www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Orthodox Priest In Coma After Nato Attack

balaban,

Normally I enjoy welcoming newcomers to the Forum. But in this case I must issue a warning. Please disagree without being disagreeable. There is no excuse to call someone �mafia or nazi�. This is your only warning before you loose posting privileges.

Admin

Anastasios,

What's the point of "unpassionately" playing the devil's advocate if, when someone answers your position or question, they are labeled anti-NATO bigots? Your calling the entire discussion group member's anti-NATO bigots and going on to claim that I make "wild assumptions" about you is a bit odd.

The underlying question is: Did the military forces have sufficient right (morally or legally) to invade an Orthodox church and the priest�s home and shoot the priest and his minor son in the process?

Your question was �Was the priest harboring Karadzic?�

The priest likes Karadzic but says he hasn�t seen him since 1999. If the priest is the accused, let�s see the evidence. I am unwilling to give the police power the benefit of the doubt at the expense of the accused civilian, especially when that person is an Orthodox priest.

May I assume from that question that if the answer is �yes,� then you believe the action was justifiable?


�At any point was that devil in his house being protected?�

The priest could have legally protected him in his house until he was indicted. Are you saying it is okay to shoot someone for not knowing that what he was legally doing at one point would become illegal at some later date? Again, is there evidence that he was harboring Karadzic after he was wanted? So far I haven�t seen anything that would say so and so I give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

Again, are you saying that if he �protected� (a rather nebulous term) �that devil� at any time, the military action was justifiable?


�I have known Serbian people--obstensibly Orthodox--who rejoice in the murder of Albanians. Is that Christian?�

Indeed, but what does this have to do with this particular case? Do you know that to be true of this individual? If this priest ever rejoiced in the murder of an Albanian, does that make the military action justified?

�Karadzic deserves to be captured and put on trial.�

A statement which seems to be missing the point of the issue and be an issue all unto itself. Whether or not it is deserved, it is the law. The question is whether the military forces invading the church were justified for their actions. If he WAS harboring Karadzic, then the legal question is likely answered, regardless of your opinion of Karadzic or his indictment.

Anastasios, I don't think you thought through the complications and assumptions required of your questions - and there are quite a few of both. (A statement may well be short and simple, but it may also be pregnant with complex assumptions that are required to make the statement true.)

You did state, without answering my concerns about Ceku, that NATO involvement in Bosnia (does that include or exclude the bombing of Vojvodina?) was a good thing. On what is that opinion based? I'm not assuming anything. I would like to know why you think what you think. I don�t want to attack you, but don�t be surprised if I disagree.

I am also concerned that Italian caribinieri and Slovenian troops are being used in Bosnian �peacekeeping� missions. Considering the history of the Balkans, that seems to be a rather poor selection if keeping the peace is the goal.

I expect the same type of inquiry concerning the active parties in this shooting that these same active parties have imposed on other participants engaging in similar actions. Then, if those who ordered the action have evidence, so be it.

The question that is begged, most respectfully, is how this behaviour is to be understood then. Is it appropriate to engage in a witch hunt after one party on his own soil while absolving the other party who has as much culpability, if not greater, in this dispute and placing the aforementioned party's territory in the control of the second party? The ukies go into this at length many times under the heading of "hospodarstvo". Wouldn't it seem that the point made is that the foreign intrusion is illicit and that general fairness would at least dictate an examination of the islamist party, its activities, it links, its funding, etc.?

I think the main reason alot of people in the US will fail to see this as an outrageous violation of another country's sovereignty (their's a dead word in our globalist world) is the mere fact that American soldiers were involved. Unfortunately, to many people, American military presence automatically equals a just cause.

Balaban,

Are you responding to my request? I am unsure and ask you to respond.

If yes, surely you can discuss this topic without calling others �mafia or nazi�.

Admin

I would simply kindly say, without intention of offense, this: if a link between the islamists can be made with the wahabbis and al qaeda, is that not worse than being a member of the maffia or a nazi?! al qaeda surely seems to not have a quarter anywhere in the civilized world and it has been called much worse than "nazi" and "maffia". Likewise, the wahabbis who seem to control islam's holiest site really aren't spoken of too favourably in polite conversation in the west, but, then again, I don't wish to offend.

I think much of the "anti-US sentiment" over this comes from the fact that many on this forum receive our news from international sources, and are shocked at the media bias and falsification we have seen so far. Had every mosque in Kosovo been burned down by Christians in what later turned out to be an error of cause as an excuse to go on a rampage, the world would be in an uproar. Instead, there was no mention of this, and days after the world media had told the truth about the initial spark (the death of those two boys), the New York Times was still reporting lies with sob story twists. Naturally, when considered with the ineffective peace-keeping and this latest NATO effort, American stock is not selling for much among Orthodox in Kosovo. Nor among anyone who has watched blatant bias in what is being reported. AFAIK, only the OCA has added to the litanies prayers for Kosovo...have any other Orthodox Churches done so at the request of their hierarchs? OCA has, the GOA has not, any others? Ukies? Antiochians? ACROD?

Gaudior, out of curiosity

Just for the record, the members of NATO include not only the USA but ALL the partners of the alliance. Instead of always mentioning the USA, why not state some of the other partners first (ie: Canada, U.K., Germany, etc...). All continue to provide ongoing 'assistance' to the region. Either all the partners should be mentioned, or simply refer to the alliance - NATO. Stop the American bashing.

Hritzko

Balaban,

You called those holding a position similar to Anastasios a �maffia or a nazi�. He asked you not to call him a nazi and you didn�t have enough charity to withdraw your accusation. That is unacceptable. I need to you promise to be charitable in all of your posts if you wish to continue posting here.

Admin

Dear Gaudior,

I know of Ukrainian Orthodox priests here who do indeed pray for the suffering Serbian Orthodox people!

Alex

Firstly, one never called another party a nazi, but activity nazi like and maffia like and it was defined as such and that was not in reference to this person but in regard to the islamists and their allies. I recapitulated my point on many occasions and clarified what I had said again with the understanding that no malice was intended.

Let me clarify, because I can see how my words might have been taken to mean what you think I was saying. I was not thinking of you when I made the statement that this discussion is wrought with anti-NATO bigots. I was thinking more of the statements of others, and also other threads on this and other forums where the minute this subject is brought up, the Anti-US propoganda begins. Sorry for not being clear. You are obviously a thinking and reasonable person, hence I am responding to you, while I choose not to respond to others.

If there was credible evidence that he was harboring a war criminal, yes, they had the right to come into his home. If he resisted, yes they had a right to shoot him. How do we know he didn't have a gun? He wouldn't be the first priest to have one.

Harboring a fugitive is itself a crime. If the US had credible evidence, the action of invading the home was justifiable. If the evidence was faulty, there should be a full investigation, prosecution, and restitution paid.

Karadzic is a fugitive and wanted. You can't legally protect a fugitive.

I don't know if there is evidence, hence I did not say that I thought the act was justified, only IF there was evidence is it justified.

If he protected him after he was a fugitive and in the recent past, then it is not suprising that they would come looking for him at the house. A priest should not harbor war criminals.


My point is that many Serbs-and I am basing this on the ones I know personally as well-have no problems with taking military action on Albanians and frankly don't care that they are being killed. So it would not surpirse me if this priest felt that way. Again, I don't know if he felt this way, but it wouldn't surprise me. The whole reason I became upset at this thread is the assumption is usually "US Bad, Innocent Orthodox priest good." I merely raised my questions for people to think, "hey, maybe the US military knows something we don't."

No, I answered your concerns. I said explicitly that no matter what race a war criminal is, he should be prosecuted.

It is opinion based, because the war in Bosnia has died down and less people are dying. I supported military intervention but I do not believe in bombing civilians. While I believe the operation was justified, the bombing aspect was not. Just like I believe WWII was justified, but nuking two cities was not (I offer this for comparision purposes, I hope this does not turn into a thread about WWII! :p )

Indeed, I agree.

Agreed.

I don't believe that states have 100% sovereignty so that is a moot point with me.

That being said, I don't fall into the trap that all our military interventions are just.

anastasios

Administrator, is one now allowed to use defamatory references to other persons, "ramblings" as being acceptible. It would seem to me that the discussion is much more thwarted by this ad hominem assault than it was by my characterizing the islamists. Furthermore, is it not appropriate in addressing this topic to apply scrutiny to the islamists, their funding, their alliances, their goals? Surely, this is more than "rambling"?

And if it promote so much to better the discussion, I would say that I was overzealous and too passionate in my use of allusions to the "maffia" and "nazis" which I withdraw from consideration again with the understanding that there was no intent of malice.