Full Thread: Mission for This Forum
View Single Post
Old August 5th, 2013 #18
Thomas777
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 203
Thomas777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serbian View Post
I would personally cite Radovan Karadzic as a much better example of someone who the System really wanted to get rid off from the get go, but I know that obviously you would disagree.
I don't fundamentally disagree, but men like Karadzic, and for that matter like Arkan, were peculiar figures - who came to thrive in a fundamentally conspiratorial society (Serbia).

The Left in the UK and America, the Hague, various Ustase/Tudjman-loyalist type elements aimed to portray Milosevic as some kind of dictator-executive who became animated by hubris and tried to install himself as the supreme authority of an ambitious project of ''Greater Serbia''. In contrast, Milosevic apologists, Russians, some American paleocons (who for weird reasons that are outside the scope of our discussion here are tepidly sympathetic to Chetnik causes) suggest that Milosevic was basically an honest but weak man who was forced to abide the violence of radicals (in Bosnia) to resolve a mortal crisis and carry out his duty to preserve the ''Yugoslavian'' union. Neither of these accounts is true - however Milosevic was a Machiavellian and his direct testimony at the Hague can probably be accepted at face value: he had no interest in perjuring himself because the Court wasn't going to acquit him anyway.

Karadzic served a function as a political-military figurehead who commanded the loyalty of the Serbian nation's (arguably) toughest and most committed people (the Bosnian Serbs), he was totally uncompromising in his objectives, and he served a function IMO (if you'll allow a comparative analogy) not unlike that of Billy Wright vis a vis the ''moderate'' Loyalist leadership in Northern Ireland - ruthless partisan fighter who set a standard for radicalism within a conflict paradigm who was utilized very effectively by a formal power structure even as the latter invoked plausible deniability relating to his activities.

Summarized very incompletely, not only did NATO/ZOG/UK want Karadic gone, Milosevic - looking ahead to the victory that never arrived - wanted him gone too after he'd served his purpose of guaranteeing the capture of lebensraum for the Serbian nation in Bosnia.

Does this make him a ''better'' Nationalist than Tudjman was? I think the comparison is apples and oranges. Suppose Serbia had prevailed in the '91='95 war...would there be a place in the new Serb government for ''extremists'' like Karadic? Precedent indicates otherwise.

Mind you, I don't read or speak Serbian - my knowledge of the Serbs has come from immersion among expats and studying news reports in translation. I'm not aiming to presume to instruct you on your own national affairs - its just my speculation and interpretation from without.