What has Abu Hamza done wrong?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40

TheHansa

Original post by pr0view

How did these Muslims end up in Europe anyway in surely what must have been originally Serbian land?

I believe they were converts to Islam.

Reply 41

EssexDan86

Original post by SnoochToTheBooch

he was being a nasty pasty, and he's only got one eye and a hook for a hand which makes him even eviler.

In the words of Ali G, "A man even more eviler than Skeletor!"

Reply 42

EssexDan86

Original post by pr0view

How did these Muslims end up in Europe anyway in surely what must have been originally Serbian land?

It dates from when the Ottomans invaded in medieval times. Some of the locals converted to escape persecution and additional taxes. To be honest most Bosnians and Albanians are pretty liberal (and most drink alcohol etc), so I'm sure not many of them actually wanted extremists like Abu Hamza out there trying to wage jihad in their name.

Reply 43

EssexDan86

Original post by TheHansa

Perhaps it was because the Serbs raped and genocided the Bosniaks, why would anyone want to fight that? :rolleyes:

That's a very simplistic view of the Bosnian War - there are so many causes to it from the preceding decades, and even centuries.

The Balkans had always been a powder keg waiting to explode for a long time, due to all the simmering ethnic and religious tensions. With the collapse of communism these all came to the forefront all of a sudden.

The Serbs did soem terrible things in Bosnia, but they weren't the only ones - the Bosniaks and Croats also participated in widespread ethnic cleansing and war crimes. However, as history is written by the winners, those aspects have been conveniently left out of western news reports.

Reply 44

liamb109

When you conspire to create terrorist camps in another country, you should face justice in that country.

Reply 45

Clessus

Original post by EssexDan86

That's a very simplistic view of the Bosnian War - there are so many causes to it from the preceding decades, and even centuries.

It may be slightly simplistic, but it is not all that far from the truth. The Serbs alone were guilty of genocide in Bosnia, as recognised by 3 international courts.

The Balkans had always been a powder keg waiting to explode for a long time, due to all the simmering ethnic and religious tensions. With the collapse of communism these all came to the forefront all of a sudden.

Be careful not to overcomplicate the war in Bosnia (and Croatia), the centrality of the role of the Milosevic regime in instigating the wars is well documented. Milosevic was deliberately working for the break-up of Yugoslavia, and for a Serbian war of conquest, from as early as the spring of 1990 at the very least. This, and the Milosevic's direct role in the wars can be overwhelmingly documented. The idea of 'ancient ethnic hatreds' causing the conflict largely stems from crude stereotypes about the Balkans, and is largely an obfuscation of the real cause of the conflict, which was Greater Serb aggression, followed by oppertunistic greater Croat aggression.

The Serbs did soem terrible things in Bosnia, but they weren't the only ones - the Bosniaks and Croats also participated in widespread ethnic cleansing and war crimes. However, as history is written by the winners, those aspects have been conveniently left out of western news reports.

It is true that there were atrocities on all sides during the war, however there was no moral equivalence between the Bosnian government forces and the Serb forces. Neither the Bosniaks nor Croats committed any atrocities even remotely comparable to Serb atrocities at Zvornik, Foca, Visegrad, Prijedor, Omaska, Bijeljina, Srebrenica, Bihac, Gorazde or Sarajevo.

At least 86% of the killing of civilians in the Bosnian war was carried out by Serb forces, and 83% of civilians killed were Bosniaks. As for ethnic cleasing, the army of BiH unlike the Serbs (and Croats to an extent) did not advocate nor systamatically practice it. In Bosniak controlled territories, roughly 45% of the non-Bosniak population remained after the war (40% Serb and 51% Croat). In contrast, less than 5% of the non-Serb population in VRS controlled territories remained after the war.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 46

EssexDan86

Original post by Clessus

It may be slightly simplistic, but it is not all that far from the truth. The Serbs alone were guilty of genocide in Bosnia, as recognised by 3 international courts.

Be careful not to overcomplicate the war in Bosnia (and Croatia), the centrality of the role of the Milosevic regime in instigating the wars is well documented. Milosevic was deliberately working for the break-up of Yugoslavia, and for a Serbian war of conquest, from as early as the spring of 1990 at the very least. This, and the Milosevic's direct role in the wars can be overwhelmingly documented. The idea of 'ancient ethnic hatreds' causing the conflict largely stems from crude stereotypes about the Balkans, and is largely an obfuscation of the real cause of the conflict, which was Greater Serb aggression, followed by oppertunistic greater Croat aggression.

It is true that there were atrocities on all sides during the war, however there was no moral equivalence between the Bosnian government forces and the Serb forces. Neither the Bosniaks nor Croats committed any atrocities even remotely comparable to Serb atrocities at Zvornik, Foca, Visegrad, Prijedor, Omaska, Bijeljina, Srebrenica, Bihac, Gorazde or Sarajevo.

At least 86% of the killing of civilians in the Bosnian war was carried out by Serb forces, and 83% of civilians killed were Bosniaks. As for ethnic cleasing, the army of BiH unlike the Serbs (and Croats to an extent) did not advocate nor systamatically practice it. In Bosniak controlled territories, roughly 45% of the non-Bosniak population remained after the war (40% Serb and 51% Croat). In contrast, less than 5% of the non-Serb population in VRS controlled territories remained after the war.

I'm not going to argue with that response - clearly you know your stuff about the Balkan Wars!

I did find when I was in Serbia, however, that a lot of Serbs feel rather aggrieved over the whole conflict, and see it as the latest manifestation of a conflict that has gone on since medieval times, when the country was on the frontier of Christian Europe.

I think centuries of domination/oppression by various empires has left them with a certain 'us against the world' mentality.

Reply 47

Clessus

Original post by EssexDan86

Thank you for your compliment :biggrin:

, I do not intend to derail this thread, but I was drawn to it because the Balkans was brought up :smile:

.

You are correct that the Milosevic regime used ancient grievances and hatreds to try to stir up the Serb people to fight for his rotten cause (in particular, a very selective reading of ww2 history was used to demonise Croats and Bosniaks). Certain elements of the Serbian right tried to protray the conflict in Christianity vs Islam terms, and as a continuation of the fight against the Turks, these views, though false, are still believed in many circles even in the West. You are also correct to suggest the Ottoman occupation and oppression helped shape Serbs' national identity, and that many Serbs have an "us vs the world" mentality (one common claim for example is that the Western media was 'biased' against the Serbs).

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 48

Aduk

Original post by marcusfox

He's not been extradited anywhere until the plane carrying him lands in the US. What has happened is that the UK have agreed to extradite him.

Although he has just launched an appeal, so for now the deal is off, apparently...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19730438

But he hasn't got a chance of winning it if the European Courts have already made a decision once. On what grounds does he have to appeal?

Reply 49

marcusfox

Original post by Aduk

But he hasn't got a chance of winning it if the European Courts have already made a decision once. On what grounds does he have to appeal?

Who knows. That's what our tax pounds are for, for his legal aid lawyers to dream up even more reasons to inflate their bills. I imagine it'd be a lot cheaper to keep a helicopter fuelled and on standby from now until the moment his appeal gets overturned to transport him to Heathrow, and from there out of the country post haste before the next one.