).

Max, old buddy, you laid a real egg with this one, IMHO.

madrussian

2001-11-14 05:55 | User Profile

Arator,

You sound almost like veronica. Kommissar NIC will still call you an anti-semitic whackjob.

I'll let the author respond, but I think your interpretation of the article was a knee-jerk one.

Texas Dissident

2001-11-14 06:44 | User Profile

You make some good points, Arator, but I'm not sure they address the point made in the article.  I read Shpak's piece as an indictment of the "gaggle of gay neo-cons" (to quote Raimondo), not Israelis or Jews.

I believe the crux of the article is this sentence:

Their hope is that by having America champion the cause of Albanian and Bosnian Muslims, the Arab world will forgive, or at least overlook, all of Israel's excesses.

This point is strictly addressed to the Neo-Con pundits as I understand it.

I would agree with you on your point that nationalistic Israelis would not support our campaign in Yugoslavia.  What nationalist would?  Our actions there were nothing if not a globalist police nightsticking and a most shameful episode in a series of recent shameful episodes of our foreign policy.

Arator

2001-11-14 16:13 | User Profile

Quote from Texas Dissident, posted on Nov. 14 2001,01:44> **You make some good points, Arator, but I'm not sure they address the point made in the article.  I read Shpak's piece as an indictment of the "gaggle of gay neo-cons" (to quote Raimondo), not Israelis or Jews.

I believe the crux of the article is this sentence:

Their hope is that by having America champion the cause of Albanian and Bosnian Muslims, the Arab world will forgive, or at least overlook, all of Israel's excesses.

This point is strictly addressed to the Neo-Con pundits as I understand it.**

OK, so what you are saying is that when this article repeatedly mentions Israel, it refers only to the internal motivations of American Neo-cons and does not intend to imply that they are acting as agents for Israel or that Israel or Israeli Jews in any way agree with their method of "helping" or want this sort of "help".

Fair enough.  Such a distinction between American Neo-cons and Jews generally or Israeli Jews in particular is not as clear as it should be, IMHO.

I still have a problem with the central premise -- the notion that the American Neo-cons cheerleaded the rape of Yugoslavia in the hope that "the Arab world will forgive, or at least overlook, all of Israel's excesses."

This presumes that Neo-cons are Zionists merely because some of them are Jews.  But, American Jews are not ipso-facto Zionists.  Consider, for example, America Jewry's broad support for Bill Clinton, even as Clinton was pressuring Israel to concede the heart of ancient Israel, including parts of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, to the control of a Palestinian State ruled by terrorist Arafat and his minions.

American Jews are first and foremost Americans, and are afflicted with the same blinders when it comes to American policy towards Israel as are afixed on Americans generally by the globalist elite who propagandize us incessantly through mass media channels.  In other words, they are useless sheep which are presently more of a danger to Israel than an asset, because they give the globalists Jewish cover for our betrayal of Israel to the PLO, Arafat, and the Muslim world generally.  That betrayal has been in the pipe ever since Poppy resurrected Arafat from the political grave as payback to the Arabs for their participation in the Gulf War coalition and forced Israel into the misnamed "peace process".  And the Neo-cons have been cheerleading this pernicious globalist initiative just as they cheerlead every pernicious globalist initiative.

In sum, the fact that many Neo-cons are Jews does not mean that they are also Israeli nationalists or Zionists.  They aren't.  They are globalists first, nationalists of any kind never.  They care for the continued national viability of Israel as much as they care for the continued national viability of America, which is not at all.  Nations are marked for extinction.  All national interests, be they America's or Israel's, must be sacrificed to serve the globalist imperative.  This is what the Neo-cons are really all about, and all nations, even America and Israel herself, are as much in their crossfire as Yugoslavia was.

The demolition of national sovereignty, not deflecting Arab wrath against Israel, is what Yugoslavia was really all about.

AGAviator

2001-11-14 23:00 | User Profile

Although there were more factors than just being able to say, as Rumsfeld has pointedly done, that the US has aided "moderate Muslims," the Israeli factor certainly is up there with all the other reasons.

We've been bombing Saddam for 10 years because he is supposed to be an evil dictator, so when a Eurpoean who fit the profile of an evil dictator appeared on the horizon, there was already a well-established precedent set.

As far as the oil, since 1973 the world economy has become so diversified, and the Persian Gulf countries so dependent on trade with the West and its economies, that for all intents and purposes these countries can't embargo oil even if they wanted without hurting themselves far more than they hurt the consumers.

Campion Moore Boru

2001-11-16 02:16 | User Profile

Quote from Texas Dissident, posted on Nov. 12 2001,17:18>  Basically, Yugoslavia was chosen to be Israel's whipping boy by the neo-cons.

Enjoyed reading the article, but I disagree with the author's main thesis (Yugo as Israel's whipping boy)

IMHO, one can find a more direct rationale for the intervention along a number of lines of inquiry:

1) Residual mistrust of Russians from the Cold War (transferred upon Slavs in general)

2) Fear of the tinderbox effect- a greater conflagaration in Southern Europe

3) Active anitpathy towards European Natl'ist movements among the American establishment (This antipathy seems largely confined to Europe alone)

There is also, however, little doubt in my mind that the Israeli situation played a factor in the aggregate decision. This line of thought is discussed by the piece's author, and to summarize: intervention  on behalf of Muslims in Serbia amelioriates (to some degree) Muslim anger over Palestine.

The question is, was this the primary motivation for meddling in Serbia, or rather another reason for doing so? I believe the latter. Or, to ask in a different way, But for Israel, would we have intervened in Serbia?

Having said all this, however, I look forward to more 'featured articles'. Well Done.

Campion Moore Boru

2001-11-16 20:55 | User Profile

Quote from AGAviator, posted on Nov. 16 2001,00:33> **Boru, I would add "but for Saddam" although that too can be indirectly traced to Israel and our Mideast policy in general. We had established the pretext of attacking a country that was not directly attacking us and our policy people thought it was great to extend that to Europe, partly to show the Islamic countries that we were not singling Saddam out.

If you remember Saddam was on the side of the Serbs and he shared information with them about US attacks on his own equipment and country.**

Of course. Good point.

We're quite adept at making enemies and quite unskilled at forming true friendships bereft of our largesse in the form of 'aid'.

Zoroaster

2001-11-17 10:52 | User Profile

If memory serves, the justification given by the Zionist-controlled Bolshevik media at the beginning of the NATO outrage in Kosovo was to prevent another holocaust; in this case, a holocaust of Muslims, which, as Max writes, served the Zionist agenda and gave cover to the Israeli Government's policy of terrorism against the Palestinians.  So his statement, "Yugoslavia was chosen to be Israel's whipping boy by the neocons," is correct, since by extension they (neocons) belong to the Zionist/NWO crowd.

When considering the motives of these criminals, however, one must always follow the money.  The Kosove outrage, I believe, was originally hatched up by George Sorros, the international fiancier who got his start by collaborating with  Nazis against his fellow Jews in Hungarian labor camps, and Mad Halfbright, the main pig in King Klinton's Cabal.  What they were after and subsequently got as a result of the NATO bomging campaign was control of the mining industry in Kosovo.

Bushy the Younger and his oil pals know a good thing when they see it; so they have picked up on King Klinton's policy in Balkans and are backing the Muslims in that area at the expense of Orthodox Christians in order to secure pipelines from the vast oil reserves in and around the Caspian Sea to ports on the Adriatic.

As part of the big picture, U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, if successful, will ultimately tie in with big oil and the Caspian Sea.

Regards, -Z-

Texas Dissident

2001-11-18 18:01 | User Profile

Quote from Zoroaster, posted on Nov. 17 2001,04:52> As part of the big picture, U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, if successful, will ultimately tie in with big oil and the Caspian Sea.

I wholeheartedly agree with that comment.  I think this is all about running oil out of the region.  The Caspian area has been a siren's song for oil/gas companies for quite some time now.

pea eye

2001-11-26 03:55 | User Profile

Quote from Arator, posted on Nov. 13 2001,23:25> This piece suffers from an overbroadness that may cross the line into overt anti-Semitism.  At the very least, it is in error as to facts.

Coming late to the party, but it's good to see you and your sharp pen in print again, Arator.   Even if it was a post on your absolutely worst subject, Israel.   I won't bother to take you to task on the substance of your critique of this excellent Max Shpak article wherin Shpak quite correctly fingers an important pro-Israeli motivation for our pro-muslim actions against Yugoslavia.   It is one of the principal goals of Israeli foreign policy to befriend new muslim allies whereven it can.  Hence Israel's great interest in cultivating Turkey, Jordan and Egypt.  

Suffice it to say that all of the principal protagonists in the U.S. who initiated and brought the most pressure for military intervention on our policy, and actually made or pushed hard for the principal anti-Serb military and diplomatic decisions, were Jewish.   Consider Richard Holbrooke, Madeline Albright, and Robert Gelbard at State, Sandy Berger and VP Gore's foreign policy guru Leon Feurth at the NSC, General Wesley Clark at the Pentagon and NATO Command, and George Soros, Mort Abramowitz and Max Kampelman in the private sector, along with hundreds of lesser players.   How could we forget Jamie Rubin.  

By the way,  I do hate to see charges of anti-semitism reappear on this web site.  I thought that was one of the principal flaws on Free Republic.

Texas Dissident

2001-11-26 09:10 | User Profile

Quote from pea eye, posted on Nov. 25 2001,21:55> By the way,  I do hate to see charges of anti-semitism reappear on this web site.  I thought that was one of the principal flaws on Free Republic.

The principal difference being that I will let such charges and counter charges stand and rise or fall on their own merit.  As long as the discussion remains on an intellectual and rational level and does not degenerate into some kind of a cyber-pissing match, I firmly believe in the first amendment of our once relevant United States Constitution.

Perhaps I'm naive or just been lucky, but so far I believe everyone here has conducted themselves in an adult and responsible manner.  For this I am very thankful.

Thanks for checking-in, pea eye.  It is good to see you here.  Please spread the word if you will.

Best regards,

Texas Dissident

Arator

2001-11-27 16:38 | User Profile

Quote from pea eye, posted on Nov. 25 2001,21:55> **Coming late to the party, but it's good to see you and your sharp pen in print again, Arator.   Even if it was a post on your absolutely worst subject, Israel...

...Suffice it to say that all of the principal protagonists in the U.S. who initiated and brought the most pressure for military intervention on our policy, and actually made or pushed hard for the principal anti-Serb military and diplomatic decisions, were Jewish.   Consider Richard Holbrooke, Madeline Albright, and Robert Gelbard at State, Sandy Berger and VP Gore's foreign policy guru Leon Feurth at the NSC, General Wesley Clark at the Pentagon and NATO Command, and George Soros, Mort Abramowitz and Max Kampelman in the private sector, along with hundreds of lesser players.   How could we forget Jamie Rubin.**

pea eye, it's good to see you again.  You were always one of my favorite FReepers.  Where have ya been?

Now, as to your point, yes, many of the prime instigators of our dispicable policy in Yugoslavia were Jewish Globalist/Neo-con Americans.  You and Max seem to think that their most telling identifier for revealing their motivations is the fact that they are Jewish.  I, on the other hand, think that the fact that they are American Globalist Neo-cons is much more telling.  Are they acting out of Jewish solidarity with Israel?  Or are they acting out of American Globalist solidarity with the imperatives of some emerging nation-destroying globalist hegemony ruled from London, New York, and Washington?  I think the latter.

When the national interests of Israel come in conflict with their globalist imperative, all whom you named above will sacrifice the national interests of Israel as readily as they have sacrificed the national interests of the United States.  Their support for the misnamed "peace process" -- an American-led foreign policy blunder which has imperiled Israel more than any other -- is proof of this.

Unexpurgated

2001-12-07 04:45 | User Profile

A truly first-rate article and analysis, AntiYuppie! How quickly the neos forgot how many thousands of Taliban cut their scimitars first on the throats of Christian Slavs in Bosnia and Kosovo. Nationalism is perceived as the most dire threat to the Consumerist Plutocracy.

Kudos, too, to the brave and open policy of Texas Dissident. Let's leave the shrill and cowardly charges of "hate" to the liberal and neo-con boards.

Unexpurgated

2001-12-24 07:11 | User Profile

**Quote** (Arator @ Nov. 13 2001,23:25)

This piece suffers from an overbroadness that may cross the line into overt anti-Semitism.  At the very least, it is in error as to facts. For example, consider this whopper: *Basically, Yugoslavia was chosen to be Israel's whipping boy by the neo-cons.* Israel's whipping boy?  Give me a break!  Yugoslavia was certainly chosen to be the US/NATO's whipping boy, but Israel was not a party to that mugging.  In fact, I distinctly recall comments by Israeli government officials and public opinion leaders at the time lamenting what we were doing, for two very good reasons: 1) These Israelis (unlike their American Neo-con co-religionists) remembered that the Serbs were the friends and defenders of the Jewish people against the Nazis and their minions in WWII.  Furthermore, they also remembered that the Albanians were in league with the Nazis and were/are virulent Jew-haters. 2) These Israelis recognized that what was taking place in Yugoslavia was a globalist demolition of national sovereignty which fundamentally threatened them.  After all, if the globalists could render Serbia a pariah nation for defending itself against an internal Islamic insurgency, bomb them, forcably peel away a goodly piece of her ancient homeland, and deliver it into the hands of the terrorists, they could in principle do the same thing to Israel.  In fact, I distinctly remember one Israeli government official worrying out loud that Israel might be the next target of US/NATO bombing. So, I think it is a mistake to assume that all Jews, be they Israelis or American, are Neo-cons and sympathetic to the perverse aims of the Neo-con faction.  It is also a mistake to assume that the American Neo-cons who are nominally Jewish are pro-Zionist and/or pro-Israeli.  They are not.  The globalist agenda which the Neo-cons wholeheartedly support is a dagger aimed at the heart of every nation, including Israel.  Patriotic Israelis know this, fear this, and abhored our intervention in Yugoslavia as much as we Paleo-cons did. Here's another howler: *Hence, Yugoslavia came to play the role of whipping boy for Israel. Yugoslavia would be beaten for Israel's misbehavior, for like the princes of yesteryear, it was unthinkable that Sacred Cow Israel could ever be punished.* So, somehow Israel is to blame for the murderous policy of American Neo-cons (some of which happen to be Jewish) and the American government?  The absurdity of this is highlighted by the following questions and answers: Do all Jews share the same political views?  No. Does the fact that some Jews are Neo-cons imply that all Jews are Neo-cons?  No. Does the fact the some American Jews are Neo-cons imply that all American Jews are Neo-cons?  No. Are all Jews of one mind when it comes to Israel?  No. Are all Israeli Jews of one mind when it comes to Israeli policy?  No. Are all American Jews of one mind when it comes to American policy and/or American policy towards Israel?  No. Are Israeli and American Jews of one mind when it comes to American policy and/or Israeli policy and/or American policy towards Israel?  Absolutely not. In sum, this article assumes a monolithic worldwide Jewish viewpoint which simply doesn't exist.  Furthermore, it assumes that this monolithic worldwide Jewish viewpoint is also the viewpoint held by the small sect of American Neo-cons, some of which happen to be Jewish.  This is absurd. From this false premise, it leaps to even worse conclusions, such as the notion that Yugoslavia was Israel's whipping boy made to suffer for its sins.  In other words, it's all the Jew's fault.  Everything is the Jew's fault.  Damn the Jews to hell.  It's never OUR fault. Well, Yugoslavia WAS our fault.  They were made the whipping boy not for the sake of Israel, but for the sake of a globalist agenda whose power center lies not in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, but in London, New York, and Washington, D.C.  This was an Anglo-American debacle, not an Israeli one.  It's time we AMERICANS excepted responsibility for what OUR government does in our name and quit trying to fix blame on either an American minority within a minority (Jewish Neo-cons, whose only influence is whatever the greater worldwide Anglo-American power elites decide to give them) or on a small beleagered country who is as much a victim of our globalist government's perverse machinations as Yugoslavia was and is (Israel). Max, old buddy, you laid a real egg with this one, IMHO.** Arator: Please revisit this article and address the merits of Mr. Shpak's article. If we want a Tel Aviv smear-job we'll turn to Billy Kristol. BTW, do you still avow your public support and defense of the Israeli murder of American sailors on the U.S.S. Liberty? Your credibility as an American "Patriot" rests on your truthful response... --- ### Texas Dissident *2001-12-26 07:14* | [User Profile](/od/user/0) **Quote** (Unexpurgated @ Dec. 24 2001,01:11) Arator: Please revisit this article and address the merits of Mr. Shpak's article. If we want a Tel Aviv smear-job we'll turn to Billy Kristol. BTW, do you still avow your public support and defense of the Israeli murder of American sailors on the U.S.S. Liberty? Your credibility as an American "Patriot" rests on your truthful response...** Wow!  Is this true? A, say it aint so.  I'm usually not one for litmus tests, but I would think one's position on that tragedy would certainly qualify. Let us hope A will weigh-in here and straighten up any misconceptions. --- ### Sertorius *2001-12-28 03:47* | [User Profile](/od/user/26) **Quote** ** kUSS, **Quote** Brooks supports this portrait of 1941 with many citations from the press of that time. Unfortunately, he overlooks a crucial fact: many of those "patriots" who boosted war were driven by foreign sympathies. ** Unfortunately this problem of holding nations dearer that our own dates back to the "XYZ" Affair. **Quote** Brooks quotes disproportionately from two magazines: The Nation and Life. The Nation was hardly a mainstream publication: it was the leading pro-Soviet magazine of its day. Even before Pearl Harbor, it had called for U.S. intervention into World War II on the Soviet side. No wonder it rejoiced when the United States was pulled into the war. As one of its writers exulted, "Here is the time when a man can be what an American means, can fight for what America has always meant — an audacious, adventurous seeking for a decent earth." ** Brooks knows all this. He`s hoping that not too many people realize that he`s playing fast and loose with the facts. In addition to the *Nation*, Brooks could have also mentioned *Foreign Affairs,* but that wouldn`t do. People might start asking embarrassing questions. Better "ignorance is bliss" than an informed citizenry. The quote that I have underlined above was written by someone who knows that he will never be called up for military service and who, I suspect was a soviet agent. It would be interesting to see what he had wrote **before** the German invasion of the USSR. **Quote** Before Pearl Harbor, most Americans strongly opposed going to war, especially if it meant sacrificing their sons to foreign interests. Arthur Schlesinger (again in The Nation) argued that the Republican Party must, in Brooks's words, "jettison its heartland isolationism and embrace the East Coast establishment's internationalism." ** Schlesinger is obfuscating here. It wouldn`t do to tell the truth that the whole idea is to remake the world in their own insane vision, along with accumulating vast wealth and power. Promoting the idea of "citizen of the world" is to their advantage, a deracinated is so much easier to keep suppressed and weak. **Quote** So when we hear patriotic-sounding voices calling for war, we ought to ask who really wants war, who stands to benefit from it, and why. Time and again the most genuinely patriotic people — derided by the elites as "heartland isolationists" — have had the real interests of America at heart. ** *Cui bono?* Quite true. Brooks` whole column is nothing but typical disinformation put out by the warmongers of *The Weekly Standard.* In this century, rarely have the interests of the "elites" been the same as the vast number of people who live in the area that our "elites" call "fly over country." Most of us don`t have a dog in this fight. --- ### George *2002-03-02 03:52* | [User Profile](/od/user/74) American Jews are first and foremost Americans, and are afflicted with the same blinders when it comes to American policy towards Israel as are afixed on Americans generally by the globalist elite who propagandize us incessantly through mass media channels.  In other words, they are useless sheep which are presently more of a danger to Israel than an asset, because they give the globalists Jewish cover for our betrayal of Israel to the PLO, Arafat, and the Muslim world generally.  That betrayal has been in the pipe ever since Poppy resurrected Arafat from the political grave as payback to the Arabs for their participation in the Gulf War coalition and forced Israel into the misnamed "peace process".  And the Neo-cons have been cheerleading this pernicious globalist initiative just as they cheerlead every pernicious globalist initiative. In sum, the fact that many Neo-cons are Jews does not mean that they are also Israeli nationalists or Zionists.  They aren't.  They are globalists first, nationalists of any kind never.  They care for the continued national viability of Israel as much as they care for the continued national viability of America, which is not at all.  Nations are marked for extinction.  All national interests, be they America's or Israel's, must be sacrificed to serve the globalist imperative.  This is what the Neo-cons are really all about, and all nations, even America and Israel herself, are as much in their crossfire as Yugoslavia was. The demolition of national sovereignty, not deflecting Arab wrath against Israel, is what Yugoslavia was really all about. -Arator I haven't been following Arator, since I'm here from sfForum's having closed. It's also like a big twoHearted river. When the zionists oppose the globalists, they deserve a cheer. However through AIPAC here in the U.S., whose doubleHeartedness is to be proGlobalist and proIsrael in about that order-?-when IsraeliZionists are as a practical matter proGlobalist, they deserve a BOO! It's hard to sort all of it out, since as a political matter everyone looks for the wiggle room. But there is a singleHearted constant in all of this, as well, gloBalists, Bad. The wages of Empire. There's also the kerosine sporadically sprayed on the flames of this circle, which is Israel's not pulling out of the occupied territories; and subsequently the all too brutal repression of the Palestinians. Unless that too is a 'required' component of globali$m, and correspondingly of the gloBalists? Who's on first? --- ### George *2002-03-06 00:10* | [User Profile](/od/user/74) "Civilizations die when their clowns become Gods" -AY Reminds one almost of McDonald's. Ronald McDonald is always saving the kids from their parents in advertisements. Civilizations die, we all do. And most, it always seems the case when snapshots of time are taken, have remained kids, forever. For bloody better or worse, I suppose, like everything else.   --- ### van helsing *2002-03-10 18:39* | [User Profile](/od/user/48) and slobo isnt giving up... http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020308/1/2klj8.html Saturday March 9, 2:27 AM Milosevic cites FBI on al-Qaeda presence in Kosovo Former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, on trial for war crimes here, produced an FBI document he said backed up his claim he was fighting al-Qaeda terrorists in Kosovo. Milosevic is accused of murders, deportations and other atrocities as part of a campaign to carve out a Greater Serbia after the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in 1991. As his trial wound up its fourth week, he returned to one of his chief defenses: that he was struggling against separatists and terrorists to hold a crumbling Yugoslav republic together. "Neither the army nor the police have been implicated in war crimes," he told the UN tribunal. Cross-examining Sabit Kadriu, a Kosovo human rights activist, Milosevic asked him what he knew about the activities of Osama Bin Laden, his al-Qaeda network and Islamic mujahedin fighters in Kosovo. Milosevic contends the violence in the Serbian province was due to "terrorist" operations of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which had outside support in its drive for independence. Kadriu dismissed the one-time Serbian strongman's suggestions of Kosovo as a hotbed of terrorism, saying: "It's a fiction of your imagination." Presiding Judge Richard May asked Milosevic where he was getting his information and the defendant waved a document he said was produced by the FBI last December documenting al-Qaeda and mujahedin activity in Kosovo. The document was entered into evidence but no details were discussed. Milosevic spent the day sparring with Kadriu in a cross-examination laced with political polemics that drew rebukes from the bench for both sides. Clearly frustrated by the tribunal's efforts to rein in his questioning, Milosevic snapped back at May: "I'd like to ask you not to give me instructions, please." Kadriu, a teacher and branch leader of the Council for the Defense of Human Rights and Freedoms, testified Thursday about Serb savagery in Kosovo, including massacres of Albanians, mutilations and public rapes in 1999. But Milosevic came back with his own litany of atrocities he said were perpetrated on Serbian Kosovars. He grilled Kadriu on alleged killings, burnings and rapes of Serbs as well as the destruction of their forests, orchards and cemeteries in the predominently Albanian province of Serbia. "Do you know how many inhabitants of Kosovo, under pressure from Albanian violence, had to leave the province?" the Serbian nationalist thundered. "Do you know, or do you not know?" Kadriu, who kept his eyes mostly turned from Milosevic but stole an occasional glance, denied such incidents. "I have never heard of these things," he said. "Power was in the hands of Milosevic. Who would dare to do such things?" Milosevic also challened testimony that the Albanians were subject to discrimination. He asserted, for instance, that nearly 236,000 Albanian chilren attended school in Kosovo in 1999 as opposed to 45,000 Serbs. But Kadriu shot back: "The (Albanian) students were thrown out. They all studied outside the school buildings. Everybody knows that." Milosevic is accused of orchestrating the deportations of some 800,000 ethnic Albanians and the murders of at least 900 in Kosovo. He is facing charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. If convicted he could be sentenced to life in prison. -FAIR USE- --- ### mwdallas *2002-03-12 01:22* | [User Profile](/od/user/81) **Quote** American Jews are first and foremost Americans** Arator's statement (above) indicates that his perspective on Israel is based on a false premise.  All Jews are -- by definition -- first and foremost Jews.  That is simply what being Jewish means:  membership in, and supreme allegiance to, the tribe. --- ### madrussian *2002-04-17 00:21* | [User Profile](/od/user/15) AY: Neocons will milk any event to the max. Thus they will sell the intervention in Kosovo to the muslims as the proof of their fair and just treatment of muslims. At the same time Sharon will make noises about muslim terrorism and will praise Putin, in the hope of securing Russia at their side. You are definitely right that they have to keep America involved in internatinal matters, that will make aid to Izzrreeuull seem more natural and will allow them to sneak their agenda in and engage American government and people in the discussion of whether America should abandon their best "ally" and "friend". --- ### Unexpurgated *2002-05-27 22:14* | [User Profile](/od/user/43) > *Originally posted by madrussian*@Apr 16 2002, 16:21 **AY: Neocons will milk any event to the max. Thus they will sell the intervention in Kosovo to the muslims as the proof of their fair and just treatment of muslims. At the same time Sharon will make noises about muslim terrorism and will praise Putin, in the hope of securing Russia at their side. You are definitely right that they have to keep America involved in internatinal matters, that will make aid to Izzrreeuull seem more natural and will allow them to sneak their agenda in and engage American government and people in the discussion of whether America should abandon their best "ally" and "friend".** Has any Neo-Con or Tribal talking-head addressed the vexing parallels between Aztlan and Kosovo? I know that the odious, pudgy mamma's boy J. Goldberg--who occupies Russell Kirk's chair at the "New" National Review--proclaimed that the loss of the SouthWest to the Mestizos would be far less tragic than the Zionist Parasite Colony losing a single square millimeter of land... :angry: :ph34r: <_< --- ### MikeKr1 *2002-08-05 14:28* | [User Profile](/od/user/10) > *Originally posted by AntiYuppie*@Aug 4 2002, 16:12 **The northern portion of Kosovo was for a long time predominantly Serb (and houses many centuries-old Orthodox shrines and Churches, most of which have been destroyed by the KLA with the blessings of Kristol's Kosher Krew). Thanks to the higher living standard in Yugoslavia, many Albanian "refugees" from Albania proper and southern Kosovo flooded the region. ** Practically all of Kosovo for centuries was predominantly Serb. In WWII, Albania was an Axis satellite with its own German-organized SS division, the Skanderbegs. The Germans allowed the Albanians to kill off or drive out the Serbs during 1941-45, in much the same manner the German-backed Croat Ustasha (fascists) did to the ethnic Serbs in Croatia at the same time. To make matters worse, Marshal Tito (a Croat, who typically detested Serbs) at war's end in 1945 ordered all Kosovo Serb land ownership deeds executed before April 1941 (when Germany invaded Yugoslavia) cancelled. Tito had originally wanted to annex Albania into Yugoslavia outright (mainly because of its sizable petroleum reserves) but dropped the plan, instead kissing up to the Moslems-gone-Stalinists in Tirane for cheap raw materials and a promise Albania would not allow Soviet (and later Chinese) warships to be homeported on the Albanian seacoast. Also, from 1945-48, Tito allowed 300,000 ethnic Albanians to settle in the lands taken from the Serbs. Albanians were given preferential treatment in jobs, housing and in education. In the Yugoslav Constitution of 1974, Tito gerrymandered Kosovo and the northern Serb area of Vojvodina, bordering on Hungary, away from Serbia proper, calling them "semi-autonomous provinces." It was at that time in the mid-1970s that Albanians launched their reign of terror against the Serbs of the region, terror which escalated sharply after Tito's 1980 death. Even the New York Slimes carried an excellent series of stories in 1982 about Albanian depradations in Kosovo. By 1987 troops had to be sent to quell the rapidly escalating violence. That year, a Serb politician named Slobodan Milosevich promised the Kosovo Serbs that they "wouldn't be beaten anymore," a quotation typically taken out of context by those who should know better, paradoxically using it to attempt to prove Milo was somehow "genocidal." --- ### Alka *2003-05-22 18:09* | [User Profile](/od/user/406) Tito was no friend to the Croatians either: witness the slaughter of Bleiberg. Tito was a half-Croat *Yugoslav* nationalist who identified himself first and foremost as such, and brutally oppressed anyone who did not share his views. Notably though he reserved his worst for both the Croats and Serbs. > **These Israelis (unlike their American Neo-con co-religionists) remembered that the Serbs were the friends and defenders of the Jewish people against the Nazis and their minions in WWII. ** Now this is one of the stupidest things ever written. What percentage of Belgrade's Jews survived the Serbian fascist puppet state again? The Israelis do not support the Serbs because they regard them as "friends" they do because they can exploit the issues surrounding the Balkan conflicts for themselves. Jews living in the Balkans know the truth and do not share this self-serving fantasy. --- ### Eendracht Maakt Mag *2003-05-22 18:22* | [User Profile](/od/user/378) There is one important element of the whole "bomb Milosevic" farce that you forgot to mention. Serbia is traditionally a Russian ally. The neo-con Likkudniks wish to marginalize humiliate, and infringe on the rights and sovereignty of every nation connected to their most hated enemy: Russia. Thus American military bases in Georgia and Uzbekistan, and also partially the savage attack on Serbia. The ultimate wet-dream of every Likudnik neo-"con" is to humiliate and marginalize Russia to the point where it no longer exerts any perceptible influence on world afairs. The fact that neo-cons are already audaciously staking claims on the old Soviet satelite nations is testimony to this. --- ### van helsing *2003-05-31 03:32* | [User Profile](/od/user/48) rat back into old home week here... tito was the chosenite cure for the new yugoland in mid 40s... i forget the name but yugo had a nationalist hero pre-tito... fdr let him fry. nice gioo that fdr... ///////////// i just watched most of the history channel farce on the tsars last week. hey they werent angels. lots of good stuff... BUT... when all this talk of rebellious boyars comes up: read: gioo... hence their youngsters became radicals, who never thought any tsars' ideas were good and they kept agitating for revolution... (the boyars are the kind of people vlad tepes hoisted by their petards.) AND TO ADD FUEL TO THE FIRE... THE ROMANOVS WERE ETHNICALLY GERMAN AND THEY KEPT RIDING TO THE RESCUE OF EUROPE and ethnically german rulers AGAINST PEOPLE LIKE NAOPLEON and his handlers ET AL... bet that made heimey mad. --- ### Eendracht Maakt Mag *2003-05-31 20:56* | [User Profile](/od/user/378) > *Originally posted by van helsing*@May 30 2003, 21:32 ** AND TO ADD FUEL TO THE FIRE... THE ROMANOVS WERE ETHNICALLY GERMAN ** The Romanovs varied in the content of German blood. Most were probably no more German than I am. --- ### Alka *2003-06-21 23:53* | [User Profile](/od/user/406) **** Attention to LELAND GAUNT **** - *...and anyone else who suffers from the delusion that the the US intervention in the Balkans was anything but motivated by US self-interest and pro-Israeli motivations* - you may want to read Shpak's article! **Leland Gaunt** (and some sadly ignorant others) is of the delusioned and disinformationalist opinion that the Srbs were targeted because of Jewish hatred for their ethnicity. This is far from the truth, as is clearly seen in the existence of the Serbian-Jewish Friendship Society, and of Jewish support for Srbia generally. In this article, Max Shpak wrote brilliantly of how the Neo-Cons exploited the Balkan conflicts when they were in the public eye: I could only hope he writes an expose on how the Jews have secretly helped and protected the Srbs (from communism to present-day). Let's just say it was this one excellent article which persuaded me that sane minds prevailed here at Original Dissent. I won't let some throwbacks and disinformationalists convince me otherwise. *bump* to the top!! --- ### Alka *2003-06-22 20:07* | [User Profile](/od/user/406) The American intervention in Srbia was not motivated by Jewish malice against the Jews: it was a self-interested position and action for both the USA and Israel. Israel never was strongly supportive of American action against Srbia, and indeed was accused of the US of having violated the embargo; its support of the US action was tied closely to the perceived benefits both these parties hoped to reap from Muslims in this costly PR stunt. Jewish and Israeli support for Srbia has remained constantly high despite the official stance of Israel, before and after. You might want to take a look at these websites: [url=http://www.shofar.de/appeal-e.html]Are the Jews in the world really against the Serbs [/url] [url=http://www.shofar.de/volunteers-e.html]Israeli volunteers fight on the side of Serbs[/url] [url=http://www.janes.com/defence/news/kosovo/jfr990401_02_n.shtml]The Serbia-Israel connection[/url] > **As for your continued obsession with...** Interesting choice of words. Your perceptions have little connection with reality. > **Given the power Jews enjoy in America, had Jews collectively or largely been pro-Serb there never would have been a bombing of Belgrade.** Did you even read the article by Shpak or? Despite pro-Serb sentiment (and secret Jewish support before, during, and after NATO had its way) it was in the Israeli self-interest to support this action. Israeli self-interest comes ahead of interest in allied nations. Your argument is all observational selection and non sequiter, you fail to recognize alternative possibilities. --- ### Zvaci *2003-06-24 00:42* | [User Profile](/od/user/430) It was the interest of the Jewish multiculturalism to support Serbia during the war. Serbs was the force-tool for keeping Frankenstein state Yugoslavia from falling apart. They did not wanted the new birth of Croatia knowing that Croatia was part of the Axis. --- ### Ãœbeltäter *2003-07-02 01:48* | [User Profile](/od/user/488) > *Originally posted by Zvaci@Jun 23 2003, 18:42 * ** for keeping Frankenstein state Yugoslavia from falling apart ** The people that destroyed Europa, created also Jewgoslawia. The stole lands away from centuries-old kingdoms and then forced different ethnics into a collective states, like Yugoslavia and Czechoslavakia. :dung: ---