This is one thing about the Bosnian war I have never been able to understand. If Izetbegovic had not reneged on the Lisbon agreement, there would have been no war and the 200,000 people who had died from 1992 until 1995 would still be alive today.

Those 200.000 people would have been alive if it weren't for those that killed them in the first place. The likes of Karadzic and Mladic responsible for the Srebrenica massacre of 8000 Muslims are still very much free, hiding from justice. The more crutial question would be who is harbouring these war criminals?

That's all well and good, and I'm not excusing war criminals, but you failed to answer my question. Why did the muslims withdraw their signature from the lisbon agreement? It's as if they wanted a war.

You can blame the Serbs for a lot of things, but there is one thing you cannot blame them for, and that is starting the Bosnian war. The blame for that goes solely to Izetbegovic. Remember, it was the muslims who first mobilized their army about a week after they reneged on the Lisbon agreement. This was before a single shot had been fired by the Serbs (or the Croats).

I think Libson had the potential to stop the war before it began. The west should have told the muslims to stick with the agreement.

The blame is more upon the Empire, than upon the Border Tribes for fighting. Every conflict within the Roman Empire had its origin in Rome. Not one man could be crucified in the Empire without the assent of the center of power.

Without the billions from Washington there would be peace in the Holy Land today. Without Ambassador Zimmermann friendly advice that help would be coming if he tore up the Lisbon agreement, Izetbegovic could not have started the war. Without aid from Moslem fundamentalist and from Washington war would have been unthinkable.

So basically you're saying that the west is responsible for the Bosnian war or the break up of Yugoslavia? Why, what would the west gain from this, and what proof to you have to back up this claim?

Oh I will have to seriously disagree here with Matt. Saying that Izetbegovic started the war (or that he wanted it) is misrepresenting the facts to say the least. Actually it was he who believed in unified Yugoslavia up till the end and the Bosnian Muslims were convinced that nothing horrible could ever happen in Bosnia. And before there were any Mujahadeens units in Bosnia (from abroad or internal) there were already various Serb paramilitary units in "action". They were the ones shelling and bombing entire villages and cities, driving out the Muslim population and the Bosnian Muslims were by far the biggest victim in the whole thing. They paid the highest price and formed most of the refugees that had to leave their homes. That is a fact Matt! I am not saying that there weren't Serb refugees, Serbs that were killed, I know about Naser Oric and his paramilitary units (interesting he was trained in Serbia as he was one of Milosevic's personal guards in the beggining). No side was totally innocent, but blaming (singling out) Izetbegovic is a far stretch. As though as there were no Milosevic-Tudjman secret agreements, plans of dividing Bosnia, the siege on Sarajevo, Mostar, Srebrenica, Foca, Trnpolje. And the people that had the most blood on their hands are still free (Mladic, Karadzic). The situation in Croatia or Kosovo might not have been so clear (after all more then 250.000 Serbs were driven from Croatia, many killed, many Serbs driven from Kosovo (or even killed) where even today they are not safe. That is all true. But that does not change the facts regarding Bosnia and who laid the hand on it, wanting to divide it. So saying who shot the first shot is actually pretty ridiculous as you could always find someone claiming that the others shot first. WW1 also started when 19 year old Serb Gavrilo Princip shot Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand. So is Serbia to be blamed for everything the Austrians and Germans did later? Nonsense! I hope you understand Matt how absurd such rationalizing is. I know it has become very popular nowadays to accuse Muslims of anything bad that happens, being labeled with terrorists etc.. But in Bosnia there where many other kind of terrorists involved. That were not Muslims. And where Muslims were the victims for the most part and non-Muslims their terrorisers.

I agree that the Serbs were responsible for more atrocities than the muslims during the Bosnian war.

However, I am not really interested in what happened DURING the Bosnian war, but rather what started the war in the first place.

From what I know, the muslims were the first to mobilize (about a week after the Lisbon agreement failed). Also, the Muslim side was the one who refused the Lisbon agreement (the Serbs and Croats accepted it). If the muslims had not reneged on this agreement, there would never have been a war. If any of these points are incorrect please don't hesitate to correct me.

Ehm, the above text is mine, not of Matt. Matt was only the subject. Just so nobody gets confused. I am sure Matt will have to say a lot about what I said.

Blaz is my internet friend, and I hope to meet him next time I am in Ljubliana. We agree on many things, we don't agree on Bosnia.

The first killings of the war took place in a village near Bosanski Brod, where five Serb families were massacred.

I must re-iterate my point: the major share of the blame is upon the Empire; the chieftains of the Border Tribes are far less responsible for the tragedies that have overtaken their nations than us Americans are. I have not blamed Bosnian Moslems, I do not even blame Izetbegovic. I do not blame Sharon, Suharto, Emperor Haile Selassie, King Hassan, Yahya Khan, Thieu, or Tudjman for invading Lebanon, East Timor and Papua, Eritrea, the Sahara, Bengal--now Bangladesh--Laos, or the Krajina. I blame my President for approving those eight invasions, and I blame myself and my friends for not squawking enough. Even the 1980 invasion of Vietnam by China was prepared in Washington: National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzinsky took the credit for laying the ground to that war during the Chinese leader's visit to the U.S. We even financed the Khmer Rouge regime. Why? What was the deep abiding interest of the United States that would warrant support for the lunatic gang of Pol Pot? The desire to punish the Vietnamese for beating us was so powerful, that our leaders were willing to take the chance of being exposed as supporters of the most openly psychopathic regime in Asia. Sometimes, because of irrational malevolence, we do odd things.

This is how the Empire works: some gold is passed to the chieftain, and the war comes, on cue. The Kurdistan, Miskito, Bosnia, and Kosovo wars started after authorization from Washington. The chieftain might have had serious grievances, but would never have dared to start the war without our gold. Instinct impels him to take the gold, he cannot resist the territorial imperative. The Hmong of Laos could not possibly resist the offer of shiny weapons, opium trade licence, and imperial friendship. If a chieftain were to turn down the offer, his rival wouln't, and he would lose power. Turning down Roman or American gold has never been an option.

Sometimes a king appeals to the Emperor for support of some prospective conquest. The appeal makes the Emperor feel good. The Emperor loves to dispense favors. If the war succeeds, so much the better: the fame and power of the Emperor will be enhanced, and the world will tremble: yes, it's true, the Emperor can give away entire countries, as presents. If the chieftain slips up and gets into trouble, he will be forever tied to the Empire. He will need our helicopter gunships and our advisors. That will guarantee successful retirement, into the military-industrial system, to every undersecretary. Some, like Vice-President Cheney, go through the revolving door system more than once, accumulating wealth and power at every step.

Blaz is correct, Izetbegovic had been opposed to breaking up Yugoslavia, but went to war after the West denied his appeal not to recognize secessionist states and offered cash and arms channels instead. The date of TheNewYorkTimes article in which Zimmerman is quoted on how he encouraged Izetbegovic to rip up the Lisbon agreement, can be found in kosovoforum.net under Bringing Peace to Bosnia. The NYT article is wisely not mentioned or challenged in Zimmermann's book, Origins of a Catastrophe.

You are mistaken Blaz! Bosnian war was started by the Muslims and Croats not Serbs! The west had a big part to play in it too! Without the west (namely USA, Netherlands, Germany, and UK), SFRY would still exist! Read Izetbegovic's book! I forgot what it is called but it calls for an Islamic invasion of Europe! Also read Tudjmans's book! I forgot what it is called but it is very anti-semitic! You are also mistaken about Serbs starting the war, and Serbs shelling villages, and Serbs driving out muslims! Serbs shelled enemy soldiers not civilians! If they are shooting at Serbs from a house, obviously Serbs will respond and shell that house! Then the deceitful muslims show everyone how the bad Serbs are shelling civlians! Propaganda is the most powerful weapon! I am not saying that some civilians didn't get killed! But I am saying that it was an accident! No massacres, no ethnic cleansing, no rape, no torture, this is all lies! It's part of a big anti-Serb conspiracy! I know some people who fought for the Bosnian Serb army! They are not war criminals or ethnic cleansers! They would never torture or rape someone! They were only trying to protect civilians from the Muslims who wanted to slaughter them!

You are also wrong about 200,000 killed! 200,000 are missing! But most of them are not civilians! Perhaps they are living in some other country! All documentation was destroyed during the war so it is impossible to know where they are! Total number of civilians killed is likely around 10000 and more than half of that are Serbs!

You are wrong about Srebrenica! There was no massacre of civilians there! Srebrenica was a safe haven from where the Muslim army was launching attacks on Serb positions! Each time Serbs chased them, they would run into the safe haven where Serbs weren't allowed to go! Then they would regroup and attack again the next day! Finally Serbs got fed up and overran this safe haven and killed the Muslims! Total death toll is 4400, not 8000 as you claim! And of those 4400 all are soldiers! Not a single one is a civilian!

I am happy for the opportunity to straighten things out and correct the lies against my people! The whole world thinks we are ehtnic cleansers and butchers and war criminals! This is not true! Serbs are "nebeski narod" and victims of propaganda! It's very sad that so many people believe the lies about us! It breaks my heart! Hopefully one day people will realize we are good people! If anyone has any other questions anything to do with the Balkans, please ask me! I will be happy to help!

Ultra ain't no ultra. He's not of this world. He's from outer space, he's nebeski. He is a patriot, a true believer, a follower of Tolstoi and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn more than of Arkan. We know that Serbs are as bad and as good as any other nation. Drunk Serbs are as bad and as vicious jerks as drunk Croats or drunk Americans.

I've got a damn hard time as lawyer for Nebeski. First he denies stuff that happens in every war. "No rape, no torture, all lies." Then he admits the 200,000 missing persons nonsense story. Oh my God, they would love to have him as witness at The Hague InterNATO Tribunal. The ICRC has got 21,000missing persons for the entire Bosnia war, including Serbs, Gypsies, and Jews. Welcome to Ultra anyway, as long as he doesn ot show up as witness for Milosevic.