X Close

The awkward truth about Srebrenica A quarter of a century ago, the UK enabled a genocide to take place. Are we doing it again?

Our unfinest hour: 613 victims of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. Credit: Sean Gallup/Getty

Our unfinest hour: 613 victims of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. Credit: Sean Gallup/Getty


July 10, 2020   8 mins

In recent years there’s been a glut of nostalgia for the 1990s. On both sides of the Atlantic, it is cited as the decade the public looks back upon most fondly. Contrast it with today, and our seemingly endless procession of tumultuous events, and the Nineties seem enjoyably placid. The Cold War was over, peace and prosperity reigned, and history had reached its liberal democratic conclusion.

There’s a moist sentimentality to these nostalgic reveries that needs to be questioned though. For there’s a particularly persuasive case to be made that the legacy of the fall of communism was wasted in Russia and eastern Europe – it’s particularly true if one happens to be a Bosnian Muslim. While the United States and Britain were basking in post-Cold War triumphalism, Bosnian Muslims were being hoarded into the first concentration camps to be erected on European soil since the Second World War. History had not come to a juddering halt after all. Rather, on Europe’s periphery it was being discovered that communist totalitarianism had merely kept a lid on older resentments that were about to bloodily resurface.

I travelled to Bosnia — the most ethnically diverse of the new republics following the fall of communist Yugoslavia — five years ago, shortly before the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. I spent most of my time in Sarajevo, a beautiful multi-ethnic town that 20 years earlier was besieged for 1,425 days (nearly four years) by Bosnian-Serb forces – the longest siege in the history of modern warfare. The pockmarks made by the bullets and shells of forces positioned in the hills around the city were still visible. More than 10,000 residents had died as a result of snipers and the 3,000 shells that fell on the city each day.

The war’s bloody nadir took place 80 kilometres away, in Srebrenica, where between the 11th and the 22nd of July 1995, 8,372 Bosniak men and boys were murdered by Bosnian Serb forces. While there, I visited the Srebrenica gallery, a deeply moving memorial to those killed, and a damning indictment of the international community’s failure to stand up to genocidal chauvinism. The gallery’s walls are lined with photos of some of those who were killed. Men — for it is overwhelmingly men — stare back at you from fly-blown photographs that were taken in another era.

Not all the victims have yet been found, and so the relatives wait. This weekend, another eight Bosnian men and boys will be buried in a cemetery on the outskirts of Srebrenica. A quarter of century after the slaughter, the process of locating, exhuming and identifying the victims of a military operation codenamed ‘Krivaja 95’ goes on.

Back in 1995, the Bosnian Serbs, led by Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, and backed in Belgrade by Serb president Slobodan Milosevic, had decided that they wanted to conclude the war by the year’s end. This meant capturing the three UN-protected ‘safe’ areas of Zepa, Gorazde and Srebrenica. Bosnian Serb forces would henceforth move troops into Sarajevo before the year was out and capture the city they had been lobbing mortars at for four years.

The purpose of the war was to ‘ethnically cleanse’ —a phrase used openly by the Bosnian Serb leadership — swathes of the former Yugoslavia so that Serbs and only Serbs could live there. As the Cambridge scholar Brendan Simms wrote in Unfinest Hour, his book on the Bosnian war, the bloodshed that culminated in the genocide at Srebrenica was not the by-product of war or civil breakdown, “rather, ethnic cleansing was the purpose of the war”.

When the safe zones were initially set up, Philippe Morillon, a French UN general, had told Bosnia’s Muslim population: “You are now under UN protection of the United Nations… I will never abandon you.” Yet Dutch UN peacekeepers stood aside two years later as the Bosnian Serb assault on Srebrenica began. Over the course of three days in the summer of 1995, as politicians and pundits in western capitals basked in a triumphalist post-Cold War glow, those 8,372 Muslim men and boys were pumped full of bullets and thrown into mass graves.

As the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia described it:

“They [members of the Bosnian Serb army] stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity.”

As a result, the Bosnian Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic are today serving life sentences for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Slobodan Milosevic died while on trial for war crimes at the Hague.

During the trials, a chilling conversation that had been intercepted during the genocide was used as evidence to demonstrate intent on the part of the Bosnian Serb chain of command. A group of Bosnian men had attempted to break through from Srebrenica to the town of Tuzla but were captured by Bosnian Serb forces. “Kill them all, god damn it!” Serb General Radislav Krstić can be heard saying to Colonel Milan Obrenović, the chief of staff of the Bosnian Serb army’s Zvornik Brigade. “Don’t leave a single one alive.”

The massacre at Srebrenica was able to take place partly because western powers had spent the preceding year labouring under the pretence that there was no belligerent party in the conflict. The Serbs controlled the fourth largest army in Europe yet a one-sided arms embargo, imposed on the region by the European Community and its member states in 1991, remained in place until near the end of the war, preventing the Bosnians from protecting themselves.

The British government of John Major played a shameful role in keeping the arms embargo in place, a policy it justified by adopting an obfuscatory tone which stressed that the conflict was a civil war and emphasised “complexity” and “warring sides”. “We should remember,” British defence secretary Malcolm Rifkind told parliament, “that the Serbs in Bosnia are not uniquely guilty”.

Platitudes —rare are there conflicts in which one side is uniquely guilty — stood in place of an ethical foreign policy. Britain’s foreign secretary at the time was Douglas Hurd, a politician whom Margaret Thatcher said would “make Neville Chamberlin look like a warmonger”. Thatcher supported hitting the Serbs and lifting the embargo. Hurd, however, took Thatcherism to mean something altogether different, and said that there was “no such thing as the international community”. As Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the first democratically elected Prime Minister of Poland, observed in 1993: “Any time there was a likelihood of effective action [in Bosnia], a particular western statesman [Hurd] intervened to prevent it.”

A host of institutional failures, led the way to Srebrenica, along with a pernicious narrative of false equivalences and a widespread indifference to the plight of the Bosnian Muslims. This unfortunately extended beyond the moral turpitude of the British government. Sounding more like a resentful humanities student than the leader of an international organisation, the General Secretary of the UN at the time, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, brushed off the conflict in the former Yugoslavia as a “white man’s war”.

In October 1994, Boutros-Ghali even flew into the besieged city of Sarajevo and lectured the city’s residents, who were being shot at by snipers when they ventured out to collect water, about the plight of black Africa. Boutros-Ghali’s point was clear: the residents of Sarajevo, undergoing the longest siege in the history of modern warfare, should think themselves lucky that they were not wallowing in mud and rags in the ‘global south’.

It was in August 1995 that Nato finally decided to act against Serb forces, launching Operation Deliberate Force, a massive bombing campaign which consequently brought Serb leaders, fearful of further American bombardment, to the negotiating table. Predictably, pseudo-humanitarians who had said nothing as tens of thousands of Muslims were being slaughtered, suddenly found a cause to rally behind, and rushed to denounce the bombing.

Since the Soviet Union had disappeared, misguided sections of the Left had looked hopefully upon Slobodan Milosevic (and by extension his proteges in Republika Srpska, the proto-Serb state inside Bosnia) as a benevolent guardian of the established order – that order being communist Yugoslavia. The Serbs were thus cast as plucky anti-imperialists engaged in an intransigent last-ditch struggle against capitalism. In actuality, the Serbian leaders had long-ago sloughed off any remnant of Tito’s liberal Stalinism and replaced it with blood and soil nationalism. What the Serb leadership had inherited from Tito’s regime was a vast army and a repressive state apparatus – assets which they used to wage a genocidal war against Bosnia’s Muslim population.

In this vein, Labour Party national treasure Tony Benn blamed everyone but the Serbs for the bloodshed. This included the International Monetary Fund, Germany and Nato. When the White House finally decided to act following the massacre at Srebrenica, Benn pompously declared that the “main enemy is Nato”, and called for the arms embargo against the Bosnians to be “strictly enforced”.

A short time later, the celebrated American professor Noam Chomsky — along with others including Tariq Ali — signed an open letter to an obscure Swedish magazine defending a book which claimed that the genocide at Srebrenica was a fabricated hoax. Elsewhere, the contrarian magazine Living Marxism (later renamed Spiked), the mouthpiece of the British Revolutionary Communist Party, claimed in print that the Guardian’s Ed Vulliamy and ITN’s Penny Marshall — two journalists who had witnessed first-hand the Serb concentration camps in Trnopolje in northern Bosnia — were telling lies. Living Marxism was subsequently sued by ITN and lost, incurring vast damages.

War is never a glorious thing and the loudest cheerleaders for it are usually those who know they will be somewhere else when the first rounds are fired. But as any credible account of events during the Bosnian war demonstrates, pacifists and ‘realists’ do sometimes end up on the wrong side of history. During the Bosnian war of the early 90s, thousands of people were rounded into concentration camps and exterminated based on their ethnicity in a continent where a few decades earlier the words ‘never again’ had been piously recited following the obscenities of the Holocaust.

We’ve grown accustomed to hearing lectures on the ‘lessons’ contained in the rush to war in Iraq in 2003. Regrettably, we hear less about the things we might learn from the racist murder of 8,372 innocent men and boys on European soil a quarter of a century ago. While the conflict raged in Bosnia politicians brandished words like ‘complexity’, or else shrugged and pointed to incomprehensible ethnic resentments as a device to excuse indifference and inaction. The fashionable doctrine of ‘realism’ engendered a worldview in which smaller states were the mere playthings of larger entities; the human victims of this brutal statecraft were ignored as the mere flotsam of history.

This goes some way to explaining the failures on the part of the British state. Among the activist class, it was a different set of doctrines at work. As the Serbian armies went on the rampage, Bosnian Muslims were looked upon as not quite victims to those whose worldview came marinated in stale ‘anti-imperialist’ dogmas. In their failure to identify the genocidal intent implicit in Serb imperialism, pseudo-humanitarians proved a point once made by Arthur Koestler: ideology is apt to make a person believe that a goldfish is a racehorse. A procession of leftist grandees — Tony Benn, Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman and Tariq Ali — all filtered events in Bosnia through this narrow and distorting ideological lens. As a consequence, each lent credence to a grotesque pack of lies that was used to slander those who had lost the ability to answer back.

One of the lessons of Srebrenica is surely that doing nothing can come at its own terrible cost, even if the bill is settled years later in the bureaucratic and anodyne atmosphere of international courts and tribunals. It was once said that Bosnia would be written on Douglas Hurd’s tombstone. A quarter of a century after that sorry episode and one wonders what posterity will see fit to inscribe as the epitaph of our own era. Syria I am sure. And unless something alters about our current trajectory, perhaps the enslaved Uighurs of China too.

This lesson has been lost in the fallout from Iraq, but the responsibility to protect — a principle enshrined in the United Nations since 2005 — is not something that ought to be sloughed off lightly, even if the UN itself is a rather toothless instrument when it comes to enforcing the principle. Moreover, do we really want democratic nations to sit out fights with the Slobodan Miloševićs of the world?

Perhaps we do. But then, we must at least be honest about what that entails. Staying on the side-lines is not, and never has been, the same as bringing an end to war and killing.You may not be altogether interested in fascism, but its victims deserve more than mere pity after the fact. Or, as Primo Levi wrote of the Holocaust,

“If understanding is impossible, knowing is imperative, because what happened could happen again… For this reason, it is everyone’s duty to reflect on what happened.”


James Bloodworth is a journalist and author of Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain, which was longlisted for the Orwell Prize 2019.

J_Bloodworth

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

35 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
A Spetzari
A Spetzari
3 years ago

To quote the SAS commander Graeme Lamb – “you can’t roll your sleeves up if you’re too busy wringing your hands”

Politicians and people of influence who oppose interventions from a purely ideological viewpoint are just as guilty for disasters such as this as those that pursue war at all costs. We’d be reading a similar article about Libya if Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama had decided differently and Gadaffi had carried out his threat. Instead we get articles lamenting that intervention.

Military interventions like these are unbelievably complex. If you agree to commit – you sure as hell need to be 100% certain that you have the commitment to see it through in terms of money, time and most importantly of all; the lives of your troops, the civilians and the enemy.

If not keep well away.

Heather W
Heather W
3 years ago

Why no discussion here of the Dutch-led UN ‘peacekeeper’ troops who actually stood and watched as thousands of Bosniak men and boys were taken away on trucks and buses to be murdered? Who ignored the rape and murder of women and children, even babies, in the ‘sanctuary’ of Potocari? The impotence and indecisiveness of UN/NATO/the west is itself a horrible crime which could have been avoided, and for which no reasonable justification has ever been offered.

Alison Houston
Alison Houston
3 years ago

Ah, I see, this war happened because the Brits allowed it too, eh? Strange how that’s always the case, isn’t it.

When we step in and take sides we get it all wrong and when we don’t step in and take sides we are guilty of allowing other people to kill each other.

Get a grip on your arrogance, you are full of colonialist conceit. People of different nationalities have agency and are quite capable of slaughtering each other for their own reasons. Get over yourself.

Elizabeth Agarwal
Elizabeth Agarwal
3 years ago
Reply to  Alison Houston

Read the article.

benbow01
benbow01
3 years ago

We are told, in praise of the EU, that it (and implicitly, it alone) was guarantor of peace and had prevented war in Europe since 1945.

Serbia, Bosnia… they are in Europe, right?

ivanisawesome
ivanisawesome
3 years ago
Reply to  benbow01

Answering as a Yugoslav here. Geographically, yes. Emotionally and mentally? Probably no.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  benbow01

Well said. That EU lie, is one the greatest falsehoods since the Resurrection.
The ‘very big stick’ of the USA kept the peace and no normal person can deny it.
Europe should grateful, but as it is, behaves like the spoilt brat it has been, ever since its inception.

Andrew Baldwin
Andrew Baldwin
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

Did it? It seems more likely that the Warsaw Pact kept the peace. Notice that all the wars started after it was dissolved. If it were the big stick of the US then why all the wars associated with the dissolution of Yugoslavia? The big stick is still there.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Baldwin

The Warsaw Pact was certainly able to crush various Polish, German, Hungarian, and ultimately Czechoslovakian risings, but ultimately it failed to crush the final Polish one. Hence the destruction of the whole rotten “worm eaten facade”, that was the Soviet Empire.

The implosion of Yugoslavia that subsequently followed should have been the opportunity for the EU to deploy its much vaunted skills but, in the event it only served to exacerbated the situation.

For the US this was a vey minor regional conflict of no real significance. However it did offer them the chance to play the the pro Muslim card, for its Middle Eastern Allies. Thus the Serbs became the demons and the Muslims the darlings. Other players such the Croats, saw their chance and plundered and slaughtered accordingly. Realpolitik at its very best, you might say?

All in all a very cynical affair, with reprehensible barbarism on all sides, but somewhat unfairly has dumped the bulk of the blame on Serbia.

How things have changed since the days of plucky little Serbia of 1914.

David Jones
David Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

I guess this lack of significance explains why the US failed to intervene in Kosovo. Overall, Nato failed just as surely as the EEC did, and arguably this was worse since it was military situation outside the borders of the EEC.

The EEC/EU was designed to prevent war between its members –
especially France and Germany. A civil war in a
non-member was a different challenge. Let’s not forget that at the time of Slovenia’s secession the EEC was
not yet the EU and had less in the way of coordinated foreign
policy.
One of the other commenters lays out the ideal scenario of a negotiated settlement but I’m not sure how that was achievable at the time.

David Jones
David Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  benbow01

1) Nato also failed to prevent it, so neither guarantors of peace succeeded.

2) The EC/EEC/EU was designed to prevent war between its members – especially France and Germany – and has done so. A civil war in a non-member was a different challenge.

Andy Redman
Andy Redman
3 years ago

Mr Bloodworth seems to think everything is our fault. Not really seeing a case being made though, just conflation and rhetoric.

Fisted By Foucault
Fisted By Foucault
3 years ago

The author fails in that he describes Sarajevo as ‘multiethnic’ when it is now roughly 90% Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim). It was multiethnic until the end of the war. In the last census conducted prior to the war (1991), the city was roughly 48% Bosnian Muslim, 33% Serbian, 6% Croatian, plus others.

David Jones
David Jones
3 years ago

“For there’s a particularly persuasive case to be made that the legacy of
the fall of communism was wasted in Russia and eastern Europe”
In Russia, yes, but depends what is meant by Eastern Europe: the EU gets damned for being too slow in the Balkans and too fast in inviting new members from Central and Eastern Europe. What should have been done instead?
If the West got it wrong in Bosnia, did they get it right in Kosovo? What should have been done instead?

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  David Jones

Nothing, just let them fight it out to the bitter end.(sine missione)
Intervention can only justified if was it going to spread, like a virus, into Austria, Hungary or Greece.
NATO was looking for reason to exist, having very successfully killed off the loathsome Soviet Union, the bane of our lives for the previous forty years.

David Jones
David Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

So the West did the right thing in Bosnia but the wrong thing in Kosovo?

Andrew Baldwin
Andrew Baldwin
3 years ago
Reply to  David Jones

Susan Woodward’s book “Balkan Tragedy” gives a good argument for what could have been done instead. The EU and the West in general should have insisted on general democratic elections in federal Yugoslavia before giving a green light to secession in any republic. There should have been a process of negotiation, which would have taken years to decide which republics or provinces seceded and whether they would keep their old borders, or if accommodations could not be made. It would have taken years to negotiate peacefully, but it took a decade anyway, between the initial Slovenian War of Independence and the so-called Kosovo War. We split up a country about the same area as Romania, where most people spoke Serbo-Croatian as their mother tongue, and virtually everyone could speak it, into eight (and counting!) different countries. James’s only problem with what went on seems to be that the NATO countries didn’t smash more Serb skulls earlier so it all would have happened a little faster. That really is a strange way of thinking. The process in which Yugoslavia dissolved was madness. The outcome is madness. Some of the countries around now won’t be around at the beginning of the next century, maybe not even at its mid-point.

David Jones
David Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Baldwin

Sounds good. A negotiated settlement would have been much better obviously, but let’s not forget that at the time of Slovenia’s secession the EEC was not yet the EU and had much less in the way of coordinated foreign policy. It happened within a year of the Iron Curtain falling and I think Western Europe was preoccupied with the consequences on its borders: East Germany, etc. That sounds like the ideal route but I’m not sure it was a realistic prospect at the time – and how to “insist” on Yugoslav elections without intervening militarily?

Robin P
Robin P
3 years ago

How long did you live in Bosnia? When did you learn the local languages? Cheers.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago

Ah, the “beastly Balkans”, it was ever thus.

Jamie Gerry
Jamie Gerry
3 years ago

Foreign jihadi fighters from all over the Middle East had been piling into Bosnia for several years previously, and Bosnia has more recent memory of being ‘colonised’ by an Islamic power. Bosnian Muslims also committed their atrocities. Srebrenica massacre can never be justified, but it needs to be put in context.

Robin P
Robin P
3 years ago
Reply to  Jamie Gerry

How there came to be so many Muslims in Bosnia anyway. Due to centuries of murderous invasions by the “religion of peace”. As shown in this video: https://www.youtube.com/wat

xcvxcv sdfdsfsdf
xcvxcv sdfdsfsdf
3 years ago

Now then, what can we cook up today? Oh! Angry Article About Bosnia. Haven’t had that for a while. Have we got the ingredients? Superficial Understanding? Yes, but tastes better with a dash of Simms. Self-righteousness? Got. Wisdom After the Event? Yes, a big bag here. An ‘interesting’ (hmmm) dig at lefties and BBG to go with the usual stuff on Hurd. And shall we blame it all on the Serbs again? Why not! The kids love it! Now, simply moisten with tears of indignation, pop a garnish of ‘learn the lessons of history’ on the top and microwave. Ping! What? No one hungry?

Alison Houston
Alison Houston
3 years ago

Oh my comment isn’t here. How surprising and disappointing that such a freedom loving publication does not allow comments critical of its articles to appear.

What are you scared of?

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
3 years ago
Reply to  Alison Houston

Don’t worry – UnHerd just is painfully slow at approving comments. Not a conspiracy.

Robin P
Robin P
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

A more accurate way of seeing it is that the comments get approved after no-one else is looking at that page anyway.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  Alison Houston

Has the Censor relented? ” the Brits allowed it……..”etc.

Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

ooops, wrong place above –and seems I cannot delete that one — It takes a while before comments are approved, so I am not sure that any ‘relenting’ went on here.

Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
3 years ago
Reply to  Alison Houston

It takes a while before comments are approved, so I am not sure that any ‘relenting’ went on here.

Andrew Baldwin
Andrew Baldwin
3 years ago
Reply to  Alison Houston

My comment isn’t there either, Alison. And I had the same reaction: what are you scared of? Anyway, not to worry. Both our comments may yet be posted. In any case, I’m sure James will come through with a searing opinion piece a few weeks from now on the 25th anniversary of Operation Storm, the ethnic cleansing operation led by Croatian forces with Bill Clinton’s support that displaced about two hundred thousand Serbs from districts where they had been living for generations. I’m really looking forward to James’s report. Since James simply ignored Tudjman’s efforts to create a Greater Croatia out of Bosnia and Herzegovina in this column, I am really counting on him not to ignore Tudjman’s role as ethnic cleanser in his coming Operation Storm report. I hope he doesn’t let us down.

Jeff Andrews
Jeff Andrews
3 years ago
Reply to  Alison Houston

They’ve been ‘woke’.

zsretic1701
zsretic1701
3 years ago

Obviously after 25 years one should really do a serious fact checking before coming up with the pro-interventionist piece. The text claims that “more than 10,000 residents had died as a result of snipers and the 3,000 shells that fell on the city each day.” Indeed, the word “residents” is highly misleading since it directs the reader to erroneously believe that 10,000 civilians have been killed during the siege. The fact is that approximately 60% of residents killed were Bosnian soldiers.While this is regrettable and does not take away from the fact that non-selective killing of civilians is a war crime this is by no means a fact that one should easily overlook in the passing.Furthermore, while using the concept of “concentration camps” and “ethnic cleansing” the writer seems to misguide the reader to the idea that practice was an exclusive forte of “Serbs”. Indeed, one may wonder if some 1000 Serbian civilians killed in Sarajevo in prisons of besieged Sarajevo would agree if they had any voice in the article. Not to mention use of local Serbian slave workforce to build military trenches around Sarajevo for Bosnian military forces. Ups, awkward facts, indeed. Srebrenica and Žepa were UN protected zone supposedly demilitarized and controlled by UN forces. Around 3000 Serbians leaving around the UN protected zones in a poorly protected villages, had been killed by Bosnian forces from Srebrenica and Žepa. The killing of civilians (including women and small children and not just boys, but girls and babies as well) have been practiced up until Serbian military operation “Krivaja 95” took place. One of the reasons why Serbians do not find the concept of “genocide” in the case of Srebrenica appropriate, though a few would deny the massacre took place. Should we blame UN forces in Srebrenica for Serbian civilians killed from protected zones as well? Perhaps.That said, the Bosnian conflict was indeed a complicate one. And not only for reason that during WWII according to the Yad Vashem (Israel’s official memorial to the victims of the Holocaust) Croatian UstaÅ¡a Nazi forces (in which Bosniaks took not an insignificant part) killed around 500.000 “Serbs” in Bosnia and Croatia just 50 years before the civil war in Bosnia. Therefore, to say Srebrenica “a biggest atrocity in Europe after the WWII” though possibly correct, is a phrase highly susceptible to the groupthink, a convenient tool to avoid “complexity” while closes the doors for any meaningful discussion. Indeed plenty of awkward facts.

Robin P
Robin P
3 years ago
Reply to  zsretic1701

I upvoted this then about an hour later noticed the upvote had disappeared.

Jeff Andrews
Jeff Andrews
3 years ago

Hasn’t taken long for the establishment to ‘woke’ unherd. We even have to talk as stupid as the new establishment to let them know we don’t agree. At least London’s nice and empty now to turn into a new safe haven for the writers peaceful friends. All supported and paid for by the taxpayers living outside the M25

Robin P
Robin P
3 years ago

If you wish to solve problems you need to first understand what’s really going on. And to understand what’s going on you need to ask ALL the questions without making an exception for the Elephant in the Room Question. Here’s such a question (well a bit further on). You can rest assured that as soon as someone reads this question some far less important questions will arise. Such as “Is this person a racist?” “Is this hate speech?”.”Is it appropriate to ask this question?”.”Is it appropriate for it to appear on Unherd?”

Well, what side are you on in this? On the side of full discussion and understanding, or of only selective discussion, selective understanding, and turning deaf ears to the most important questions and answers? Anyway, here goes with this question. It begins with the most powerful word in the whole of language.

WHY such violent hatred against the Bosnian Muslims?
But then why such violent hatred against the “Rohingya” Muslims?
And why such violent hatred against the Muslims in India?
And all the “Islamophobia” against Muslims in Britain?
And then the persecution of Muslims in Xinjiang in China?

Altogether, why is it that just about everywhere that Muslims go they encounter such murderous hatred?

And, sorry but the answer is b….. obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to do an objective study of Islam. The Qur’an is by far the most hate-filled document in history. And by far the most violence-inciting document in history. “Oh, but the terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, it is only a perverted interpretation.” Except that that “perversion” is no such thing, merely the accurate rendering of the commands of that document, and accurately reflecting the gloriously recorded behaviour of the Arabian warlord who authored it. Do remind me how many people were killed by Christ.

It is not surprising that those “experts” (such as “professors of Islamic studies”) who seek to present Islam as a wonderful religion of peace have to go to great lengths to avoid quoting it, other than to grossly misrepresent the Kumbaya verse 5:32 which is in no way a command to Muslims but rather states itself that it was a command to “The Children of Israel” (and is indeed from the Jewish Torah). And NONE of the many other Qur’an verses say it applies to Muslims too (and many verses indicate otherwise – see
“Are you a Real Muslim?”
and “How to Become a Terrorist”

If you have some personal objection to people being killed en masse, then you have to start by tackling the source, which is an Arabian warlord and his “noble” and “glorious” manual of hate-violence being handed out on every high street. Otherwise you are a Jihad Denialist and part of the problem and not of the solution.
And click here for a bit of the history of this hate-inciting ideology.

Finally, how did there come to be so many Muslims in Bosnia anyway? Certainly not because some missionary akin to Saint Augustine had gone there to preach. More like related to the Battle of Vienna 1683 of which naturally no-one learns in our “educational” institutions.