Gonzo I do not think there was cleansing for one.The KLA knew if there were lots of refugees then the media would play it up.Actually I remember posting something to that effect not that long ago.And secondly only the villages that were active with KLA were bombed and shot at,since the Serb army was shooting back.The situation in Chechnya was the same.Gudermes was not bombed because the people threw the Chechen bandits out.

Chorny, thanks. Dimitri, if Milo didn't think he was going to get bombed because it was "unlawful" after being told he would from any perspective he didn't have a grasp of the real situation.

"""if Milo didn't think he was going to get bombed because it was "unlawful" after being told he would from any perspective he didn't have a grasp of the real situation. """

---

Maybe, but assuming it was unlawful, lets not blame him for someone elses act of agression.

ONCE AGAIN, I suggest to get more familiar with the history of the region (KLA murders and kidnappings included), before using such terms as "ethnical cleansing".

By THX1138 ( - 207.155.95.16) on Monday, July 24, 2000 - 04:39 pm:

I have done a little homework and found out that the Vatican signed a Concordat with the Soviet Union which in effect stated the Church's agreement not to condemn Communism and to renounce all efforts to convert Russia to Catholicism.

I have also discovered that the second secret of Fatima is that the Pope together with all the Catholic bishops in the world within the same hour must perform a public act of consecrating Russia to the Virgin Mary and this, the children of Fatima say, will prompt the Almighty to convert the Russians to Catholicism and then He will heal the land and the people of all their toxic waste, pollution, crime, dilapidated housing etc.

According to the sources I checked, the consecration prescribed by the Virgin Mary to the children of Fatima has not yet been performed. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that either the Catholic authorities believe in the Fatima secrets and are keeping their promises according to the Concordat that they will not try to convert Russia, or they do not believe in the Fatima secrets and promises and therefore have not consecrated Russia because they do not believe it will effect the conversion of Russia to Catholicism. In that case, however, I cannot understand why they wouldn't then try it anyway to see what would happen, unless they were afraid of the secret and promises being exposed as fake and themselves as believers in superstitions.

If however, the Fatima secrets are genuine and the promises real and from God as they say, and the Catholic Church authorities believe this to be true, then there must be some reason why they have not acted on the instructions of the secrets.
It would seem that this is open to speculation. Most fascinating.

---

Yeap, indeed, it leaves the open field for all sorts of speculations and opinions on the subject that differ tremendously. Raised as an atheist and nowadays being an agnostic, I look at this supposed miracle with a lot of skepticism. Don't wish to sound as a cynic, but the technical part of the miracle leaves me wondering: how is going to happen and what will the targets be, the very minds of ordinary Russians? There's a lot of minds to cover there. And how will the Russian Orthodox Church will react to it? ..And why the Catholic Religion, that has been involved in so many bloody acts of war and Inquisition, will be better than Orthodox, who hasn't played such major role in the mankind history, but haven't committed so many wrong doings?

There are dozens and dozens more questions from where this came from.

At the end of the day Milo called for a greater serbia and once again it just got smaller.I never said the bombing was justified ... .
* And I don't imply that You do justify it.
The Kla wants nato out. This confirms, in my mind, that nato came "for" the Jihad. "For" is not the right word. I used to say "instead".
* And I will disagree. KLA doesn't need NATO (and KFOR) anymore - NATO helped from the start and now they can go on with the "ethnic cleansing" (pardonnez) of non-albanian ethnicities by themselves. You say "jihad" ... I remember watching a CNN live from the Serb.-Alb. border. It pictured a combat between the Serbian and KLA forces with KLA aided by two USAF A-10s. They had been bombing Serbian forces. And CNN sounded content with it. If they would be coming after jihad, they wouldn't tolerate establishing and the current existence of "jihadnik" training camps in Bosnia long before Kosovo. Russia aired a TV interview of one British SFOR serviceman, in which he confided, that they wouldn't go there (he pointed at a bushy hilltop), because one of their officers, who dared to interfere, was stabbed, and they received orders of non-interference. Period. When "NATO out!" turned up? If my silly memory doesn't fail me - when K.-Albs. were about to go on with Serbian pogroms and KFOR opened fire in the air to disperse the gang. About refugees - a genuine fear of bombs, a free ticket to the "West" expectations and a grand stage performance - all in one.
He didn't defend his country: It has been bombed during two months and amputated of one province.
* He did defend his country, - it would've been under NATO by now, if he didn't. And be he good or bad, and however liked or disliked - NATO succeeded royally in uniting people around him, if NATO hoped otherwise - they bummed it. (An infantile presumption, that noone would've group with the "looser", and would run to NATO-the-saviour-from-Milo with open arms.)
Yes, the province "amputated". Why? To go after KLA? No - they could've helped Milo with it without bombing Serbia. And going after KLA would mean Chechniya in Kosovo. While RF deals with Chechniya and losses thereof because it's within RF, - dealing same with KLA would bring an outcry from KFOR's respective countries of origin (bodybags from someone else's brawl). And out of all KFOR Russians know how real gunpowder smells.
To establish a "multiethic" province"? No - KLA will not let that happen, and KFOR can do nothing about it without bringing a KLA "wrath" on their heads (bang-bang!). KLA is not disarmed whatever they sing. So why is it "amputated"?
And the Srbian Army are not stupid. Far from it, sir. They, for instance, used to short a door cut-off switch in microwave ovens and position them on elevations. Ovens were a perfect hot radar signature diligently annihilated by tens-of-thsnd-$ radar-homing missiles with victorious reports thereof. And the Serbian Army was well protected by bunkers, or by swift maneuvering. And NATO knew they would sustain losses in ground combat (Kosovo is like Chechniya) - mountains, hills, dense vegetation (+ very angry Serbs), so all that ground troops buildup served two purposes only - to try to scare Milo with a "boo" and to enter Kosovo, when holding Serbian non-combatants hostage would become unbearable.
I apologize, I'll cut here - 15+ hours for the past 5 days with the computer - little trolls are dancing in the eyes.:o)

Igor,
bol'shoe spasibo za kartochki. Esli chestno, to mne skoree vsego ponadobitsa odna ili dve shtuki gde-to v Oktiabre.

Well summed up Delenn.No problem Dima let me know when.

L'menexe you are quite the comedian on the other board read some of your posts

Lies behind SREBRENICA

---

http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/fulltext.htm

No Fury Like a Frenchman Scorned
2141 GMT, 000724
Summary

Beginning with Kosovo and Chechnya, relations between France and Russia have slid from amiability to anger. The consequences of such a dramatic shift are severe. France has not worked to initiate this break, but will use an angry Russia to further its own goals within Europe.

Analysis

Over the past year, normally cordial relations between France and Russia have plummeted to palpable hostility. The consequences are as weighty as they are unexpected. Although it did not provoke the break with Moscow, Paris has purposefully exacerbated the split and will now use it advantageously – to seize control of the European Union reform process.

The Franco-Russian troubles began during the Kosovo campaign in 1999. Historically, Moscow and Paris have cooperated with each other to offset American hegemony in Europe. But last year, France enthusiastically participated in the NATO bombing campaign, flying 8 percent of all NATO sorties and deploying troops along with the rest of the NATO powers.

Russia responded in perhaps the most effective way possible. Russian troops stationed in Bosnia beat NATO forces to the Pristina airport. When a French supply contingent arrived, Russian troops, with Serb forces looking on, halted the convoy and forced the French into a humiliating withdrawal. Ever image-conscious, Paris fumed.

With the onset of the Chechen war in September, the animosity deepened. France became the most vocal opponent of Russian tactics, repeatedly pushing the topic forward at international meetings. When Yevgeny Primakov visited Paris in November 1999, both President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Lionel Jospin roundly condemned the brutality of Russian forces. Meanwhile, the Chechen diaspora in France used French media to vigorously proclaim the failings of Russia’s military and the righteousness of the Chechen cause. Now it was Moscow’s turn to fume.

Since then, relations between the two countries have steadily deteriorated. In January, Russian President Vladimir Putin directly requested that the French government tone down the Chechnya rhetoric. Chirac’s response was to push for international observers in the rebellious province. Then, Putin made his first foreign trip to London, despite the fact that Chirac had been the first Western leader to invite Putin to visit. Later, during his June European tour, Putin stopped in Rome, Berlin and Madrid – cleanly circumnavigating the Fifth Republic.

The French response was withering. In May, France froze the bank accounts of 70 different Russian entities, including that of Russia’s UNESCO delegation, a French affiliate of the Russian Central Bank and even the Russian Embassy in Paris. Officially, France was acting at the behest of a court order obtained by the Swiss company Noga, seeking damages for a 1992 bill Moscow had neglected to pay – hardly a case worthy of sinking an international relationship.

In June, Chirac publicly discounted Russia’s counterproposal to the U.S. Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty revisions, slicing the diplomatic knife to the heart of Russia’s security concerns. Then in July, French Finance Minister Laurent Fabius crushed any hopes of debt forgiveness when he stated bluntly that “The question of canceling the debt is not on our minds."

Relations have now degraded to where the two governments are talking past each other. Despite Putin’s stated desire to meet with Chirac about a number of issues, the French President told Putin he probably wouldn’t have time to see him at the July G-8 summit in Japan. Putin responded by scheduling bilateral meetings with every G-8 leader except Chirac and making a point of publicizing the snub.

Then before a Bastille Day parade, France seized the Sedov, a $100 million sailing ship belonging to a Russian military academy, as collateral against Russia’s Noga debt. Turning up the tension several additional notches, France refused to let the Sedov’s crew – mostly 12 to 14 year olds – see their parents who had flown in from Russia for the event. Putin responded by presenting Chirac with a book about the Kremlin at the G-8 meeting, saying that “in France they should not forget where the Kremlin is.”

The French logic for exacerbating the sharp downturn in relations is complex. A primary goal of French foreign policy is enhancing French prestige. This requires lashing out at countries that cause any humiliation; in the French view, compromise equals weakness. The Pristina airport incident, Putin’s deliberate avoidance of Paris and now the G-8 snub are all wrongs to be avenged with vitriol.

This France has certainly done, demonstrating it can cause Russia significant difficulty over issues such as ABM revisions, debt relief, exposing corruption, NATO expansion and EU enlargement. What embarrassment Russia has delivered, France has returned tenfold. And Russia commands few diplomatic tools: Putin has not visited Paris, the Duma passed a toothless resolution condemning France’s seizure of the Sedov and Russia decided to charge admission to tour the Sedov at what was otherwise a free event.

France also has domestic European reasons for isolating Russia. Since France is the EU president until 2001, poor Franco-Russian relations mean poor EU-Russian relations by default. Freed from meaningful engagement with Europe’s eastern flank for a time, France can now direct the attention of the EU’s other 14 members toward the French agenda for Europe.

French actions support an effort to redefine France’s role in an evolving Europe. France went along with NATO actions in Bosnia and Kosovo to ensure that Paris would have influence in Europe’s evolving security structures. Then, using Chechnya as the topic for soapbox speeches, France set a useful precedent for itself as a natural focal point for the union’s emerging joint foreign policy. France has always sought to command leadership of Europe. Chechnya provided – and continues to provide – the perfect opportunity.

However, France’s refusal to consider debt relief could threaten Russia’s economic reforms, causing quite a bit of chaos. When combined with the Kremlin’s brimming anger, the effects will invariably ripple westward. Whether or not this was in Paris’ plan, France is well positioned to benefit. Russia cannot take out its rage on France; it lacks the economic ties and projection capability. Central Europe is another matter entirely. As Paris knows, a panicked Central Europe will only be more frantic in seeking an association with the EU – and therefore with France.

This makes Germany – with strong economic ties to Russia and Central Europe – very nervous. Bilateral German-Russian trade alone was worth over $14 billion in 1999. And Russia still owes the German government $28.8 billion and German banks another $27 billion.

Making Germany twitch is also part of the French strategy. Over the past two years, Germany has sought to place its Nazi legacy firmly in the past and base its foreign policy on national interest instead of guilt. France is concerned that a more confident Germany – with its higher standard of living and larger population – could eventually threaten what France perceives as its natural leadership role. Now, with France leading the EU, Berlin will be forced to defer European leadership to Paris while soothing ties with Central Europe and Russia.

With Germany otherwise occupied, there remains only one European power with a coherent enough foreign policy to challenge France’s predominance: the United Kingdom. However, as Chirac has repeatedly demonstrated, an offhand comment from a European leader about the United Kingdom’s non-membership in the EU is enough to trigger a rancorous debate in London. Conveniently for France, this sends Prime Minister Tony Blair’s European foreign policy into a chaotic tailspin and leaves the field open for Parisian leadership.

So what is the French blueprint for Europe? At the core, France requires deep institutional reform in the EU. While the EU states agree that the union must reform its decision-making institutions before enlargement, the depth and texture of those reforms are still to be decided. France will now find it easier to push the union along a path that promotes French interests. Faced with a pending enlargement that threatens to smother France’s powerful voice beneath a Central European blanket, Paris will force the union to allow deeper integration among a tight core of states that want more substantial links. France wins on all fronts: as leader of a deeper union and the loudest voice in a larger union.

There will, however, be some significant side effects for Paris. France’s actions have – as intended – enraged the Kremlin. The Russian Foreign Ministry has missed no opportunity to harp on France’s misdeeds. By forcing Germany to clean up the mess, Paris is allowing German Chancellor Schroeder to slide into France’s traditional role as Putin’s European confidant. Now Paris will not be able to play the Russia card for a long time.

More importantly, France has a narrow window to achieve its goals. In January, Sweden takes over the EU presidency. Like the Finnish presidency in 1999, Stockholm will place relations with Russia near the top of its agenda. At that point France’s Russia tactic will be at odds with the greater European strategy. The risks are huge. If Paris fails to finalize the EU’s reform process by year’s end, it will have angered Russia, destabilized Central Europe, hamstrung Europe’s common foreign policy and handed Germany leadership of the European Union.

Bin Laden sent his man to Israel on purpose of doing something terroristic (or establishing ties with those), Palestinians arrested him and put him in a detention facility. Israelis demanded the man to be turned over, Palestinians refused, so (don't know what to say ...:o))) the specials raided the detention facility, literally kicked some backsides, sprayed some with rubber bullet fire and snatched the man. >

G8 summit

Russia comes in from the cold

Diplomatic Putin impresses in debut that makes no
mention of loan terms

Johnathan Watts in Okinawa

Monday July 24, 2000

Russia edged closer to joining the select club of leading
industrialised countries with an impressive display of
diplomacy by its new president, Vladimir Putin.

Despite his countries parlous economic plight, Mr Putin
made his summit debut and immediately established himself
as a rising star in the G8 firmament.

The ex-KGB spy's polished performance was the talk of
the summit and some leaders said it was time to make
Russia a full member. "Before he was more a guest and a
protagonist. Now he's one of the eight," said European
Commission president Romano Prodi.

For now Russia is excluded from pre-summit talks that the
G7 - the US, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Italy and
Canada - holds on financial and economic issues.

What appeared to please G7 leaders was the fact that
Russia's debt was the dog that did not bark in Okinawa. Mr
Putin could have put G7 countries in a difficult spot by
asking for easier terms on $42bn of loans to western
governments that Russia inherited when the Soviet Union
collapsed in 1991.

But Mr Putin, determined to confirm Moscow's status as
equal partner, never raised the question. Indeed, he
insisted that the final communiqué have no separate
reference to Russia. "Putin asked us not to mention a
single country in the G8 final document and we did that,"
said Italian prime minister Giuliano Amato.

On the core issues of the summit, the G8 was upbeat about
the recovery in growth since a financial crisis swept Asia,
Russia and many parts of the developing world in 1997
and 1998.

"The world economy will grow strongly this year, and we
are particularly encouraged by the strength of recovery in
crisis-affected countries," the leaders' communiqué said.

The leaders were particularly impressed by Putin's account
of a trip he made last week to North Korea, the Stalinist
hermit state now slowly opening up to the outside world.
German chancellor Gerhard Schröder called it "brilliant".

Mr Putin's predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, had been more of a
"guest performer", said another G8 leader, whereas Mr
Putin was "one of the G8 club".

It could be that this summit will be remembered not only for
what it did and did not do on poverty, but for the way
Russia came in from the cold.

Mr Putin reported back on an offer made to him by
enigmatic North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to scrap his
state's missile programme in return for help on space
exploration.

The proposal was the main foreign-policy talking point of
the summit, with leaders unsure what to make of it.

"It's not clear to me what the offer is [and] what is being
requested in return for it," said President Clinton, whose
administration is debating whether to build a national
missile defence shield to ward off attacks from states such
as North Korea.

The Russian leader encouraged the rest of the group to
reach out to Kim to help to defuse Cold War tensions on
the Korean peninsula, where he said conditions were still
potentially explosive. (:0)

"I have the impression the leader of North Korea knows
how to hear and to listen... It is possible to do business with
him," he said.



http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4043618,00.html

now, hang on a second here...

if that 'fatima' stuff took place in >>1918<<, and
the alleged 'virgin mary' was seen by three rural
children, then how did 'she', or _they_, have a
clue about communism in such a way that it could
be written down as some sort of 'secret?

Dima,
"you were using such word, "COUNTINUOUS DEFEAT", "IDIOT", "SCARED"..woof"

But it's true, no?

"Fred, you should know better than that - if you invade the slavs, do not expect them to give up."

You and Milosevic (especialy Milo) had to know better than that too about the Americans.
If you are at war with the US, don't expect them to give up after three shots in the air.
When they come, it's to flatten everything.
You like it or not (Ho, so many times I read that).
And the US oficials never had any moral problem with that.
But Milo thought "we are stronger because we are slavs and slavs can drink more vodka than gutless westerners."

ChornyVolk
"The KLA knew if there were lots of refugees then the media would play it up."

At least these ethnic albanians are clevier than serbs (HOOOO!HHK!I didn't say more honest). Theyr strategy paid up. Kla won, the serbs paramilitary lost.
Now they face an unexpected problem: how to get rid of Nato?
_____________________

By Chorny Volk ( - 149.99.71.74) on Monday, July 24, 2000 - 06:28 pm:
Gonzo it shows Serbs who built roads between villages and lived with Albanians for years being attacked by KLA.Later on the Serb guy talks about how his son was kidnapped by them.At night they get attacked by Albanians.I would point out that not only were Serbs victimized but Albanians also who did not go along with KLA ideas for independence.The film was filmed by independent film-makers,I think Canadians."

How with such a material Milo's minister of foreign affair didn't convince the west or at least other countries than Russia and China?
Silly question again?