Serb Fugitive Won't Be Extradited To N.Y.

abclocal.go.com ^ | July 21, 2008

[wardaddy]

In WWII the vast majority of Serbs supported either Stalin or Hitler, not the US or the UK (unless Stalin told them they had to).

I'm not sure what you mean "supported", they were called Allies which meant their desires were allied in common. We were Allied with the Russians and vice versa but not that we supported them outside our common goal. Why demand more than that from the Serbs in question? We were close to the Brits too but support would not be the right choice except logistically which btw we did for our Serb allies too

To say that "the Serbs" rescued US airmen implies that this was some kind of national policy that reflected Serbian national sentiment.

I never claimed it reflected Serbian national sentiment. We claimed US airmen were rescued by Serbs, it would be hard to ascertain how many Serbians precisely were in favor of that. It's generally agreed that most Serbs were Allies and most Croats, Albanians, and Bosnian Muslims were not. Like distinguishing tween Free French or Vichy French or Dutch Resistance or Dutch Nazi Sympathizers

In reality, Mihailovic was a member of a tiny minority of Serbs, a minority that was quickly and ruthlessly liquidated by their fellow Serbs after the war.

In reality Mihailovic was executed after the war not by Serbs per se but by Yugoslavian Communists.

Except for the vague "Latino bourgeoisie" the South Africans, the Rhodesians and the Confederates (not the Southerners) deserve opprobrium for their insistence on denying their fellow human beings their most basic political and civil rights. They enacted policies on a very short-sighted basis and when the flaws in their systems put them into a hole, they kept digging.

The aforementioned groups found or have found themselves in tough spots for which immediate granting of freedom to segregated groups would have been disastrous for them and even the eventual capitulation has proven anywhere from still disastrous to less than great. These groups were casulaties of their time in which impractical idealism caught up with practices once common and deemed them evil and to be purged now regardless of consequence.....a consequence all too obvious in Rhodesia for example. I included Latin wealthy in that category because they are blamed too for repression and despots and are not expected to at in tjeir self interest either...to fall on their swords too. Often those asking for capitualtion by the evil doers have no stake in it nor anything to lose either like Northern Abolitionists for example who even though they once nearly controlled the North American slave trade from their ports were first to insist Southerners given them up without compensation since they themselves had nothing to lose by doing so and knew evil when they saw it in 1861 as opposed to say 1799. Likewise handing over much of the Balkans to Muslims because the Serbs are brutes makes even less sense but is motivated by similar high handedness with little regard for consequence.

There is a point when people are targets of political correctness, but there is a point where they are clearly asking for it.

That sounds like a convenient conclusion for those who indulge in minority racial/ethnic and religious pandering but doesn't absolve the sometime disregard for the unintended outcome nor what such high-mindedness costs the reviled evildoer group either.....Serbs expelled from Kosovo for example, is that ok?

Here's the difference: there are no advocates of Serbia here who say: "Yes, some Serbs have done some pretty horrible things recently and Serbian policy in the Balkans has been disastrous and bloody. However, not all Serbs agree with these policies and the Serbs themselves have legitimate grievances with the KLA, who are just as guilty of atrocities as Serbian paramilitaries."

I think opinions espoused in the media are more dishonest than that....all Serb evil, hardly a mention of Croats or Muslims rampage.....Serb policy was disastrous because of Western interference. Without that, they would have secured the territory they wanted, that they claim they should have had. I guess the other option was to capitulate from the getgo and not fight at all. You forget the Croats and Bosniaks were spoiling for a fight too in the beginning same as the Serbs. I can't say with any certainty who really started it, it just snowballed. And they all committed atrocities but the Serbs got all the attention and more territory probably since they were more in number and have a better army and more equipped paras. Enough atrocity blame to go around. I guess the Serbs shoulda just rolled over and let everyone grab turf and lose whatever footholds they had and leave ethnic Serbs to their own devices elsewhere.

What they do say is variations on a theme like: "The Serbs are always sinned against and never sinning. All those stories of Serb atrocities are complete lies and, if they are true, the victims deserved to be killed anyway. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Blood for blood. We're all really devout Christians too."

I never say that (see above) but you seem to have a bone with Christians period that you like to hammer the Serbs with but you neglect to hammer the Croats with their Catholic faith or Bosnians with their Muslim faith ....both of which are just as important to their cultures as Orthodox is to the Serbs. Btw...eye for an eye figures prominantly in the book of Exodus for both Jews and Christians, nothing sinister about that in my opinion.