Wer war Izetbegovic? und warum Preisen ihn die USA UND der Iran?

Geschrieben von MP42 am 23. Oktober 2003 15:58:53:

Hallo zusammen,

ich bekam heut zwei Mails die ich denjenigen unter euch die das Thema interessiert nicht vorenthalten möchte. Leider auf Englisch, wäre also nett wenn es jemand für andere überstezen würde.
=====================================================================

Emperor's Clothes * www.tenc.net

Have you seen the Emperor's Clothes JUDGMENT! Video? It proves the Western media lied about Bosnia. Learn more about JUDGMENT!
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/film/judgment.htm

========================================================

Bosnian leader Alija Izetbegovic is dead. As the US & Iran unite to praise him, we ask:

* Who was Alija Izetbegovic? Moderate Democrat or Radical Islamist? *

By Francisco Gil-White
[Posted on 10 March 2003]

Comments by Jared Israel
[Added 21 October 2003]

========================================================

[ www.tenc.net ]

A few days ago, the Bosnian Islamic Fundamentalist (or, for short, Islamist) leader, Alija Izetbegovic, died of heart failure. The Iranian Foreign Ministry issued a statement praising:

"…the late president's serious attempts to defend the identity and territorial integrity of his homeland as well as the unity among the residents and various ethnic races of the country." [1]

The US State Department praised him as well:

"President Izetbegovic's personal courage helped the Bosnian people endure one of Europe's greatest tragedies since World War II. His determined leadership was instrumental in Bosnia and Herzegovina remaining a unified multiethnic country." [2]

Note the similarity between the two statements. They might have issued from the same foreign office.

This may be surprising if you don't know that the Pentagon coordinated Iranian and Saudi military intervention in Bosnia, on the side of Izetbegovic, against the Bosnian Serbs and moderate Muslims. This included the importation of the worst Mujahideen cut throats - they boasted that "we do everything with the knife" - to indoctrinate and train Izetbegovic’s army and lead in terror. [3]

The State Department's reference to "Bosnia and Herzegovina remaining a unified multiethnic country" has one problem: Bosnia was never a country. It was an administrative unit within the internationally recognized state of Yugoslavia. Rather than protecting the multiethnic state of Yugoslavia, Izetbegovic’s Fundamentalists fought to secede with the aim of creating an Islamist republic on this piece of Yugoslav territory. This was opposed by virtually all the Serbs and probably most Muslims. But it was backed by the US, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Islamist states.

Despite the hype in the Western media, Izetbegovic was not fighting to affirm (let alone reaffirm!) some supposed Bosnian nationhood. Rather, he called for:

"…the implementation of Islam in all fields of individuals' personal lives, in family and in society, by renewal of the Islamic religious thought and creating a uniform Muslim community from Morocco to Indonesia. ..." [4]

In other words, the Islamist takeover of Bosnia was intended as a step towards the creation of a unified Muslim world-state. Quite the opposite of preserving the nonexistent 'Bosnian nation'! And yet the fiction of a Bosnian nation, threatened by supposed Serb secessionists (i.e., the people who *didn't* want to secede from Yugoslavia) was sold to ordinary people in the West.

The Iranian statement refers to Izetbegovic as a unifier among "he various ethnic races." I wonder, what on earth is an "ethnic race"? Sounds like something from a Nazi's dream.

That aside, was Izetbegovic aiming for unity? And if so, what kind of unity?

Prof. Gil-White deals with those questions below.

-- Jared Israel
Emperor's Clothes

========================================================

Alija Izetbegovic: Moderate Democrat or Radical Islamist?
by Francisco Gil-White

========================================================

Alija Izetbegovic is the Muslim leader whom the U.S. and NATO supported during the Bosnian civil war in the 1990s. The Western media and governments recognized him as President of Bosnia.

According to Newsweek magazine: "The government of Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic…has always been committed to a multiethnic society." [5]

Knight-Ridder News Service reported that: "The Bosnian [Muslims] are struggling for democracy, human rights, and a multiethnic country."[6]

And Warren Zimmerman, former US Ambassador to Yugoslavia, wrote in Foreign Affairs: "Izetbegovic was…A devout Muslim but no extremist, he consistently advocated the preservation of a multinational Bosnia." [7]

But others disagree.

For example, various writers published on Emperor's Clothes have argued that Izetbegovic was an Islamic fundamentalist whose goal was to create, by all available means, a totalitarian clerical state, modeled on Iran.

Emperor's Clothes has argued that the Western media blamed the fighting in Bosnia on its main victims, the Bosnian Serbs. Our research contradicts the official - and mainstream media - story, which has Serbs as opponents of all Muslims, as if the latter were monolithic. On the contrary, Fikret Abdic, arguably the most popular Muslim leader, was militarily allied with the Serbs. We have provided evidence that Mr. Izetbegovic, who victimized the Serbs, was supported only by a minority in the Muslim population, and that his fanatical followers victimized thousands of moderate Muslims.[8]

So who is telling the truth? Newsweek, Knight-Ridder, Warren Zimmermann, the rest of the Western media, and a slew of academics, all of whom claim that Izetbegovic was a moderate democrat fighting for human rights and multicultural tolerance?

Or are the writers at Emperor's Clothes telling the truth when we argue that Izetbegovic was always an Islamic Fundamentalist, or Islamist?

=============================

* Why is this an important question? *

=============================

There are two reasons why it matters whether or not Izetbegovic is a fundamentalist.

First, because NATO intervened politically and militarily for Izetbegovic. For example, former US Ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith, admitted in congressional testimony that the U.S. gave Croatia the green light to violate international agreements by letting Iranian weapons reach Izetbegovic's army.[9]

The US also allied with Iran in order to import foreign mujahideen terrorists into Bosnia, and this was all coordinated directly by Pentagon intelligence. [10]

And NATO repeatedly and massively bombed the Bosnian Serbs, including with bombs encased in depleted uranium. The US and NATO backed Izetbegovic with destruction and death. [11]

Second, because if we are right to say that Izetbegovic was an Islamist fanatic, and that this was no secret in Yugoslavia, then the media lied systematically. It is difficult to explain such uniform media disinformation absent coordination by the covert services of Western powers. If we are right about Izetbegovic, then this constitutes evidence that the West has a controlled media.

Third, because if Izetbegovic's views were entirely misrepresented by politicians and the media, this is evidence that the U.S.-led Empire has a dual policy regarding Islamic fundamentalism, as we claim. The US invokes the threat of fundamentalist terror in order to excuse its military adventures, but - covertly - it also allies with and sponsors Islamic fundamentalists around the world.

Before answering whether Alija Izetbegovic is a fundamentalist, let us provide the necessary background: a clear definition of what Islamic fundamentalism stands for.

============================

* What is an Islamic fundamentalist? *

============================

An Islamic fundamentalist (or Islamist) is a Muslim who advocates theocratic rule. This means subordinating the legal system and all aspects of life to Islamic religious law, or Sharia, which covers personal behavior. [12]

It is fashionable in the West to romanticize this, a process made easier by disregarding the conditions of life under Islamist rule, which can be harsh.

In the Islamist State of Saudi Arabia, for example, there is a special police, 'The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice,' which answers directly to Prince Naif, the Minister of the Interior. These policemen have extensive powers. They patrol the streets, armed with long clubs, enforcing Islamic rules of dress and behavior, beating and arresting those who violate such rules. [13]

This may strike you as thuggery but to a fundamentalist, Islam is all; the rest is nothing. Thus one prominent Islamic fundamentalist explains:


[Start quote from prominent Islamist]

"…the most important thing that the Qur’an recommends is: all of Islam; everything else is nothing more than a detail and explanation of this central idea. This aspect of Islam contains the principle of the Islamic Order, which is to say the union of religion and politics, but it also has other consequences of a primordial practical importance, of which the first is the impossibility of confusing the Islamic Order with the non-Islamic systems.

…There is no secular principle, and the State must be for Muslims the scrupulous expression of the moral and conceptual pillar of the religion."

[End quote from prominent Islamist]


The 'Islamic Order' excludes *any* secular principle. That means no non-Islamic public schools, no non-Islamic trade unions, no non-Islamic political organizations, no non-Islamic mass media...

And how is the 'Islamic Order' to be created and enforced? By taking over the modern state with its vast powers of organization and coercion. As the author says, the state is to be the "scrupulous expression of the moral and conceptual pillar of the religion." My thesaurus offers these synonyms for 'scrupulous': regulated, accurate, fastidious, careful, and... severe.

***

This text is C*O*N*T*I*N*U*E*D
Second half to be emailed today.
To continue reading now, please go to
http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/alija1.htm#part2

[Footnotes Follow The Appeal]


Antworten: