Note: This article continues an earlier article on Bosnia, which focuses on the writings of Alija Izetbegovic, the Bosnian Muslim leader whom NATO sponsored. The link for the earlier article is:
alija1.html 

Emperor’s Clothes charges that, in Bosnia, the US and its NATO allies deliberately trained, financed, and politically supported a faction of Muslim fundamentalists whose goal was to create - through violence - a fascist-clerical state. This is what caused the Bosnian civil war.

Put bluntly, what happened is that NATO supported a campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide against innocent Bosnian Serb civilians, and then NATO blamed the victims. (Please note, however, that the aggressors were a *faction* of Bosnian Muslims, and they were not even in the majority within their ethnic group. In fact, the Islamist fanatics were victimizing the more numerous moderate Muslims as well as victimizing Serbs.)

Is Emperor’s Clothes right about all this?

In a previous article I showed that Alija Izetbegovic, the so-called ‘moderate’ leader of the US-sponsored Bosnian Muslim faction, in fact espouses a violent Muslim fundamentalist ideology. I demonstrated this by quoting directly from Izetbegovic’s own book: ‘Islamic Declaration,’ where he explains very clearly that Muslims may not organize under any secular system and that the only proper behavior towards ‘infidels’ is violence.[0]

Despite the fact that Izetbegovic’s writings were no secret, this is how the New York Times described him in April 1992: “The Bosnian President, Mr. Izetbegovic, a Muslim Slav regarded by Western diplomats as a moderate…”[1]

And then on May 8^th, the New York Times wrote: “…President Alija Izetbegovic, a moderate Muslim Slav…”[2]

In just one month, Izetbegovic’s supposed moderation went from being vouched for by Western diplomats to become a simple and obvious fact of the world which the Times could state with zero comment! Propaganda moves faster than the speed of light…

The question of when Izetbegovic wrote his Islamist manifesto is important of course. If he had written it in 1950, one could argue that he had changed his mind by 1990. But one would have to argue it, in any case! The book would not cease to be relevant, and any responsible journalist would have to explain with facts why the book is no longer a matter of concern. The New York Times did not bother to attempt such an explanation in order to defend its characterization of Izetbegovic as a moderate.

But matters are worse.

First, it was no secret that Izetbegovic had written his Islamist book (it was originally published in the 1970s) and Mr. Izetbegovic was famously tried and imprisoned in Yugoslavia, for a few years, on the charge of inciting dangerous and fanatical ideas (see below). Furthermore, Izetbegovic *re-issued* his book in 1990 - the same year that he ran for the presidency of Bosnia. He did not win the presidency, though he did proceed to *seize* it from Fikret Abdic, the non-fundamentalist and pro-Yugoslav Muslim who defeated him at the polls.[3] The central point is this: Izetbegovic re-issued his extreme and well-known Islamist text during an election that coincided with a political crisis about the future of Bosnia. He was using the book to *define* himself as a politician: as the leader of a movement that meant to turn Bosnia into an Islamic fundamentalist state. Given all this, it is quite simply a scandal that the New York Times should make no mention of this book, and give no explanation when it calls Izetbegovic a supposed ‘moderate.’

But matters are much worse.

Having taken the stance that Izetbegovic was Mother Teresa, the New York Times, a few days later, and without blushing, allowed itself to paint the accusations of the Bosnian Serbs against Izetbegovic as baseless and hysterical myths:

[Start Quote From New York Times]

“Essentially, the Serbs there were told that they faced resurgent Croat fascism and, from the Muslims, Islamic irredentism. In [Bosnian Serb leader] Mr. Karadzic's political lexicon, Alija Izetbegovic, the Bosnian President, has been cast as an apostle of Islamic fundamentalism, and his followers as potential fanatics reminiscent of Iran and Libya. To non-Bosnians [i.e. to Westerners, supposedly - FGW], the image of the quiet Mr. Izetbegovic as an ayatollah seems incongruous, a sad misrepresentation of the leader of a cultured, almost languid Slavic people who converted to Islam under the Turkish occupation. But Mr. Karadzic is insistent. ‘Mr. Izetbegovic intends to dominate the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not just the Muslim parts, and make it a platform for the development of Islamic regimes in Europe,’ he said. It is a conviction that stalks the towns and villages of Bosnia, making a self-fulfilling prophecy of Mr. Karadzic's belief that Serbs cannot live peacefully with Croats and Muslims, unless walled off in territorial enclaves.”[4]

[End Quote From New York Times]

Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic was simply telling the truth: Izetbegovic was a dangerous fanatic (Karadzic also told the truth when he said that Franjo Tudjman was a bloodthirsty fascist).

The New York Times, on the other hand, simply lied. The Times pretended that the accusations against “the quiet Izetbegovic” were “incongruous,” as if Izetbegovic had not written an entire book explaining himself in detail, as if the book itself were not famous in Yugoslavia and as if Izetbegovic had not used this very book as a political flag in the Bosnian elections (all of which the New York Times, of course, *had* to know). By painting Karadzic’s perfectly just accusations as the hysterical myths of a warmonger, the NYT got to blame the entire conflict on the Bosnian Serbs at the very point that it started!

But the Times was not alone.

The Washington Post made no reference to Izetbegovic’s fundamentalist tract except when portraying Izetbegovic as a supposed political martyr:

[Quote From Washington Post Starts Here]

“…Izetbegovic…spent two stints in prison under the old communist regime for his political beliefs….In ‘Islamic Declaration,’ which cost him five years in jail, Izetbegovic argued for revitalization of Islamic practices here, but he says the call was made not so much to praise Allah as to preserve a separate Muslim identity here.”[5]

[Quote From Washington Post Ends Here]

Oh sure…

Not only does the Washington Post refer to Izetbegovic’s fanatical outbursts tamely as a call for “revitalization of Islamic practices,” but it proceeds to use Izetbegovic as a character witness for the book he wrote, and takes him at his word that he was just writing about “a separate Muslim identity.” But to see that the book foams with violent fundamentalism all anybody had to do was open it.[5a]

And then the Washington Post published this editorial:

[Quote From The Washington Post Starts Here]

“…some members of the U.S. Congress…maintain that there is growing Islamic extremism in Bosnia… …critics point to several indications…including…the secret arming of the Bosniaks [by Iran] and the continued presence of Islamic [mujahideen] fighters from other countries. The concerns these factors raise are, I believe, unwarranted. Those who fear a radical Islamization of Bosnia often point to the politics of Alija Izetbegovic…who authored the 1960s treatise ‘Islamic Declaration’ and…is viewed by some as having an Islamist ‘agenda.’ In reality, Izetbegovic and his supporters are themselves wary of extremism.”[6]

[Quote Form The Washington Post Ends Here]

That was patent nonsense. If the author conceded that Izetbegovic was importing foreign mujahideen (Islamic fundamentalist ‘holy warriors’), then how could he simultaneously claim that Izetbegovic was “wary of extremism”?

But the problem with the media is worse than this still.

Why? Because the New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly alone - far from it. The portrayal of Izetbegovic as a ‘moderate’ recurred in most of the Western mainstream media outlets, and it has remained remarkably consistent to this day.

Let us fast forward to the present - to Vanity Fair’s January 2003 issue, which has a fawning portrait of the famous and politically influential French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who, we are told, was “the first and loudest champion of Bosnia’s Muslims and their president Alija Izetbegovic,” and who lobbied President François Miterrand successfully on their behalf.

Lévy, after complaining that “religion has become ideology” (perhaps that makes sense in French), explained to Vanity Fair what he saw as the solution: “The only hope, he said, was in the birth of modern, secular Islam, which is what he had found and admired in Bosnia.”[7]

Excuse me?

There is no such thing as ‘secular Islam,’ of course; that is a contradiction in terms. But what survives the contradiction is the portrayal of Izetbegovic and his followers as Muslims who lead a secular political movement. The mind boggles at this because Mr. Lévy, being French, can no doubt read the French language. Therefore, being a high-profile intellectual supporter of Alija Izetbegovic, he must have read that man’s book, which is available in a French translation distributed in Paris by Editions El-Bouraq (the edition I use is this very French translation). So I find it astonishing that Lévy should pretend that Izetbegovic stood for secular politics when the latter expressed himself unequivocally on this point: “There is no secular principle, and the State must be for Muslims the scrupulous expression of the moral and conceptual pillar of the religion.”[8]

Shame on Lévy for defending this man. In doing so, he spits on the mass graves of his Jewish coethnics who were murdered in the World War II Holocaust. Why? Because the man Lévy defends, Alija Izetbegovic, proudly re-created in Bosnia the Nazi SS Handzar Division! 

Believe it or not.

The original Handzar Division was organized by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (founder of the Palestinian movement and Arafat’s hero[9]) who was an ally of Hitler’s and attained cabinet-level rank with the Nazis during WWII. Among other barbarities, the Mufti made himself enthusiastically helpful to the Nazis by organizing the Bosnian Muslim allies of Hitler to hunt down Jews, Serbs, and Roma, to be slaughtered in the death camps of the Croatian Ustashe in orgies of unsurpassed racist violence that appalled even the German Nazis. 

[Start Encyclopedia Of The Holocaust Quote][10]

 “…[The Mufti Haj Amin al] Husseini made his contribution to the axis war effort in his capacity as a Muslim, rather than as an Arab leader, by recruiting and organizing *in record time* [my emphasis], during the spring of 1943, Bosnian Muslim battalions in Croatia comprising some twenty thousand men. These Muslim volunteer units, called Hanjar (sword), were put in Waffen-SS units, fought Yugoslav partisans in Bosnia, and carried out police and security duties in Hungary. They participated in the *massacre of civilians in Bosnia* [Serbs, Jews, and Roma] and *volunteered to join in the hunt for Jews in Croatia*... [my emphasis]. The Germans made a point of publicizing the fact that Husseini had flown from Berlin to Sarajevo for the sole purpose of giving his blessing to the Muslim army and inspecting its arms and training exercises.”

[End Encyclopedia Of The Holocaust Quote] 

Not exactly something to be proud of, that Handzar Division.

But don’t tell that to Izetbegovic.

In a 1993 article entitled “Albanians And Afghans Fight For The Heirs To Bosnia’s SS Past,” the Daily Telegraph reported on how the *modern* Handzar Division, newly resuscitated by Izetbegovic, carried itself. This article was one of a sprinkling of reports telling the truth about the Sarajevo regime that managed to make it through the censorship screen (the bracketed text below appears in the original):[11]

[Start Daily Telegraph Quote]

“Different, and alien forces are now in charge - some of the lowest in the Bosnian Muslim army.

These are the men of the Handzar division. “We do everything with the knife, and we always fight on the frontline,” a Handzar told one U.N. officer. Up to 6000 strong, the Handzar division glories in a fascist culture. They see themselves as the heirs of the SS Handzar division, formed by Bosnian Muslims in 1943 to fight for the Nazis. Their spiritual model was Mohammed Amin al-Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who sided with Hitler. According to U.N. officers, surprisingly few of those in charge of the Handzars in Fojnica seem to speak good serbo-croatian. ‘Many of them are Albanian, whether from Kosovo [the Serb province where Albanians are the majority] or from Albania itself.’

They are trained and led by veterans from Afghanistan and Pakistan, say U.N. sources. The strong presence of native Albanians is an ominous sign. It could mean the seeds of war are spreading south via Kosovo and into Albania, thence to the Albanians of Macedonia. Pakistani fundamentalists are known to have had a strong hand in providing arms and a small weapons industry for the Bosnian Muslims.

Hardline elements of the Bosnian army, like the Handzar, appear to have the backing of an increasingly extreme leadership in Sarajevo represented by Mr Ejup Ganic, foreign minister, Mr Haris Silajdzic, prime minister and Mr Enver Hadjihasanovic, the new army chief.”

[End Daily Telegraph Quote]

Everybody knows that it is not good public relations to *look* like a Nazi. The fact that Izetbegovic and his fundamentalist followers resuscitated the Bosnian SS Handzar Division suggests that they are genuinely *proud* of it - that is, they are unapologetic fascists who are so committed to their cause that they ignore the possible public relations costs. In fact, as the Daily Telegraph states, “Their spiritual model was Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who sided with Hitler,” and who was a jihadist and genocidal fascist.[12]

And notice that members of the Handzar division proudly explained that “We do everything with the knife…”

In a world of modern automatic weapons, what does that mean? Clearly one cannot “do everything with the knife” in modern battles. This is not the 7^th century. So this must have a different, more sinister, meaning. It means *attacks against civilians*, and it means butchery and torture - in other words, a campaign of terror. And that is precisely what the resuscitated Handzar was for (the original fascists, after which Izetbegovic’s resuscitated Handzar models itself, carried out their slaughters - in their death camps and elsewhere - with various forms of literal butchery involving torture before death which required using different sorts of one-on-one contact weapons; this is even worse than the German Nazis who relied more often on death marches and gas chambers).[13]

The slaughters which the fascist Croat, Albanian, and Bosnian Muslim allies of the Nazis carried out in Yugoslavia during World War II were fond memories for Izetbegovic. At the time of the World War, he was just a teenager, but a precocious one:[14]

[Start Quote From Young Muslims, Canada]

“In 1940, at the age of 16 [Izetbegovic] co-founded the Young Muslims, a religious and political group modeled on Egypt's Ikhwan al-Muslimeen. Six years later he and his friend Nedzib Sacirbey were jailed by the communist government of Yugoslavia for helping publish the journal ‘Mujahid.’”

[End Quote From Young Muslims, Canada]

‘Mujahid’ means ‘Holy Warrior,’ and Egypt's Ikhwan al-Muslimeen is the ‘Muslim Brotherhood.’

The Muslim Brotherhood was a fascist and Islamist organization that cooperated with the German Nazis, and that still exists today.[15] If Izetbegovic, at the time of WWII, co-founded the ‘Young Muslims’ in imitation of the ‘Muslim Brotherhood,’ then he was, from an early age, an Islamist and a fascist. And therefore, given that “[T]here were…many individual examples of active collaboration [by Young Muslims] with the [fascist and Nazi-allied Croatian] Ustashi government,”[16] and given that Izetbegovic recently recreated the Nazi SS Handzar Division, one hardly needs to imagine what he was up to during World War II. Especially given that the genocidal fascist Hajj Amin, whom Izetbegovic reveres for having created the original SS Handzar Division, was the go-between for the Nazis and the Muslim Brotherhood,[17] in imitation of which Izetbegovic created the Young Muslims during WWII.

So what do we have?

That the Bosnian Muslim faction led by the man who earlier had been a leader of fascist and Islamist movements from the tender age of 16, who wrote and re-issued a book which positively foams at the mouth with fundamentalist fanaticism, and who recently recreated the SS Handzar Division in fond remembrance of what almost certainly was his collaboration with the Nazi crimes of WWII… the government created by *this* man is what famous French-Jewish philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy described as ‘secular.’

The mind reels. I will say it again: in doing so, Lévy spits on the mass graves of his coethnics (oh, let there be a Hell…)

But let me be perfectly clear: Lévy didn’t just misportray Izetbegovic’s regime in a casual way. He *fought* to clean Izetbegovic’s image with all his energies.

Vanity Fair describes Lévy’s efforts:

[Start Vanity Fair Quote]

“Lévy fought loud and long to bring the world’s attention to Bosnia. In 1992 he was one of the first four foreigners into the besieged Sarajevo, where president Izetbegovic told him, ‘We are the Warsaw Ghetto. . .Tell your president,’ which he duly did. In his book ‘Le Lys et la Cendre’ (Lilies and Ashes), he describes how, in order to get the message across to a distracted Miterrand, he had to compare Izetbegovic with Salvador Allende, the Chilean Socialist president, who is a martyr to the left. Four days later Miterrand flew to Sarajevo.”

[End Vanity Fair Quote]

I do not wish to be overly melodramatic, but truly there are times when I wish I was religious and could pray. Consider the depths to which Western civilization has sunk (come down and have a look, but pinch your nose lest you faint from the stench).

1) Izetbegovic - the violent anti-Semitic monster - compares his plight to that of the Warsaw Jews.

Take another step down…

2) Lévy, a prominent French Jew, compares this violent anti-Semitic monster, Izetbegovic, to a martyr of the Left.

Watch your step, don’t slip on the slime, one more…

3) Vanity Fair, with a straight face, and with perfect contempt for the intelligence of its audience, explains that these preposterous and grotesque comparisons were supposedly crucial in getting French President *François Mitterrand’s* attention and crucial in winning his support for Izetbegovic’s cause.

Well, they might as well have burned all the history books… 

François Mitterrand - in case you didn’t already know - was a highly placed collaborator in the Nazi government in WWII France. This is the government also known as the ‘Vichy regime’ (for its capital). Miterrand was an *intimate friend* of René Bousquet, who was nothing less than the secretary general of the Vichy police.[18] That’s right, the same police that deported so many French Jews to the slaughterhouse.

Mitterrand did not collaborate with the Nazis because of political expediency following the invasion of France (and that would have been bad enough). No, matters are much worse. Miterrand was in fact *deeply committed* to a fascist anti-Semitic ideology *well before* the German invasion, which invasion he welcomed.

“Miterrand was an ardent follower of collaborationist leader Philipe Pétain and believed in the ‘national revolution’ that begat the strict, anti-Jewish laws of 1940-41. As early as 1935, Mitterrand participated in an anti-foreigner rally in Paris.”

In those times,

“he had close ties with ‘La Cagoule,’ an outlawed extreme-right group that sought to overthrow the republic, and yes, he never repudiated his friendships with some of its leaders.”

As if that were not enough, Mitterrand himself helped out with the roundup of Jews.

“After the French defeat of 1940, Mitterrand joined the ultranationalist ‘Legion des Combatttants’ (Fighter’s Legion) which later became the feared militia that relentlessly hunted Jews and Resistance fighters.”[19]

The Nazi Vichy regime was thankful: Mitterrand joined the ranks of the select few who received the ‘francisque’ - the highest honor bestowed by Vichy. He only joined the resistance in 1943, when it became obvious that Germany would lose the war.

So what do we really have here?

Not only does a famous French Jewish intellectual - Lévy - pretend not to notice that a famous (in Yugoslavia) fundamentalist and fascist anti-Semite - Izetbegovic - grotesquely compares his poor military fortunes (in a conflict that Izetbegovic himself provoked) to the plight of… of the who? Of the Warsaw Jews!

Not only that. We are also asked to believe that this comparison to the Warsaw Jews, was meant to make Miterrand’s heart melt…

Miterrand! The man who had himself hunted Jews for the Nazis…

But that is not all.

We have, furthermore, Lévy’s absurd claim that in order to get this fascist, Miterrand, to support this *other* fascist, Izetbegovic, he compared the latter to a leftist martyr. Can anything be more absurd? What can a fascist like Mitterrand care about martyrs of the Left? He is responsible for eviscerating the French Left while pretending to lead it. He was always a fascist, and it was not exactly a secret.[20]

And that is not all.

Let us observe, finally, that Vanity Fair simply prints all of this with no comment, despite the fact that a well-documented book by Pierre Péan, which showed that Miterrand was always a Nazi from head to toes and never apologized for it, was published some time ago, in 1994.[21]

And it was not just the media that portrayed Izetbegovic as a moderate. Academics (or what passes for academics) did the same. Let’s take, for example, Noel Malcolm, whose book ‘Bosnia, A Short History’ received rave reviews in the US press, and whose back cover is adorned with plaudits - not from historians however, but from the likes of former US ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmerman, who cooperated in the demonization of the Serbs, the whitewashing of Izetbegovic, and the destruction of Yugoslavia. Malcolm defends Izetbegovic as a supposed moderate secular democrat, and accuses that pointing to Izetbegovic’s writings in order to argue that he is a Muslim fundamentalist is just propaganda.[22]

Huh?

‘Propaganda’ is the deliberate spreading of falsehoods for political gain. Nobody is making up what Izetbegovic wrote down, and yet Malcolm argues that taking Izetbegovic at his word is propaganda, whereas defending him as a secular democrat - in *flagrant contradiction* of the man's own written beliefs - is supposedly *not* propaganda! Malcolm excels at what Orwell called ‘newspeak,’ in which one insists that anything politically meaningful should be interpreted as the opposite of what it explicitly says.

In any case, as we have seen, it is not just Izetbegovic’s writings that make it easy to argue that he is a fundamentalist and fascist: the man turned his words into deeds, and openly gloried in his resuscitated Nazi heritage.

The characterization that was rightfully Izetbegovic’s - murderous fascist - was given first to Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and later to Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic. Neither man deserved it. Milosevic was represented all over the mainstream Western media as “the new Hitler,” a supposedly bloody nationalist determined to create a ‘Greater Serbia’ cleansed of other ethnicities. Equally unfairly, this portrayal was extended to all of the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia.

Even those with just a passing acquaintance with current realities in the former Yugoslavia will not fail to be surprised, in retrospect, by this portrayal. After all, Serbia is the *only* part of former Yugoslavia that remains an integrated, multiethnic state. But no matter: the media insisted with ferocity that the Bosnian Serbs supposedly cooperated with Milosevic in his supposed dreams for an ethnically pure ‘Greater Serbia,’ and that such dreams caused the Bosnian civil war. Here is an example from The Financial Times:[23]

[Start Quote From Financial Times] 

“As Moslems in Sarajevo went to prayers yesterday afternoon, Serbs were reinforcing blockades on the roads leading from the republic’s northern town of Banja Luka towards the border with Croatia. 

There, Serbs backed by the federal army and supported by Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, president of Serbia, appear determined to lay down the markers for a Greater Serbia, using an area where they are the dominant ethnic group.” 

[End Quote From Financial Times]

Notice that the Financial Times goes out of its way to present a contrast: “Moslems…went to prayers” while the “Serbs were reinforcing blockades.” The Moslems were pious and peaceful; the Serbs warlike. This was the reliably and massively repeated portrayal.

Quite a bit of work went into representing things this way.

For example, that Slobodan Milosevic gave a speech in 1989 in Kosovo is famous, but not because people know the true content of the speech. On that day, Milosevic called for unity and tolerance among the peoples of Yugoslavia in a performance worthy of Martin Luther King, or Ghandi, exhorting that “unity in Serbia will bring prosperity to the Serbian people in Serbia and each one of its citizens, irrespective of his national or religious affiliation.” As I have documented in detail for readers of Emperor’s Clothes,[24] this ode to unity and tolerance was lied about shamelessly, and referred to as a hate rally where Milosevic supposedly “whipped a million Serbs into a nationalist frenzy.”[25]

That lie comes from Time Magazine, but they were hardly alone.

The British magazine The Economist said “It was a stirringly virulent nationalist speech he made in Kosovo, in 1989”[26]; The New York Times said “In 1989 the Serbian strongman, Slobodan Milosevic…In a fervent speech before a million Serbs…galvanized the nationalist passions that two years later fueled the Balkan conflict”[27]; and in 1999 the Washington Post said “Nine years ago today, Milosevic's fiery speech here to a million angry Serbs was a rallying cry for nationalism.”[28]

Such lies can be found all over the mainstream media.[29] 

It was also necessary, for this portrayal, that Bosnian Serbs - who explicitly stated they wished to *remain* citizens of the country they were *already* citizens of: a democratic and unified Yugoslavia - be branded, absurdly, as ‘separatists’ who wished to create a fascist ‘Greater Serbia.’ We can see this in the same Financial Times article, because it is not as if this newspaper hadn’t heard the stated aims of the Bosnian Serbs. 

[Back To The Financial Times] 

“Mr. Radovan Karadzic, the SDS head [and leader of the Bosnian Serbs], yesterday kept repeating that his party wants ‘a federal, democratic, and united Yugoslavia.’” 

[End Quote From Financial Times]

Why did Mr. Karadzic apparently feel he needed to *keep repeating* that he wanted a “united Yugoslavia”?

Perhaps because despite all of his public statements, the Financial Times still wrote that he wanted ‘Greater Serbia.’ In fact, the title of the article is “Moslems Prepare To Resist Greater Serbia.” 

What we see the Financial Times doing here has been typical of the mainstream Western media. 

Lest I be misunderstood, let me make clear once again that some Bosnian Muslims indeed *were* innocent victims during Bosnia’s civil war. However, they were not victims of the Bosnian Serbs, but rather of the murderous Croatian fascists, or else of Izetbegovic’s Islamic fundamentalists, who demanded total cooperation from their coethnics with their fascist program, and who were guilty of spectacular atrocities.[30] The innocent of Bosnia were caught between competing fascisms: Croatian and Muslim, but not Serbian. 

In a forthcoming piece I will document that Alija Izetbegovic started the Bosnian war, that his goal was ethnic cleansing and genocide, and that the Bosnian Serbs merely reacted in self defense.

I will also demonstrate why the portrayal of Slobodan Milosevic as being in cahoots with the Bosnian Serbs to carry out a plan of ethnic cleansing, so as to carve a ‘Greater Serbia,’ was completely unfair both to Slobodan Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb leadership, who behaved with great tolerance and in adherence to democratic ideals.

***

Francisco Gil-White
Deputy Editor
Emperor's Clothes