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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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
3 years ago
How long did you live in Bosnia? When did you learn the local languages? Cheers.
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Ah, the “beastly Balkans”, it was ever thus.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I upvoted this then about an hour later noticed the upvote had disappeared.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read the article.
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?
Answering as a Yugoslav here. Geographically, yes. Emotionally and mentally? Probably no.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mr Bloodworth seems to think everything is our fault. Not really seeing a case being made though, just conflation and rhetoric.
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.
“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?
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.
So the West did the right thing in Bosnia but the wrong thing in Kosovo?
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.
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?
How long did you live in Bosnia? When did you learn the local languages? Cheers.
Ah, the “beastly Balkans”, it was ever thus.
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.
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…
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?
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?
Don’t worry – UnHerd just is painfully slow at approving comments. Not a conspiracy.
A more accurate way of seeing it is that the comments get approved after no-one else is looking at that page anyway.
Has the Censor relented? ” the Brits allowed it……..”etc.
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.
It takes a while before comments are approved, so I am not sure that any ‘relenting’ went on here.
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.
They’ve been ‘woke’.
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.
I upvoted this then about an hour later noticed the upvote had disappeared.
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
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.