really happened in Bosnia?
Were the Serbs the criminal
aggressors, as the official story claims, or were they the victims?
Historical and Investigative Research, 19 August 2005
and the Western mass media told the public that the Bosnian Serbs had a
racist and genocidal ideology, and committed atrocities.
But it was Alija Izetbegovic, the leader
of a minority Bosnian Muslim faction, the one that NATO supported,
who wrote a book calling for the slaughter of infidels so that a Muslim
takeover could install an Islamist theocracy in Bosnia (documented in
Part 1, below).
This Alija Izetbegovic
may have participated in the extermination of Serbs and Jews during WWII. After all,
he founded at this time the Young Muslims in Bosnia, in imitation of the Muslim
Brotherhood, an organization that was closely allied with the German
Nazis. HIR does not have materials to positively document
Izetbegovic's participation in the WWII Nazi massacres in
Bosnia. What is well
documented, however, is that in the 1990s Alija
Izetbegovic proudly recreated the SS Handzar Division that the
Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al Husseini had earlier created, for the
German Nazis, out of tens of thousands of
Bosnian Muslim volunteers (documented in
Part 2). This SS Handzar Division
eagerly participated in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of
Serbian, Jewish, and Roma (Gypsy) civilians. It is not unreasonable to
propose that if Alija Izetbegovic was proud enough of the WWII SS Handzar Division
to recreate it in the 1990s, then perhaps he was a Handzar soldier
during the World War.
you get to know Izetbegovic, you are forced to ask this question: Isn't it more likely that the one killing innocent people in the 1990s was
Izetbegovic, and not the Serbs? Yes. Consistent with this
expectation, every allegation against the Serbs
evaporates into nothing the minute one investigates. The
overwhelming, crushing bulk of the evidence supports the view that
in the Yugoslavian civil wars of the 1990s the Serbs behaved much like
did in WWII, when they were the staunchest defenders of the persecuted
Jews in all of Europe. The portrait that was painted of the Serbs in
the 1990s as "the new Nazis" is not only false, it is absurd. For this
reason, the lies we were told about the Bosnian Serbs (repeated to this
day) have required spectacular hoaxes, knowingly perpetrated by the Western mass
media. These are easily shown to be false with a minimum of research, as for
example the accusation that the Bosnian Serbs were running death camps (refuted
in Part 3).
you will encounter here raises the sharpest possible questions about the integrity
of the mass media, and concerning the intentions of the Western powers
that destroyed Yugoslavia.
by Jared Israel,
Emperor's Clothes (21 October 2003)
A few days ago, the
Bosnian Muslim Fundamentalist (or, for short, Islamist) leader,
Alija Izetbegovic, died of heart failure. The Iranian Foreign
Ministry issued a statement praising:
late president's serious attempts to defend the identity and
territorial integrity of his homeland as well as the unity among the
residents and various ethnic races of the country."
State Department praised him as well:
"President Izetbegovic's personal courage helped the Bosnian people
endure one of Europe's greatest tragedies since World War II. His
determined leadership was instrumental in Bosnia and Herzegovina
remaining a unified multiethnic country."
similarity between the two statements. They might have issued from the
same foreign office.
This may be
surprising if you don't know that the Pentagon coordinated Iranian and
Saudi military intervention in Bosnia, on the side of Izetbegovic,
against the Bosnian Serbs and moderate Muslims. This included the
importation of the worst Mujahideen cutthroats - they boasted that "we
do everything with the knife" - to indoctrinate and train Izetbegovic’s
army, and lead it in a campaign of terror.
Department's reference to "Bosnia and Herzegovina remaining a unified
multiethnic country" has one problem: Bosnia was never a country. It was
an administrative unit within the internationally recognized state of
Yugoslavia. Rather than protecting the multiethnic state of Yugoslavia,
Izetbegovic’s fundamentalists fought to secede with the aim of creating
an Islamist republic on this piece of Yugoslav territory. This was
opposed by virtually all the Serbs and probably most Muslims. But it was
backed by the US, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Islamist states.
hype in the Western media,
was not fighting to affirm (let alone reaffirm!) some supposed Bosnian
nationhood. Rather, he called for:
"…the implementation of Islam
in all fields of individuals' personal lives, in family and in
society, by renewal of the Islamic religious thought and creating a
uniform Muslim community from Morocco to Indonesia. ..."
words, the Islamist takeover of Bosnia was intended as a step towards
the creation of a unified Muslim world-state. Quite the opposite
of preserving the nonexistent 'Bosnian nation'! And yet the fiction of a
Bosnian nation, threatened by supposed Serb secessionists (the Serbs
were in fact the
people who didn't want to secede from Yugoslavia) was sold to
ordinary people in the West.
statement refers to Izetbegovic as a unifier among "the various ethnic
races". I wonder, what on earth is an "ethnic race"? Sounds like
something from a Nazi's dream.
was Izetbegovic aiming for unity? And if so, what kind of unity?
Gil-White deals with those questions below.
1. Who was Alija Izetbegovic: Moderate Democrat or Radical Islamist?
Alija Izetbegovic is the Muslim leader whom the
U.S. and NATO supported during the Bosnian civil war in
the 1990s. The Western media and governments recognized
him as President of Bosnia.
According to Newsweek magazine: "The government of Bosnian
President Alija Izetbegovic…has always been committed to a multiethnic
Knight-Ridder News Service stated that: "The Bosnian
[Muslims] are struggling for democracy, human rights, and a multiethnic
And Warren Zimmerman, former US Ambassador to Yugoslavia, wrote
in Foreign Affairs: "Izetbegovic was…A devout Muslim but no extremist,
he consistently advocated the preservation of a multinational Bosnia."
But others disagree.
For example, various writers published on
Emperor's Clothes have argued that Izetbegovic was an
Islamic fundamentalist whose goal was to create, by all
available means, a totalitarian clerical state, modeled
Emperor's Clothes and HIR have argued
that the NATO and Western media blamed the fighting in Bosnia on its
main victims, the Bosnian Serbs. Our research contradicts the official
-- and mainstream media -- story, which has Serbs as opponents of all
Muslims, as if the latter were monolithic. On the contrary, Fikret Abdic, arguably the
most popular Muslim leader, was militarily allied with
the Serbs. There is plenty of evidence that Alija Izetbegovic, who victimized the Serbs, was supported only
by a minority in the Muslim population, and that his
fanatical followers victimized thousands of moderate
So who is telling the truth? Newsweek, Knight-Ridder,
Warren Zimmermann, the rest of the Western media, and a
slew of academics, all of whom claim that Izetbegovic was
a moderate democrat fighting for human rights and
Or are Emperor's Clothes and HIR telling the truth when
we argue that Izetbegovic was always an Islamic Fundamentalist, or Islamist?
Why is this an important
There are three reasons why it matters whether or
not Izetbegovic is a fundamentalist.
First, because NATO intervened politically and
militarily for Izetbegovic. For example, former US
Ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith, admitted in
congressional testimony that the U.S. gave Croatia the
green light to violate international agreements by
letting Iranian weapons reach Izetbegovic's army.
The US also
allied with Iran in order to import foreign mujahideen terrorists into
this was all coordinated directly by Pentagon intelligence.
And NATO repeatedly and massively bombed the
Bosnian Serbs, including with bombs encased in depleted
uranium. The US and NATO backed Izetbegovic with
destruction and death.
Second, because if we are right to say that
Izetbegovic was an Islamist fanatic, and that this was no
secret in Yugoslavia, then the media lied systematically.
It is difficult to explain such uniform media
disinformation absent coordination by the covert services
of Western powers. If we are right about Izetbegovic,
then this constitutes evidence that the West has a
Third, because if Izetbegovic's views were
entirely misrepresented by politicians and the media,
this is evidence that the U.S.-led Empire has a dual
policy regarding Islamic fundamentalism, as we claim. The
US invokes the threat of fundamentalist terror in order
to excuse its military adventures, but - covertly - it
also allies with and sponsors Islamic fundamentalists
around the world.
Before answering whether Alija Izetbegovic is a
fundamentalist, let us provide the necessary background:
a clear definition of what Islamic fundamentalism stands
What is an Islamic fundamentalist?
An Islamic fundamentalist (or Islamist) is a
Muslim who advocates theocratic rule. This means
subordinating the legal system and all aspects of life to
Islamic religious law, or Sharia, which covers personal
It is fashionable in the West to romanticize
this, a process made easier by disregarding the
conditions of life under Islamist rule, which can be
In the Islamist State of Saudi Arabia, for
example, there is a special police, 'The Commission for
the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice,' which
answers directly to Prince Naif, the Minister of the
Interior. These policemen have extensive powers. They
patrol the streets, armed with long clubs, enforcing
Islamic rules of dress and behavior, beating and
arresting those who violate such rules.
This may strike you as thuggery but, to a
fundamentalist, Islam is all; the rest is nothing. Thus,
one prominent Islamic fundamentalist philosopher explains:
the most important thing
that the Quran recommends is: all of Islam;
everything else is nothing more than a detail and
explanation of this central idea. This aspect of
Islam contains the principle of the Islamic Order,
which is to say the union of religion and politics,
but it also has other consequences of a primordial
practical importance, of which the first is the
impossibility of confusing the Islamic Order with the
…There is no secular principle, and the State must be for
Muslims the scrupulous expression of the moral and conceptual pillar
of the religion."
The 'Islamic Order' excludes any secular
principle. That means no non-Islamic public schools, no
non-Islamic trade unions, no non-Islamic political
organizations, no non-Islamic mass media...
And how is the 'Islamic Order' to be created and
enforced? By taking over the modern state with its vast
powers of organization and coercion. As our philosopher says,
the state is to be the "scrupulous expression of the
moral and conceptual pillar of the religion." My
thesaurus offers these synonyms for 'scrupulous':
regulated, accurate, fastidious, careful, and... severe.
Our Islamist philosopher continues:
definition of the Islamic Order is: the unity of religion and law,
education and force, ideals and interests, spiritual society and
State…the Muslim does not exist at all as an independent
(You may be wondering which fundamentalist wrote
these lines. I shall leave you guessing a bit longer.)
Consider the philosopher's use of phrases such as
"the unity of education and force" and "the
Muslim does not exist at all as an independent individual
these ideas are consistent with the traditional teachings of Islam; but
the wording has a 20th century ring, as does this philosopher's reference to
"Islam as a total way of life." Super-strict
Islamic rules combined with an all-powerful Islamic state
to enforce them suggests a modern phenomenon:
Having penned the chilling phrase, "the
unity of education and force," our Islamist philosopher informs us
education of the population, and especially those
media which have an effect on the public such as
newspapers, radio, and television, must be entrusted
to people whose good Islamic reputation, moral
attitude, and intellectual ability are unimpeachable."
And who are these "people whose good
Islamic reputation [and] moral attitude...are
Islamic fundamentalists. So, all the means of
communication and education must be in the hands of
The last quoted paragraph - believe it or not -
appears under the heading "Freedom of Thought."
This is reminiscent of the society that George Orwell
described in his famous novel, "1984." The
difference is that in the Islamic Order, Big Brother is
divinely sanctioned by Allah.
Thus, according to our philosopher, the very
existence of non-Islamic systems is a violent affront.
"It is not in
fact possible for there to be any peace or coexistence between ‘the
Islamic Religion’ and non-Islamic social and political institutions…"
If there can be no
peace or coexistence, then Islam is at war with all non-Islamic
cultural and political institutions. And since
'institutions' do not exist apart from the people
involved with them, this translates into a war against
'infidels', i.e. against non-Muslims - a jihad, or holy
In a section of
his book entitled, "The Relations Of The Islamic
Society With Other Societies," our philosopher quotes the Qur'an. These quotes are presented as fully self-explanatory,
and are neither preceded nor followed by qualification or
incite the believers to combat. If there can be found among you twenty
who will endure, they will vanquish two hundred, if one hundred can be
found, they will vanquish a thousand infidels, because they are people
such as cannot understand."
Why must infidels be slaughtered? Because "they
are people such as cannot understand." That is, they
must be killed for their beliefs.
The philosopher quotes the Qur'an again (and again
without preface or comment):
"And combat on Allah’s path those who combat you, and don’t
disobey. True, Allah does not love the disobedient! And kill them
where you will find them; chase them from where they chased you:
association is a graver sin than murder. But don’t fight them near
the sacred Mosque unless they fight you there first. And if they
fight you there, kill them then. Such is the retribution against
infidels. Should they cease, Allah is, surely, forgiving and
Consider the statement, "Association is a graver sin than
What constitutes 'murder'? If a Muslim kills a
non-Muslim, is that murder? Not according to our Islamist
philosopher. He has quoted a Quranic text that says the killing of an
infidel pleases Allah. Indeed, in the
text, Muslims are enjoined not to disobey Allah but to
kill infidels "where you will find them." Since
killing infidels is a sacred duty, it can't be murder.
A Muslim can only commit murder when he kills
Thus, "Association is a graver sin than
murder" means that for a Muslim to have cordial
relations with a non-Muslim is worse than killing a
What is our philosopher telling Muslims? That as
long as they live in a non-Islamic society, they must
segregate themselves, avoid cordial relations with non-Muslims,
and prepare for the day when they can seize state power
and enforce the Islamic Order.
This, of course, will guarantee growing tension,
leading to civil war...
Our philosopher explains:
"... the Islamic
movement may, or rather should, begin by seizing power as soon as it
possesses a good measure of moral and numerical strength, allowing
it not only to overthrow the non-Islamic power, but also to
establish the new Islamic power."
much to the imagination, does it?
Who is this Islamist philosopher?
Who did you think wrote the above quoted lines?
Osama bin Laden?
Or maybe Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the leader of
Or perhaps you guessed it was some official in
the Wahabbi fundamentalist state of Saudi Arabia?
These are all good guesses. But in fact the
author of these lines is Alija Izetbegovic, leader of the
Bosnian Muslim faction backed by the US and NATO during
Bosnias civil war. And the book
he wrote, and from which all the lines quoted above were taken, is entitled "Islamic
Declaration". (This is sometimes translated, "Islamic
Izetbegovic had his book reissued
before the crucial 1990
Bosnian elections. Thus, it was his political manifesto for the 1990s.
previously heard of this book, you probably didn't think there was
anything scary about it, because the Western press worked hard to make
it seem inoffensive. For example, this is what the Financial Times said:
[Izetbegovic] was sentenced. . .for 14 years, commuted to five, for
writing the 'Islamic Declaration', a political tract which sought to
reconcile European democratic principles with (Sunni) Islamic teaching."
see anything in the quotes from Izetbegovic's book that sounded even remotely like "European
was not jailed for trying to reconcile "European
democratic principles" with Muslim beliefs.
Who would have objected to that? His book was meant to incite hatred
and war against non-Muslims, and such was the determination of the
court that judged him, as the BBC reported in 1983, when the sentence
was passed down:
"...The court found the accused guilty because it
held that their activity had been directed against brotherhood and
unity, and the equality of our nations and nationalities with a view
to destroying Bosnia-Hercegovina as a Socialist Republic and thus of
undermining the social order of the SFRY.
For the criminal act of association for the
purpose of enemy activity and counter-revolutionary threatening of
the social order Alija (Mustafa) Izetbegovic was sentenced to 14
To get the story right, all that the Financial Times
had to do was consult the news reports from 1983, and look at
Izetbegovic's book, as I have done. It is not believable that the
Financial Times did not know about this. But they were interested in
portraying him as a moderate, so they lied.
But the New York Times called him a moderate. . .
President, Mr. Izetbegovic, a Muslim Slav regarded by Western diplomats
as a moderate…"
Were Western diplomats really fooled into
believing Izetbegovic was a moderate? Or did they
just pretend to believe? Here is what former US
ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmerman said in an
"As for Mr. Izetbegovic, we heard that some call him a
Muslim fundamentalist. We know what fundamentalism really does, as
we were its victims in Iran. That is why we do not believe that
Izetbegovic is some sort of fundamentalist. Actually, it seems like
he is a moderate politician who is trying to do the best in a
that some call Mr. Izetbegovic a fundamentalist? Was it a
vague rumor? Remember, Izetbegovic reissued his book in
1990. There is no question that the diplomatic corps was
aware of the book's contents. Moreover, as seen above, Izetbegovic had
been famously imprisoned in Yugoslavia for several years
precisely because of his writings and other activities
meant to incite Islamist violence. None of this was a
secret; everybody in Yugoslavia knew it, and it is stated
in the preface to the French translation of his book (the
one I have been using here).
And note Zimmermann's
1) Fundamentalism is
2) If Izetbegovic
were a fundamentalist, that would be bad;
Izetbegovic is not a fundamentalist.
1) The American
public would rebel if the US government told them it was
backing a fundamentalist (whose great hero, by the way,
is the Ayatollah Khomeini);
2) It would be bad if
the American public rebelled;
3) Therefore we will
simply say that Izetbegovic is a moderate, and the truth
This became the position of the
Western mainstream media,
as I show in part 2 of this series. Almost
without exception, the media -- and, I am afraid, many
academics -- lied about the Izetbegovic regime, precisely
as intended by US officials such as Warren Zimmermann.
Up next I show how
the media went out of its way to paint fascists as victims, and their
victims as fascists: the mainstream media turned Bosnia upside down.
Footnotes and Further