SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9649)5/23/1999 10:08:00 PM
From: JBL  Respond to of 17770
 
Bombs a betrayal for dissident Serbs
Serbs who once marched demanding Western values now
cringe when Western jets scream overhead

Saturday, May 22, 1999
MARCUS GEE

In Belgrade -- Yesterday, Day 59 of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, three friends were sipping mineral water in a sunny square in downtown Belgrade when, boom, an invisible NATO warplane broke the sound barrier overhead. In the shocked silence, they glanced reflexively at the sky, then at each other.

Three years ago, these middle-class, university-educated women were marching in the streets for what they considered Western values: democracy, tolerance, justice and peace. Now their country is being bombed by an alliance of Western countries.

That makes them feel not just angry and bewildered, but terribly betrayed.

"Everything I believe in as a human being has been shattered," said Ana, who teaches psychology at a Belgrade university. "I don't believe in the good intentions of the West any more."

Her friend Drogana, 34, is just as bitter. A psychotherapist and veteran opponent of the Slobodan Milosevic regime, she cuts a chic figure in a lime-green summer dress and matching Swatch. In 1996 and 1997, she led an antiwar group that had friends and supporters in many of the same Western countries that are now conducting the bombing.

Tears came to her eyes as she remembered how her two-year-old son woke up during one night's bombing to ask: "What's happening, Mommy?"

"The West said it was better than Milosevic," she said. "Now we can see that was all lies. The only thing different about the West is that it has more money."

The third of the friends, Biljana, another psychologist, had been silent as she listened to the other two. But when she spoke, she was the most vehement of all: "I used to think of myself as a citizen of the world. Now I think of myself as a Serb. It's a hard, painful feeling."

Her friends share her resentment over the narrowing identity that the war has imposed on them.

"Before this war, I was a woman, a psychologist, a wife, a mother," said Ana, a scholarly woman with wire-rimmed glasses. "Now I am primarily a Serb. I have been reduced to that."

It's not an exultant nationalism, but a bitter, resigned one. A very Serbian one.

Sentiments such as these are common among Belgrade's Westernized middle class. It's hard to exaggerate the deep sense of disillusionment that they feel.

They have studied in London or Paris or Vienna, chat with their foreign friends by E-mail and cellular phone, usually speak English and perhaps one or two other languages as well. As citizens of a country that fought on the allied side in two world wars and tilted to the West during the Cold War too, they feel very much part of the European mainstream. Or did.

Now they feel shunned, abandoned, demonized. "We're normal people," said Ana. "We have the Internet, we go to the movies. We don't have money like in Canada, but we're not crazy. We're not like Iraq."

The disillusionment with the West is especially deep among those, like these three friends, who have struggled against the Milosevic regime. For them, nothing rings more hollow than NATO's assertion that it is not fighting the Yugoslav people, only their government.

Whether it was intended to or not, the bombing has turned their lives upside down. Drogana's patients have stopped coming for psychotherapy. They have other things to worry about. Ana, 34, chose to send her four-year-old son to stay with his mother in the country, where she hopes he will be safer. Her voice broke with emotion as she talked about the separation. Biljana, 38, is also out of work, and she and her eight-year-old son struggle to get by on her husband's small salary as an engineer.

What rankles most for all of them is being lumped in with the regime they hate.

"For 10 years we were fighting against these idiots in our government," said Ana. "Now we're being placed in the same bag as they are."

No one believes the bombing will lead to the overthrow of Mr. Milosevic, who has been in power for more than a decade. Like virtually all liberal Serbs, these three believe that he has been strengthened immeasurably by the bombing, which has allowed him to pose as the heroic protector of the nation.

Drogana shared a sardonic joke. Question: What are the first words of Mr. Milosevic's will? Answer: "If I ever die. . . ."

The bombing, they believe, means they are stuck with Mr. Milosevic for a very long time.

"We made a fertile soil for democracy," Drogana said. "And onto that soil is now falling NATO bombs."

That, these women can never forgive.



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9649)5/23/1999 10:23:00 PM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 17770
 
One thing that will emerge from the Kosovo conflict, for better or for worse, is a precedent for dealing with a type of conflict that we will be seeing a great deal more of. Most of us assume that outside parties, whether national or multilateral, have only a very limited right - some would say no right at all - to interfere in another country's internal affairs. But what precisely defines "internal affairs"?

National borders are in a continuous state of flux; is it the business of the UN to preserve them as they were at the close of WWII? All over the world we have borders arbitrarily drawn, sometimes by colonial bureaucrats, sometimes as part of peace settlements for conflicts long past. All over the world we have people who feel that they actually belong to a neighboring country or ought actually to be independent. Many feel that they are getting the short end of the stick from majority populations in the countries to which they are attached. On the other hand, in many cases the dominant populations in these countries have often settled a fair number of their own ethnic group in the territories in question, and are extremely touchy about what is "theirs". We also have countries that are eager to recover territories that they feel have been unjustly removed from their control.

Here we have conflicting principles. Most of us agree on the principle of self-determination: the notion that the people who live in a place have the right to decide what happens to that place. We also believe in the principle of territorial integrity: the idea that a nation has the right to preserve its borders.

What do we do when these principles collide? Decide on a case-by-case basis, obviously, but it might not be a good idea for the powers that be to put some serious thought into defining the criteria.



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9649)5/24/1999 11:05:00 AM
From: John Lacelle  Respond to of 17770
 
Ron,

I think we both come to the same conclusion. The
right of people to "self-determine" and the right
of nations to protect their borders will lead to
civil wars. Nothing has changed.

-John



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9649)5/25/1999 6:55:00 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 17770
 
Ron,

I BET YOU A ZILLION DOLLARS THAT B. DENARD IS OUR MAN!! --NO KIDDING.

I just stumbled on this:
islamtz.org

The above is a link to some academic/cultural-oriented site whose purpose is to inform about Tanzania's Islamic culture.

Now, under the Islam and Politics in Tanzania headline, you'll read this:

ISLAM AND POLITICS IN TANZANIA

By BROTHER MOHAMMED SAEED
Muslim Writer's Organization
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.


INTRODUCTION

Islam has been in existence in East Africa since the eighth century. With Islam, emerged the lingua franca, Kiswahili, spoken throughout East and Central Africa and the Swahili culture which is mostly associated with Muslims. About two-thirds of East Africa's Muslims reside in Tanzania which is the most populous of the East African countries i.e. Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.

According to the 1957 population census, Muslims outnumbered Christians at a ratio of three to two. This means Tanzania is a leading Muslim nation in the region. But the 1967 census the total figures for Tanzania Mainland are 32% Christian, 30% Muslim and 37% local belief. This shows Pagans as a leading majority. The 1967 census has not been able to show the reasons for the sudden decrease of Muslim population nor the growth of Paganism. This was the last population census showing religious distribution. It is widely believed that the figures for the 1967 census were doctored for political reasons to show Muslims were trailing behind Christians in numerical strength. This paper "lnsha Allah", will try to show the reasons behind such a move and many others.

Christianity is a relatively new religion in Tanzania having introduced into the country during the 18th Century by professional missionaries. Christianity was resisted by Muslims right from the beginning. In any uprising against the colonial state Muslims took that opportunity to attack missionaries and Christian establishments.2 Muslims perceived both missionaries and the colonial state as fellow collaborators and therefore enemies to Islam. Islamic radicalism has therefore a long history in the struggle against colonial rule and Christianity. Christianity meanwhile became a reactionary force siding with the colonial state.

In the Maji Maji War of 1905 some Christians fought alongside the German army against the people to safeguard Christianity.3 In this war some Muslims were hanged particularly for killing missionaries and for waging a war against German rule.[...]

Direct link:
islamtz.org

Got the picture, Ron? In my previous post, I hinted to you that the East Africa bombings didn't fit the Islamist terrorism's mindset. Well, this was inaccurate: not only didn't they fit the Islamist mindset but they also didn't fit the Islamist terrorism's method.

As you might be aware of, Tanzania incurred the heaviest toll --over 200 fatalities out of a total of 272, if I remember-- and, as depicted in the above links, it's a country whose over 30% of the population is Muslim. At this point, let's refresh our memories about Islamist terrorism in the past... I believe that, as far back as you might check it out, you can't find a single occurence involving an Islamist attack with such a high collateral damage as in the East Africa bombings --especially within a Muslim-rich environment. Quoting from memory:

# The bomb attack against a US Marines camp in Lebanon (over 200 casualties) in the early 1980s. Pres. R. Reagan was consequently forced to withdraw from Lebanon;

# The similar bombing in Dahran, Saudi Arabia (toll of dead amounted to 19 US militarymen) where the FBI is still investigating;

# The hijacking of cruise liner Achille Lauro during which a disabled Jewish American was thrown overboard;

# The shooting attacks by Egypt's Muslim Brothers aimed at Western tourists;

# The suicide bombings in Israel;

# The Lockerbie/Pan Am bombing;

# The WTC bombing in NY City;

Etc.

None of these allegedly Islamic attacks was ever ''smeared'' by some collateral damage involving Muslims --whether people or brick-and-mortar assets... The only instance of Muslim terrorists supposedly killing other Muslims is Algeria but, as I've brought evidence before on the WWIII thread, the so-called GIA attacks are essentially retaliations perpetrated by Algeria's governmental death squads.

So, Ron, why all of a sudden such random blockbuster-bombings in East Africa? I think that, while it doesn't tell us much about the underlings who put the bombs at the US embassies and who, indeed, might happen to be ''genuine'' Muslims, it does tell us much more about the sponsor country who masterminded these outrageous bloodsheds. That is a country who doesn't care about severing its relations with anglo-Saxon East Africa and who doesn't mind Islam alienating moderate Muslim East African countries --not to speak of US reprisals. Does Iran, or even Sudan, fits such a whopping criterion??

Time to consider to have your next Summer vacation in France!

Regards,
Gustave.