Djindjic death: Ex-policeman accused

BBC ^ | 2003/03/12 20:48:10

[Southack]

No, your reasons don't really make that much sense.

Serbia has been silent about France and Germany's double-standard (regarding NATO bombing them over Kosovo 4 years ago this month versus U.S. bombing Iraq currently under debate).

Now, there can be no argument that Serbia has been silent about that double-standard. You haven't heard a peep about this double standard in the media.

We don't have complaints from Communists and Mafioso about this PM even being rumored...

And here we've got the Serbian PM assasinated.

Thus, the question is whether Destro's theory is correct (i.e. that France/Germany took Zolan out because he was *finally* going to blast their "go to the UN" double standard),

OR

that my theory is correct, that local Serbs killed him for keeping Serbia officialy quiet about the UN double-standard.

This month is the 4 year anniversary of NATO smashing the Serbs without UN approval. It would boggle belief to believe that the Communists cared enough or that the Mafia coincidentally got fed up enough with Zolan to pick this time in world affairs to off the guy. Such red herrings simply don't wash. No, they smell like rotting fish.

The assasination was about Iraq, one way or the other, based upon the timing, location, players involved, etc.

[Destro]

There are plenty of potential suspects if one focuses merely on motive. The mafia did not like him. -true--but they have little to fear no matter what legislation would have passed--besides-the Prime Minsiter does not matter much once a law is passed-- The communists did not like him as he was a big anti-communist---acyually he was a big communist himself and they never bothered to get him before--not even tried. The loyalists to Slobo hated him.--same deal---they never bothered to put on a hit.

And, according to certain types here, despite being pro-western he was straying from being totally compliant to the west, and as such despite all the other possibilities, it must be that he was whacked by America's allies.--the theroy behind that being the most recent provocation is the one to look at. Old police trick. Djindjic started started to scare NATO with his talk of sending troops into Kosovo just as the Albanians started to kill NATO troops. With him out of the way calls for sending Serbs into Kosovo die down. In addition thw UN sent in its NATO goon squads to shut down the "sepratist" Kosovo Serb assembly in Kosovo just this morning. coinky-dinky?

Hope that helps!--ditto

[Almondjoy]

To make such a bold statement you better come up with some proof.

[Almondjoy]

Unfortunately this article doesn't state his efforts against organized crime. He was coming down pretty damn hard on the mafia. Also you have to remember he was the guy that was brought/or was bringing the old crown to justice. I'm sure they were exactly happy(Milo's party) that he was rounding them up and bringing them to international justice.

[Almondjoy]

Then so would be Iraq... no authoriztion is authorization denied good sir.

[Almondjoy]

You assume far to much.. you are using your jaded thoughts to assume that this all had to do with a "double standard" As if things were really that simple. Hate to break it to you. But it's not exactly a double standard with the issues are different. If you are going to even attempt to suggest that the situations of Kosovo and Iraq are the same.. well good luck to you.. but if you are intellegent to realize the situations are different... logic asserts that it simply cannot be a double standard. Kosovo hinged on the backside of Rowanda.. now I'm not saying even those situations are close to being alike. But the key point here is that instead of waiting for hundreds of thousands to die like in Rowanda we marched on to Serbia to avoid the public humliation the nations of the earth suffered in their handling of Rowanda(not to mention the govt's guilt). In any case as I recall the behind the scenes politics was that they were going to go to the UN but that Russia was going to veto any resoultions that anything to do with Serbia. Which was clearly implied in their actions from the onset of the war.

[Destro]

I agree with you--no authorization is authorization denied--as was the case for Kosovo--ion Iraq the congress did authorize Bush at least indirectly.

[wadecollins]

I agree.

[Destro]

Hari Krishna to you and yes!

[NittanyLion]

Is it true that the shooter's name is Leovic Harvic Oswldavic?

He'd better keep an eye out for Ivan Rubiek.

[joan]

"But the key point here is that instead of waiting for hundreds of thousands to die like in Rowanda we marched on to Serbia to avoid the public humliation the nations of the earth suffered in their handling of Rowanda(not to mention the govt's guilt)."

Oh come on, what embarrassment did other countries "suffer" over Rwanda? Clinton came, after the genocide, to make a little speech from his plane - the plane's engines were never turned off the whole time he was there, and he even was smiling much of the time (rather looked like smirking to me).

Another factor was that France was shipping heavy weapons to the Hutus (the ones who macheted and murdered around 800,000 Tutsi civilians in about 100 days) before and during the massacre. France was very close with the Hutu regime which openly made genocidal statements before the massacre. France even tried to rescue some of the Hutu criminals after the massacre in “Operation Turquoise”. Did France's actions show it to be "embarrassed"? No, it showed it to be complicit.

UN soldiers were in Rwanda before the massacre. They had people gather in schools, churches, hospitals, etc. guarded by the UN only to abandon them just as the Tutsis were concentrated at these places. The excuse for the UN to pull out was the murder of 10 Belgian soldiers – perhaps it was a sacrifice of the soldiers done in order to give the UN that excuse.

[Southack]

"To make such a bold statement you better come up with some proof."

Proof, no. Evidence, yes.

The evidence is that Serbia has been completely and inextricably silent about France and Germany's "go to the UN" double-standard.

And about that dearth of news, there is no dispute.

Why? What possible motivations could there be for Serbia to be complicit (with their silence) with France and Germany's newfound desire to take war-issues to the UN?

... and then the Serbian PM gets whacked.

Go figure.

[bobi]

Hmmm on that note ...

The SAM that shot down the plane with the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi on board that triggered the massacre apparently came from ex-Iraqi US captured man portable Russian SAMs. An SA-18 I think.

The massacre had some foreign intelligence involved so I read. :)

[Almondjoy]

That's fair and I agree with you. But what happened behind the scenes is not how the public viewed it. Don't you remember how the genocide thing was all palyed up right before Kosovo? They even alluded to Rwanda and how we all screwed up there. You are thinking in terms of gov'ts and what they were thinking all the way through it. I'm not. I'm impliying that gov'ts marched on Kosovo because of world opinion on the matter. In fact the gov'ts were embarassed by Rwanda and felt pressed to push the matter in Kosovo because I don't think they could of allowed another Rwanda to happen. They suffered a black eye in public opinion if not from guilt as I stated.

[Almondjoy]

The devil is in the details.... the situation is different.. it depends on if we are talking about what is implied.. or what is constitutional. Either way I think we feel the same on the subject. I think there is more go ahead on Iraq then there was even on Kosovo. But Kosovo wasn't a big deal to media.. to the people here.. it was just sort of done.. I guess.. I don't have a better way to explain it. I can see the hypocricy in all of it. There we were to save Muslims from an evil gov't. What has changed fromt here to Iraq? Nothing... Except there are alot more $'s in it for France, Russia, and China in Iraq.

[Southack]

"Don't you remember how the genocide thing was all palyed up right before Kosovo?"

You are kidding, right?!

France and Germany said "No" to UN inspectors going to Kosovo to investigate the claims of alledged "mass graves".

Thus, the "genocide" spiel was only played up in the press, never in the UN.

[Almondjoy]

That's what I was implying.. the press... I guess I should of made that more clear. But the people.. the masses.. bought into going to Kosovo... so we did.

[joan]

"But Kosovo wasn't a big deal to media.. to the people here.. it was just sort of done.. I guess.."

Wasn't calling Kosovo a "genocide" only played up after the bombing started? I thought Kosovo only became a big story to the masses after the bombing had already started and the media was spending so much time focused on the refugees - seemingly all day and everyday. The sensationalist reporting surrounding the refugees, combined with the daily bombing reports of the bombing destruction got many people highly concerned about Kosovo for the first time.

[Dragonfly]

Plus ça change: When Chirac led calls to attack

Barry Lando IHT

Friday, March 7, 2003

PARIS By stubbornly resisting President George W. Bush's call for immediate military action in Iraq, President Jacques Chirac is being vilified by U.S. pundits as anti-American, craven, engaged in a ludicrous attempt to revive France's failed grandeur.

Everyone seems to have forgotten that just a few years back the roles were diametrically reversed. It was Chirac who obliged a reluctant, vacillating U.S. president to bypass a hapless United Nations force and order military action to end the slaughter in the former Yugoslavia. A further touch of irony: The most influential American opposing U.S. military involvement in the region was General Colin Powell.

For years the United States and its allies looked on as Slobodan Milosevic's Serbian troops rampaged through the former Yugoslavia, ethnic cleansing as they went. Brutal Serbian commanders thumbed their noses at the lightly equipped soldiers of the UN peacekeeping force, who had no mandate to take forceful action.

Americans criticized the Europeans for doing nothing to end the killings. Europeans retorted that, since the United States was unwilling to commit its own forces to the task, it had no right to speak. Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until September 1993, was adamant that the United States should not become involved.

Powell was determined that no weak-kneed civilian politicians would be able to commit U.S. troops to a vague campaign that could turn into a military quagmire. As David Halberstam wrote in his excellent account of that period, "War in a Time of Peace," Powell "wanted to avoid the careless, poorly thought out, deliberately disingenuous decision-making that had led to the debacle in Vietnam."

As Serbian atrocities mounted, the United States and its allies continued to wring their hands and prevaricate. President Bill Clinton was feeling the heat, but his staff was unable to come up with any acceptable policy. Then in June 1995, on the day that Chirac took office as president of France, a unit of French UN peacekeepers was taken hostage by the Serbs, tied to trees and chained to Serbian artillery pieces.

Chirac, who had been wounded after he volunteered to serve in the French Army in Algeria, was outraged. "I will not accept this," he told aides. "You can kill French soldiers, you can wound them, but you cannot humiliate them! That will end today. France will not accept that! We will change the rules of the game."

Unless the French soldiers were given a new mandate to act, Chirac said, he would pull them out. Chirac called the French commander who had lost a key bridge in Bosnia and gave him 24 hours to retake it. He then called Prime Minister John Major of Britain and proposed establishing a rapid reaction force of elite, well-armed French and British troops, with a mandate to take action, bypassing the impotent UN peacekeepers. The United States would be asked to provide air support and helicopters.

Chirac met with Clinton, forcefully pushed his new concept and urged the president to take a much tougher line in the Balkans. Some of Clinton's aides were annoyed by what they viewed as Chirac's Gallic posturing. But a speech by Chirac on Bastille Day finally provoked Clinton to move. France, Chirac said, wanted to take action, but regrettably France was alone. He recalled the West's appeasement of Hitler. The implication was that the West lacked a leader.

Clinton was apoplectic. He finally gave the go-ahead for a more aggressive policy that bypassed the UN command and eventually led to the intensive bombing of Serbian forces.

That, along with a surprisingly successful offensive by the Croats, finally convinced Milosevic to back down. The way was open to the Dayton peace talks. "Chirac cornered us,” said Richard Holbrooke, who presided over those negotiations. "But that was important because it forced us to see reality, to know that the United States could no longer refuse to get involved."

The writer is a former producer for CBS News 60 Minutes.

From: International Herald Tribune