Do not compare NATO's role in the Balkans with that in the Muslim world

Some analysts with confused visions, prone to painting black & white pictures of their thoughts fail to distinguish between NATO intervention in the Balkans war of the 1990s and NATO intervention in sovereign Muslim countries in post 9/11 era.  For instance, these observers are unable to perceive the vast difference between NATO's role in Serbia and its role in Libya in 2011.   They condemn NATO's "bombing" of Serbia the same way as they do of Libya.   I see this as a thoroughly incorrect reading of a very simple issue.

To put it plainly, NATO's bombing of Serbia cannot be compared with the one of Libya, and neither can it be compared with the NATO's ongoing plans involving Syria.  

In connection with Serbia, NATO came into the scenario after a very long time, giving enough opportunity to Slobodan Milosevic to kill, rape and displace 2 million Bosnians and Kosovars.  The situation in Bosnia became much too precarious by 1998 when hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Muslims began pouring into no-man's land in Europe, fleeing Milosevic's ethnic cleansing, with no food, no water, no electricity and no sanitation.  The heart of Europe began looking like the heart of Africa in crisis.   That's when the European leaders woke up and along with their North American partner decided that something needed to be done to stop Milosevic, NOT for the purpose of protecting the Mulsims of the Balkans (who were being butchered randomly) but for protecting Europe and preventing the political instability from spilling over because of Milosevic's ethnic cleansing.  

At this point the NATO member countries had two choices:
1)  Either NATO must intervene to stop Milosevic's blood thirsty mission.   OR
2)  The arms embargo to be lifted from Kosovo and Bosnia who must be allowed to officially have an army, acquire weapons and defend themselves.

Obviously the EU and US chose the former.   They feared that lifting the arms embargo from the Muslim community of the Balkans would not be a good idea.  It could make them feel brave, confident and bold.  They might no longer accept being bullied and looked upon as third class citizens of Europe.  The EU and US decided upon NATO to intervene BUT there was a careful plan behind it.  NATO bombing of Serbia would be surgical to the utmost, and to the very minimal so that it could be finished as early as possible.  Unlike Libya, where more than a dozen cities and towns were raised to the ground, countless number of private and government properties destroyed beyond recognition and the civilian death toll being well into five figures .... NATO's bombing in Serbia killed very few civilians (350 according to the exaggerated version of online Wikipedia), bare minimal of military casualties and much to my disappointment, I never read of the killing of any Chetniks during the air raids who had their hands drenched with blood.   NATO mainly bombed the roads and bridges connecting Serbia with Kosovo to disrupt the communication links between these two provinces and thus largely avoided the risks of casualties.  NATO also used these airstrikes for another discreet purpose, to hit at the Chinese embassy in Belgrade which killed three Chinese reporters and injured 20 embassy staff including diplomats.  NATO claimed it was a mistake but how come NATO took such good care of keeping all Serbian government  bodies safe?   A couple years later, some Serb supporters claimed the use of depleted uranium in Serbia by NATO.  That turned out to be false after a thorough investigation by the United Nations Environment Programme, and a copy-cat claim after news got around by the start of the new millennium that approximately 1.5 million has perished in Iraq due to the use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus by the US forces during the 1990 attack on Iraq followed by terse sanctions resulting in the inavailability of essential medication.    

Subsequently when Milosevic was captured, he was conveniently handed over to the Hague where he would forever loll in a luxury prison cell .. a man who had killed many more of his countrymen in just 5 years than Gaddafi could even dream of killing in 40 years!

NATO's thuggery is restricted within the Muslim world only, NOT in Europe. 

I wish a lot of us had better insight than comparing the Serbians with the Libyans or Syrians or Iraqis or Afghans.  That is intensely disturbing because the analogy is wholly discrepant and intensely unjust.

For more details check Muslim Villa input.


  1. Another very good article! Your blog is great, I've bookmarked it and often check for updates. Keep up the good work! :)

  2. From: Heba (MV Team)

    I must say it's nice to read a realistic account of this Balkan episode involving NATO for a change. Most central Europeans have been exaggerating it so much to defend Serbia. They completely deny the genocide. They claim Kosovo to be historically a part of Serbia and even silently condone Milosevic's evil nationalism. With the passage of time in this post 9/11 period when media hype against Muslims is too infinite, the propagandists are literally turning the truth upside down and portraying the murderers as victims. If you research this story through the mainstream media with a closed mind, you will come across a rich assortment of bullshit. Particularly beware if you hear someone talking on this subject with their names such as Бранислав, Димитрије, Ђорђе and so on. LOL .. I assure you folks, I'm not a racist. But I'm simply mentioning what I've read over and over again from these people. The assortment of their shameless lies defining Belgrade's genocide against the Bosnian & Kosovar Muslims includes: Balkans Muslims burning churches and killing nuns in Serbia, that Belgrade never indulged in any ethnic cleansing, Milosevic never had anything against Muslims of Bosnia or Kosovo, NATO wanted to establish a base in Serbia, that Albanians were killing Serbs and burning churches in Kosovo trying to get Serbs out of Kosovo (BULLSHIT !!), some claim NATO action in Serbia was connected with capitalistic interests but couldn't explain how. Another person claimed support of dictatorship and humiliation of human right - I ask, which dictatorship did NATO support in the Balkans and whose human rights were violated? No details from the big talkers. What most Serbs and their supporters are doing is, taking tips of imperialist actions & policies against Muslim non-puppet states who have been on the frontlines of fire by the imperialist leaders particularly after 9/11 and portraying it as if Serbia is the victim of these West European and North American policies. They will see what happened in Libya and scribble a copy-cat story applying to themselves on similar lines even though Serbia is a land of paupers holding no interest for their greedy masters of Western Europe and the US.

  3. Exactly Heba ,, I've so often read the balderdash that comes from these guys. The problem is that the school curriculum in non-Muslim Balkans region has been drastically tailored to accommodate these myths since year 2000 and the real history comprising of mass genocides (about the worst in European history) from 1992-1998 has been completely whitewashed. Most Serbs, Slovaks etc. who talk that kinda rubbish are particularly the youngsters or university students in their late teens or early 20s whose minds have already been conditioned with the bunkum they were taught in school.

    1. Salam, yet another great article, welldone! quite informative. I have Shared on facebook.

  4. Wa'salaam. Thanks Akeel. Lot of facebook guys have been unable to understand the difference between NATO in the Balkans and NATO in the Middle-East & Afghanistan. They tar the whole lot with the same dirty brush.


Post a Comment

For all general Q&A visit the following link @ Zainab's Lounge. (Copy & paste link on browser)