Dana Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:52:11 UTC, "Stan Goodman"

> > Without any great wish to get involved into that discussion, I can
> > only said that "it depends". Above mentioned activity is exactly what
> > NATO (read USA) was doing here and in Serbia some years ago, but at
> > that time they used to call it "collateral damage". Then those "nice"
> > guys landed the planes into WTC and then all those victimes could also
> > be called "collateral damage"? Go figure... :-> Not that I approve WTC
> > events in any case, but having in mind USA support given to the same
> > Islamic fundamentalists here, I couldn't care less about what will
> > next be blown to pieces in the USA. What goes around - comes around.

> A lot that happened in the former Yugoslavia is utterly inexcusable.

Tell me about it...

> Without naming countries, it was certainly inexcusable that European
> troops sent to protect a civilian population stood by and did nothing
> while those very civilians were being massacred under their very eyes.

Well, I don't know what have you expected but the thing is that those
troops were not sent by EU but by UN, they were too small by number an
they were supoosed to protect the area that was supposedly to be
disarmed. It turned out that first, those UN guys have not been
interested to put their life at stake for them because of two things.
They were making too much money in UN to get themselves killed in some
God forgotten hole in Bosnia and second, the area was not disarmed so
the very sam people they were suposed to protect were provoking armed
incidents all the time. And then, even if they wanted to do something,
they were outnumbered by order of magnitude.

> I'm sure you know what I am speaking of, and who did what to whom.

Sure thing, just one more thing to point out. The area in question was
the scene of constant battles for 3 and half years and so far some
4000 Muslims were excavated out of up to 12 thousands claimed to be
missing by the same fundamdentalist circles in Sarajevo. Out of those,
some 2000 have been identified so far, and some 99.9% of them were
combat ready men, meaning 16 years and older. The rest could be
treated as "collateral damage quite easily, especially if we could ask
Mr. Wesley Clark. So something somewhere does not add well there.
Don't you think so?

> If you really see a semantic way in which the nearly 3000 victims of
> the WTC assault can be called "collateral damage", I believe that it
> would be impossible to discuss it with you. They were in fact the
> target and the whole reason for the exercise. That can't be difficult
> to understand, and I'm sure you understand it.

I understand it quite well. I was just merely pointing out the fact
that anything could be called up and presented differently. Sometimes
freedom fighters are just plain simple terrorists, sometimes
collaterla damage are just plain simple civilians and sometimes CNN
does the reporting. Comprende?

> It is very sad that you couldn't care less what (and who?) will next
> be blown to bits in the US. If that attitude is widespread in your

I'm sorry but I run out of simpathy. Especially after everything that
happened here, don't tell me that you felt sorry for all the Serbs
killed here between 1992-1995 and during NATO agression several years

> country, it can probably go whistle next time it needs US assistance,
> because what goes around does come around.

The only people who asked for US assistance here in the first place
were islamic fundamentalists sitting in government in Sarajevo back in
1992. So I really hope that when and if they ask for US assistance
next time, that Mr. Bill Clinton or any other from Democrats'
administration will be nowhere near the White House... And incidently
those are the same Islamic fundamentalists that cause same **** in
Israel, States, Idonesia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, name it - they did
it. Just before 9/11 nobody believed us. Now they do. Now I don't
care. You pay for every lesson life teaches you.

Pozdrav iz Doboja, Republika Srpska. Posjetite http://www.srpska.com