quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You did state, without answering my concerns about Ceku,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I answered your concerns. I said explicitly that no matter what race a war criminal is, he should be prosecuted.
Actually, that really isn't my concern (that they SHOULD be prosecuted - I agree with that). My concern is that the UN-EU-NATO power players worked for the release of Ceku. That seems in direct contradiction to what they claim to be a primary goal; that is, bringing war criminals to justice. In this case, the power nations PREVENTED an alleged war criminal from facing trial. Why would they work for his release? This wasn't a slip. They had to actively appeal for his release. Agim Ceku is also alleged by many in the human rights world to be a KLA commander - a terrorist organization with known Al Qaeda links. Why would they do this? What aren't they telling us about what Ceku knows?
These very serious questions warrant another more serious one. Are the power nations really working to benefit everyone in the region, or is their an ulterior motive?
Signs point to an ulterior motive.
Why is the harboring of Karadzic different from harboring Ceku? The priest was suspected of the former and he and his family attacked. The UN-EU-NATO big boys are undoubtedly guilty of the latter. What's the difference? What credibility does the force have? Why should I believe them when they are knowingly and belligerently violating the rules they created and are claiming to enforce?
I have to add that my closest college friend and roommate was sent to Bosnia and spent more than a year there in the late 1990s. Because He traveled all over the region and in different sectors. He can tell you stories about what kind of attacks were allowed on the Serbs as compared to what was tolerated by the other side. They are quite different.
Once again, in my view, their credibility is shaken.
So, I have the word of an Orthodox priest or the word of organizations that are either easily manipulated or incredulously inconsistent.
Which brings me back to, "You invaded someone's home, defiled his church and caused him and his child grave physical harm without due process of law. Prove your actions were justifiable."
Perhaps that's where we're getting lost. Perhaps you think it is the priest who has the burden of proof. I'm an old-timey American sort. I say that if a big government comes busting into somebody's house and shoots up their kids, they'd better have a dang good reason for doing so and be able to prove it PDQ.
Didn't we fight a war with England over that?
