Tuesday, February 3. 2009
Are Americans concerned that Britain is becoming "Europeanised"?
Posted by Joerg Wolf in Transatlantic Relations on Tuesday, February 3. 2009
Even America's most loyal and important ally is not as much appreciated as it used to be in Washington. The UK-US special relationship is being reconsidered in both Britain and the United States.
In an article about the British army's lack of soldiers, lack of money and lack of conviction, The Economist writes:
British commanders have belatedly realised that they have much to learn, or rather relearn, about fighting small wars in distant lands. "We have lost our way," says one general. Underlying this malaise is concern about Britain's relationship with America, its most important ally. Generals worry that the United States is losing confidence in Britain's military worth. Some Americans have indeed been expressing doubts: policymakers ask whether British leaders are losing the will to fight, soldiers whether their British counterparts are losing the ability to do so. There is talk that Britain is becoming "Europeanised", more averse to making war and keener on peacekeeping. Britain remains America's closest and most able ally; its special forces are particularly prized. But one senior official in the former Bush administration says there is "a lot of concern on the US side about whether we are going to have an ally with the capability and willingness to be in the fight with us".
Alex Harrowell with A Fistful of Euros takes issue with the assumptions behind the accusation that Britain is "Europeanised:"
First, the UK cannot do this because, having spent the last 8 years chasing various US-inspired missions, it doesn't have the troops, and more to the point, it doesn't have the air transport fleet to support them in the interior of Asia. Simple. But more importantly, there are two huge unexamined assumptions here. The first is that the Europeans have to come when the US calls them. What is in it for us? After all, NATO declared that the alliance had been invoked back in September 2001, and was told that its assistance was not required, at the same time as hordes of rightwing publicists accused it of not helping. Then, later, the US accepted the need for an international peacekeeping force, which was led by European NATO members for most of its existence.
And then, the US withdrew much of its own forces in Afghanistan for use in Iraq. Specifically, the special forces whose mission in counter-insurgency and as military advisors was crucial in the vast majority of Afghanistan away from Kabul were drawn on, as were the satellite and other reconnaissance assets.
He also asks a tough rhetorical question, which our regular commenter Don Stadler, an American living in London, has been asking many times in the exact opposite way:
If, as they do, the Americans whine about having had to contribute to IFOR/SFOR in Bosnia (which consisted of two European divisions and a partly-US one), why should EU member states happily fork out for a much more dangerous, violent, expensive and uncertain commitment which is not much more remote from their real interests than Bosnia was to the US?
I think the UK understands that to succeed in Afghanistan and elsewhere the United States and NATO need support from its European allies as well. More British troops will not lead to success. Moreover why should Britain continue to carry the burden, if other Europeans are not helping? Besides, what has Britain gained from its "special relationship" with the US in the last three decades?
Last month, British Defense Secretary John Hutton has called upon NATO allies to pull their weight and share the burden in Afghanistan. In one of the most outspoken speeches from a British defense minister in years, Hutton reprimands some EU members for a lack of commitment to global security interests. Atlantic-community.org published excerpts of his speech: UK Slams Poor European Commitment in Afghanistan
Alex Harrowell (or Joerg?) should know better than to ask "tough rhetorical questions" that have easy, rhetorical (sadly!) answers:
The NATO treaty's self-defense provision was never activated in the case of former Yugoslavia, but it was activated in the case of Afghanistan. For any region that claims with such strident shrillness to believe in international law, that should make all the difference.
"NATO declared that the alliance had been invoked back in September 2001, and was told that its assistance was not required"
It seems to me the understanding that "assistance was not required" back in 2001 was probably a confusing, frustrating, but ultimately wise face-saving measure for both sides.
This face-saving measure would presumably have been necessary because most of the European components of NATO where unable to provide very many useful (meaning, not restricted by unrealistic caveats) forces of the type that were needed in the early (non-peacekeeping/reconstruction) phase of the Afghanistan campaign. Also, most European governments needed time to prepare their publics to accept any involvement at all.
Had the US asked for immediate assistance, and been declined, it would have exposed a major rift in the alliance, which would have emboldened the opposing forces. This face-saving measure managed to preserve the image of post-9/11 unity, and postpone the airing of NATO's dirty laundry, at least until after the Taliban had fallen.
Harrowell continues,
"the US withdrew much of its own forces in Afghanistan for use in Iraq...it is no coincidence that, as Antonio Giustozzi writes in Koran, Kalashnikov and Laptop, the Taliban resurgence began in 2003."
I am delighted to hear praise for US special forces; reading the European press, particularly, the socialist organs, one gets the impression that they are all blood-thirsty baby-killers who are creating ten terrorists for every one they kill. So Harrowell valued their contribution and wanted them to stay and fight in Afghanistan; if only he had told us that sooner. Perhaps he did, but his voices got drowned out by all the anti-US hate speech?
Certainly it was no coincidence that the Taliban and al-Qaeda resurgence began after those forces were thoroughly routed in a semi-conventional small war. They had no-where to go but up. And maybe US redeployment into Iraq played a role, but not necessarily the way he assumes. For with the benefit of hindsight, if the Taliban resurgence began in 2003, it really started gaining steam in 2007. Is it a coincidence that this was just when al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia was being dealt a humiliating defeat in Iraq? The US focus on Iraq actually pulled significant jihadist resources away from the Afghanistan battlefield. After all, if you're a Deobandi (which bin Laden is, but seemingly only when its convenient for him), Afghanistan and Pakistan is your main fight; but if you are a Salafist (which is where most of the money and the trans-national, 9/11-capable operatives seem to come from) you can't afford to ignore a battle with the infidel in the heart of the ancient Caliphate. What became a two-front war for the US, also became a two-front war for the jihadists.
Ideally, upon their retreat from Iraq, jihadis would have encountered a capable, trusted ISAF force and a strong central government in Pakistan. They would have been, if you'll forgive the expression, caught between Iraq and a hard place. That now seems unlikely, due to factors such as ISAF underperformance and the Bhutto assassination. But my hope is that, as these jihadist forces re-deploy back to Afghanistan, we will find that they are greatly weakened, and less welcome. How will they explain Iraq to their Afghan brothers? Time will tell.
As to the main topic of the post, certainly it is a concern. But, I am far more concerned about the future of NATO as a military alliance, than the future of the US-UK special military relationship. If in some future circumstance, the UK forges a new political consensus that a war must be fought, its armed forces will be able to re-learn counter-insurgency and small wars as quickly as we have in Iraq. Possibly, even more quickly than that.
That second quote was from Alex Harrowell, not myself I believe. It is a good question, which I will answer here:
The Bosnian war was not fought in American interests, but primarily in European interests. The US came unwillingly, because we did not see the Balkans as a proper US sphere of interest. We came and did 80% of the fighting, because our strongest allies (Britain, Germany, France, and most of NATO) called. The war is long finished, so OF COURSE we complain that Europe still won't muster the small forces needed to keep order in that area and demands US involvement in something which was never our deep concern!
I agree with Alex about the simile between Bosnia and Afghanistan, but let's look at the European response to Afghanoistan, shall we?
The British came in full force, there is little doubt of that. So did the Canadians and possibly the Norwegians and Dutch to a degree. Possibly also some of the Eastern Europeans, I'm not as familiar with the actual details of what they committed and when, but it was substantial in the case of Poland and perhaps some others.
The remainder of NATO (Germany, France, Spain, Italy, etc) came slowly, rteluctantly, with tiny forces, and often although not always refusing combat missions (the French forces are small relative to the Canadians (much less the Brits or Americans) but seems to be as willing to actually fight). This cannot be said of the Germans or some others, alas.
Bottom line: the Yanks came to Bosnia reluctantly and fought your ferking war for you; the Euros (and most particularly the Germans) came to Afghanistan late, reluctant, with small contributions, and have avoided the dangerous jobs.
The analogy is a good one, but the response was not....
Nah, Don, the US, and, primaly, Ms all to not bright wanted to interven there, cuz, those Eurabians are so little aware of the need of expension of that super Albanian country, muslim (umm the great desing was from great Brezinzski : a green belt !!!), in a political corrected language, though really, "jihadism", in a normal language, and guess while hiting the Serbs, she though that she was hitting the commies !!!
so whatever the Europeans thought or made, it wasn't of the "enlightened plan from DC !!!
what a mess !!!
h t t p ://4international.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/the-real-srebrenica-genocide-the-mass-murder-of-serbs-in-srebrenica-and-gorazde/
some delicate interest there :
h t t p://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19960514/ai_n14053484
though no need to think it was that bad !!!!
h t t p://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/pearl123199.htm
"Ms all to not bright" valiant attempt at word play, you only missed by a little. Should be "Ms all not to bright" = Albright.
We intervened in the region for the same reason we intervened in Somalia: to try and prevent genocide. Foolish, perhaps, but that was the main reason.
Of course, once there, we pursued other interests as well. That is to be expected. But we would not be there at all, were it not for the attempted genocides.
I should have also said, I think you make some interesting points, particularly in the last article which points out that former Yugoslavia was fairly tame compared to Rwanda. Presumably, the late Daniel Pearl would have included Darfur on the list with Rwanda, had he lived to write about it.
Also, the Serbs were not along in this misconduct, there was plenty on the Islam side, and it is possible we (NATO) backed the wrong side or should have opposed both sides more fully. The fact is that by the time NATO got involved, the Muslim-sponsored atrocities had become less common, and the Serb-sponsored atrocities more common.
It is certainly very frustrating that, in Islamist circles, NATO and particularly the US is often blamed for the mass death of Muslims in former Yugoslavia, when in fact, NATO was there in part to protect Muslims when their fellow Muslims in the middle east would not or could not.
Nevertheless, I maintain my position that the main reason for the NATO intervention was concern over mass murder, ethnic cleansing, and possible genocide. Other geo-political and financial interests existed, but they were not what drove the intervention.
well, some specialists said that the US didn't want to be left outside this conflict, and the main decisions were imposed by the Clinton's bons offices from the beginnings, and that the EU followed their line as domesticated good boys !!!
In the actual conflict islam vs christians, seems that the not to bright person advantaged Islam, while it would have been raisonable to support the Serbs and avoid to demonise them (which was conveniently forecasted before the bombings) ; if you'd look at my first link, you would have marked that they were as much and "really" massacred, but none cared to denounce the "good" muslim "martyrs" !!!
Now, I am not thanking the Clinton administration, it has set the premises of the next european conflict, big muslim Albania, which is a "mafiosi" state against what is left as christian in this new virtual entity
Specialists? Don't you mean the ubiquitous commenters in the French media with no shortage of exxagerations to call attention to themselves?
The US ended up in a "quagmire" in the former Yugoslavia because the Europeans begged and begged and begged to take care of their security problems for them. Without that, the "major European powers" were fully prepared to live with the guilt of letting mass murder continue 400 km from Vienna because acting against it MIGHT cost a few lives.
Even now in Kosovo, support for "EULEX" is 10% American, there are still US troops in every intervention area of the former Yugoslavia, and there is no sign of them ever being able to leave because the European planners are unable to "nativize" any area that they've been in charge of even for a decade. They will in effect become permanent colonial governors of another part of Europe due entirely to the culture of the continent being unable to get past etnocentrism or propagating the concept of how individual liberties and citizen stakeholding can make for a better self-governing society - all the while lecturing the rest of humanity about not being color blind/etc/etc.
Don S
Just to clean up one thing. The USAF flew 98% of all combat sorties. The other 2% were primarily flown by the Brits. I am not sure where you got your 80% number. I would like to see a link to that.
If you remember this was to be the euro’s finest hour. They were going to handle this. For the US not to allow them to do this was a huge mistake.
When the US finally engaged all the euro’s could do was piss and moan. What the US learned from this was NATO as a command structure was broken and still is. The political masters in places like Berlin, Rome, Brussels, etc wanted to approve target lists, dictate how the war was to be conducted, etc. From this experience the US made a decision never to go down this road again.
From a practical point it clearly demonstrated how pathetic the euro’s had allowed the state of their defense forces to deteriorate. Simple things like air-to-air and ground to air communications could not be conducted except in the clear. This lead to a typical solution for the euro’s, a study committee within NATO to address these problems. Like most things from the euro’s there were lots of talk and little action. The main problems high lighted in the Bosnian operation remain broken today in Afghanistan as it relates to interoperability.
Germany typifies our so-called allies. It does not have the men, equipment, training, or leadership to conduct combat operations. Even more important it lacks the political will and moral courage to do so. The US needs to realize only with a clear and present direct threat to the fatherland Germany will at best stand aside and allow the US to do the heavy lifting. Lacking this threat Germany’s most likely course of action is to undermine US efforts.
stop mourning, Nato was first ment to help the US to keep their hegemony, umm yeah, to protect us, but of what !!!!
Stalin never intended to invade us, he need this free world hole pit to make business, with whom ???? the US of course
Yes, that was so clever of Stalin, to arrange for his own agricultural production to fail, so that he could remain dependent on Western food aid and be unable to invade. Brilliant!
Actually he said so, when he was asked if he wanted to adhere to the Marshall plan either( he, Russia need it badly !!!), and finally rejected it to stay independant of the "manipulative" state departemental american policies, umm, yes, how clever !!!LMAO
Actually Stalin and Molotov rejected the draft plan and didn't even stick around for the negotiations. Plus there was that little matter of the Soviets overthrowing the elected government of Czechoslovakia that meant that most of the foot dragging on implemention vanished in Europe overnight. Hegemony? Then why did the US push for and end to tariffs and greater political unity among the Europeans?
Actually Stalin was quite sly. Note how the US and UK ended up with the french.
PAT
OT
I now understand why David is hot to raise taxes. He and his fellow travellers don't really pay them. They leave it to suckers like you and I to do so. Great gig.
Joe
what I wrote elsewhere, but still can fit my reply to Joe
"I recall you that Roosvelt was collaborating with the Vichy regime (which did had an US diplomatic representation) and nazy Germany until Germany sunk one of your merchandises ship !!! bizarre also with Stalin !!! as we say here it’s called soaking up at all the hayracks !!!or (running with the hare and hunt with the hounds)"
even, also quite anti-semit :
http://kimel.net/fdr.html
"the British had already shown their interest to defend but themselves, after having experienced the mighty Germans in Belgium and then refused to fight on the continent anymore, thus helping the Frenchs to carry on. (ie the retreat of Dunkerke")
http://www.newsweek.com/id/178822
"Then why did the US push for and end to tariffs and greater political unity among the Europeans?"
Did they ? I thought it was Jean Monet the "father"
http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/2/
Well I'm not to sure what the reference to Claude Monet's son has to do with this thread so I must assume you meant Jean Monnet. Monnet is certainly credited with the impetus to beggar the German coal industry and delay German economic recovery through price and output controls. But the creation the ECSC was much later and foisted continued French meddling in the German economy till 1981. The Marshall Plan called for greater cooperation and open markets in 1947.
oh yeah, couldn't be made by the stoopid Frenchs, but by great America, and, surprise, her german protegés, LMAO, only serious people are allowed to claim to initiate legends, BAaawoah !!!!
Well, it actually was another Frenchman, Schulman, who provided the intellectual framework and the political muscle to create the ECSC in 1950. While Monnet is generally credited with the idea of a monetary and trade area which closely modeled what was attempted and was only partially implemented by the Marshall Plan years before. But in the immediate postwar period he was lukewarm to such ideas and did everything possible to keep Germany weak, arranging for France to control the Saar, and rebuilding France as rapidly as possible. France was smart enough to see the handwriting on the wall and figured they better be in front of the parade as opposed to following along with a broom and can.
Well, it actually was another Frenchman, Schulman, Schumann !!!
But in the immediate postwar period he was lukewarm to such ideas and did everything possible to keep Germany weak, arranging for France to control the Saar, and rebuilding France as rapidly as possible. France was smart enough to see the handwriting on the wall and figured they better be in front of the parade as opposed to following along with a broom and can.
Alors que l’Allemagne se reconstruit plus rapidement que la France, il imagine, en 1950, de souder les destins des deux pays par une mise en commun de la production du charbon et de l’acier, matières premières de l’industrie de guerre. Il élabore le projet de Communauté européenne du charbon et de l’acier (CECA) dans sa maison d’Houjarray.
("l’Allemagne se reconstruit plus rapidement" France at the same moment was at war in VietNam, and at the beginnings of Algeria War)
1950-1957 : de la CECA au Traité de Rome
Son idée de mise en commun des productions de charbon et d’acier, soumise au ministre des Affaires Etrangères Robert Schuman, est rendue publique le 9 mai 1950, sous l’appellation de "Déclaration Schuman".
Le texte représente l’acte de naissance de l’Union Européenne et stipule que "L’Europe ne se fera pas d’un coup, ni dans une construction d’ensemble : elle se fera par des réalisations concrètes créant d’abord une solidarité de fait".
Cette union de l’Allemagne, de l’Italie, de la Belgique, des Pays-Bas, du Luxembourg et de la France, est officialisée par le Traité de Paris, signé le 18 avril 1951. La suppression des droits de douane et des restrictions à la circulation de ces matières premières prend effet le 23 juillet 1952.
Jean Monnet est le président de la CECA de 1952 à 1955 mais, après l’échec du plan de Communauté européenne de défense (CED) en 1954, il démissionne de la Haute Autorité de la CECA et crée le Comité d’Action pour les Etats-Unis d’Europe. Ce mouvement, qui rassemble syndicats et politiques des six pays, milite pour une fédération européenne plus ambitieuse dans sa dimension politique.
En 1957, à l’origine du projet de coopération nucléaire EURATOM, il participe étroitement aux négociations de préparation du Traité de Rome, signé le 25 mars, et au projet d’élargissement de la Communauté au Royaume-Uni.
L’année 1975 marque sa retraite politique : Jean Monnet dissout son Comité et rédige ses mémoires.
Il meurt dans sa maison d’Houjarray le 16 mars 1979 ; ses cendres reposent maintenant au Panthéon.
Une résolution des chefs d’Etats et de gouvernement, réunis en Conseil européen à Luxembourg le 2 avril 1976, a décerné à Jean Monnet le titre de "Citoyen d’honneur de l’Europe". Version imprimable
Oh yes, one more thing:
The US is STILL supplying about 30% of the force patrolling Bosnia, 11 years after.
Anyone who believes that German noncombatant forces will still be in Kabul avoiding combat two years from now is - an optimist. They are constantly moaning about how much they want to leave; sooner than later they will put actions to words.
When that time comes, the US will STILL be providing 30% of the force in Bosnia, while also providing forces to replace all the European NATO contingents slinking away.....
And President Obama will be attending European Carnevale celebrations sporting SS uniform and toothbrush mustache, as President's Clinton and Bush did before him....
Don there is a big american base in Bosnia, very useful for the diverse american traffics across the old world and ME, this isn't only for a Nato purpose, just a strategic place !!!
Yeah, a huge American base in Tuzla which shares the runway with the the Bosnian and Herzegovian authorites that run the international airport. That huge contingent of American servicemen consists of three US airman, some 160 private contractors of various nationalities and 1,000 or so soldiers providing security and operating Predator drone missions over the Med, the Black Sea, Iraq and Afghanistan. But of course America can exert it hegemony over the innocent Serbs via 3 US airmen directing air traffic.
Pat, the US doesn't even need the 3 air traffic controllers to exert it's hegenomy, it's the mind-rays, I tell you!
The whole thing reminds me of the song 'Uneasy Rider' many years ago. About a little visit by a 'long-hair' to the 'Dew Drop Inn'. When visiting Europe one needs to keep in mind that many of the natives believe in things which cannot be verified by science OR logic!
Actually Stalin was quite sly. Note how the US and UK ended up with the french.
PAT
OT
I now understand why David is hot to raise taxes. He and his fellow travellers don't really pay them. They leave it to suckers like you and I do so. Great gig.
I would think if the choice was between Bulgaria and France then the US got the far better bargain.
I resemble that remark!
(I am 1/4 Bulgarian, my last name is Hadjisky)
the results of the US policies in Kosovo :
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/102qnsba.asp
yeah, and what's new pussy cat ???
still the the same ol cheat, Biden's relay...
http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2008/08/obama_picks_prime_serbhater.html
God, help the Serbs !!!
I would certainly agree that the Serbs need help if they continue to peddle stories that are simply not true. The link to Byzantine Sacred Art is just a rehash of articles from any number of Serb apologist, mainly the government of Serbia supported Serbiana, and conspiracy web sites. Let's be clear there is no record of Biden saying anything about Serbs in concentration camps in the Congressional Record or in any primary source any where. And I would challenge Marie Claude to find one.
Sen Biden does indeed support Albania and an independent Kosovo but has never been a lobbyist, a felony in the US, for either. Perhaps if the Serbs had merely stopped killing and dispossesing its fellow citizens because of ethnicity or religion they might actually have held on to some of their territory and not ended up as well-deserved pariahs.
I am afraid that you are wrong about the whole story, though, officially it's not an american problem, uh, those stupid europeans can't understand how nice it is to live with pacific mafiosi muslim Albanians, got to remember "seven", there will much more crual scenari that can be written
if my links on't convince you (I have more in store), and you could get an eye on "jihad watch"
MC,
Are you talking about [url=http://www.jihadwatch.org/]Robert Spencer's site[/url]?
There is some excellent information there. Spencer has studied the Koran closely, with a critical eye, and also follows current events closely. However, in my opinion (and this is only a small complaint), Spencer tends to take a little too literally the Muslim claim that they follow the Koran exactly in every word. All fundamentalists claim to follow their religion exactly, but none of them do at all times or over the long term. I prefer [url=http://www.danielpipes.org/]Daniel Pipes[/url] approach, which has a lot in agreement with Spencer but is more empirical or observational. Perhaps you will enjoy reading Pipes as well as Jihad Watch.
I'll grant you, Spencer has much better coverage of the Albania/Kosovo/etc/ question than Pipes.
Of course, to even mention either of these two sites proves that you and I are the worst sort of racists, according to some people. Such is life.
I know both sites, Robert Spence is more percutant, he bases his dires on facts ; I had hard times to adhere at the beginnings, but it is blurring our face to ignore what is hidden behind facts
OK, then link to one source, other than these Serb sites, that refers to an actual honest-to-God quote(newspaper, interview, Congressional Record, testimony etc,) that exists other than in that great echo chamber of the internet. Show me where, as the site claims, that Sen. Biden committed a felony and was a lobbyist for the Albanians? Or suggested anything about concentration camps other than to condemn the ones the Serbs were operating. Come one, put up or shut up!
BTW, Jihad Watch has lately run into some problems as a blogger in Canada found that one of the sources of funding for the site came from the American Council for Kosovo which in spite of the name is a front for the Serbian Radical Party. It's founder is currently on trial in The Hague for war crimes. But aside from that there is not, on the Jihad Watch site, one single mention, except for in the comments, about concentration camps for Serbs or Biden as a lobbyist.
http://www.kejda.net/2008/08/08/robert-spencers-connections-the-james-jatras-file/
OK, Kejda is from Albanian origin, what did you expect her to say ??? I notice she is an Obama partisan too, and that Mr Spencer isn't
so it is a "truth" vs another's, or many others', cuz there are many people there that swear on their "truths"
And you didn't even bother to check for the correct spelling after my typo, try Robert Schuman next time. And a specific response to what Kejda argued would be pertinent rather than a shoulder shrug and an ad hominem. And if you had bothered to check Kjeda is considered Jewish and not as you imply Muslim.
yeah, I check all your stuffs :lol:
I know she is of 75% american jewish that voted for Obama
How does one become 75% American if you are born in Albania and were raised Jewish? If you don't know then don't just make stuff up. Kejda just recently became an American citizen and lives in NYC with her husband, Michael, who as far as I know is also Albanian though possibly is an American citizen now. Which makes them both 100% American.
BTW did you ever find any specific proof of your touting the Biden story or are you simply going to keep badly changing the subject. If, as you claim, there are many truths, then perhaps you could provide one of those truths rather than the opinion of one of the hundreds of pro-Serb sites that are funded by the Serbs? But I will not expect much except another volte face.
I would but it seems I constantly have to make sure that some people stop putting their fingers in electtic outlets because it feels good for a few seconds. Plus still no links about the concentration camp or the Biden charge?
OK Papy you won !!!
http ://www.srebrenica-report.com/index.htm
http ://www.srebrenica-report.com/hoax.htm
http ://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19960514/ai_n14053484
http ://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4jqqc_greater-albania_politics
http ://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/pearl123199.htm
http ://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859738079/ref=ase_robertspencer-20/103-1603172-8127010?v=glance&s=books
http ://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE0D9173BF936A25757C0A963958260
All that work and still not one link that substantiates the charge that Biden was a lobbyist or that he called for concentration camps for the Serbs. Do you actually take the time to read the comment thread and respond to specifics or just simply try to bury an embarassing comment in a mountain of superfluous citations? At least this time a couple of the links went to reputable sites but alas the rest are the same apologetics from Serb nationalists ala Milosevic.
nah, I don't care lol
um, the links didn't represent a lately work, got them since a few years, umm, funny, some others find them percutant enough, I suspect that you are Pat the Grumb ; as far as joe Biden, ie Jihad watch lol
http ://www.4biden.com/news/98/
http ://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022115.php/
http ://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023777.php
Ok, aside from reminding me what an idiot Julia Gorin is where is the concentration camp claim or the equally despicable claim that Biden was a lobbyist for Albanian Muslims? Either you can back up that claim or not? The 2nd link acknowledges one charge made by Kejda, referred to by a Muslim name at Jihad Watch, in that Spencer and Jatras admit to getting money from a Serbian group that is run by the Serbian government.
With Jihad Watch and most of the other Serb apologist groups the view of their reliability has suffered mightily since Gorin engaged in a series of charges that Michael Totten and LGF were in cahoots with the Muslims and the Americans and the Israelis in covering up Albanian atrocities. The problem Spencer has is that this info was publicized and most people acknowledged the brutality of the war and judged that the Serbs were far more complicit in the killing of civilians, breaking its laws and promises and ethnic cleansing.
ok, your version vs many experts versions, being lately on LGF ? bizarre this conspiration !!!!
what do you think I am going to trust ?
No, I said that Gorin had made a fool out of herself by engaging in a series or arguments with Totten and Johnson by misrepresenting her expertise and trying to raise doubts about Totten's first hand experience in Kosovo, Serbia and Albania which he was more than open about the fact that he wasn't able to see everything. I made no claim about experts and I know who you will trust simply by your constant referral to opinion sites rather than linking to any primary sources.
check my links above !!!
duno what you call no experts, (and I'm not quoting R Spencer, though for you Kejda is one)
But I suppose it's ok to belong to a Facebook that calls for the forcible removal of all Turks from Anatolia and killing all the Muslims ranks in reliability with the WSJ and the NYT. I guess we shouldn't judge by the quality of the company Spencer keeps? Oops!
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32745_Robert_Spencer_Joins_Genocidal_Facebook_Group
Wow. Ripped from the headlines.
There's a reason they call politics Byzantine.
I will certainly be following this story. This looks like a good time to re-examine Spencer's work and to see if perhaps there have been hints that it is all "speaking in code" and what he really wants is some sort of bloody reconquest.
But keep in mind, people like him who work so close to the coal-face, have huge egos. It might be that he got genuinely fooled by whoever convinced him to join this facebook group, and is too vain to admit it.
We will see.
"too vain to admit it"
Oops he has admitted it.
Spencer thinks he was the victim of an Internet "prank". Furthermore, he claims to have only been a member of Facebook for "[url=http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024805.php]a few months ago and haven't spent much time with it[/url]". So he is new to it. The basic concept of "friends" on Facebook seems simple to me, but the exact etiquette of any site can take quite a while to figure out. Spencer may be guilty of nothing more than failing to properly vet his facebook invitations.
Still, he could have been more gracious about getting caught. I'm keeping my opinion that Spencer has a huge ego. I recognize the disease, don't we all :-p
"Spencer thinks he was the victim of an Internet "prank". '
Bull.
Go over to the thread Pat linked to on LGF. Read the links that medura and others have posted about Spencer's writing.
And as of yesterday, Facebook has banned the group in question - but Spencer STILL has noot withdrawn from other Facebook groups that Cato pointed out.
Spencer's ONLY response has been to accuse Cato of violating Facebook's TOS (which he hasn't) and tried to get him banned.
Spencer has actually tried to make the argument that Vlaams Belang is not really a racial supremist group.
I've been in on this debacle from the beginning. Spencer once posted on LGF that he hoped these groups would eventually 'come around' but for the time being, in Europe, they are the only anti-Islamist game in town. I asked him 'when?' do you expect them to come around?
He had no answer.
medura = Medusa = Kejda Gjermani?
OK I will read these comments and of course the ones from Cato the Elder.
As I suggested in my earlier comment, both this story and my opinion of it, are developing.
Pamela, you and Pat seem to have been following this for quite a while, so I can understand how to you this story isn't new or "developing". So maybe I should say that the current chapter of this story, is still developing. Any additional links you have are greatly appreciated.
Kejda Gjermani posts as Medaura. I hadn't seen her comment as Medusa anywhere so I can only assume that some that are unhappy with her research have made a slight alteration.
As to Spencer I followed his site for a few years but found there to be three insurmountable problems. He misrepresented documents that had been submitted to the UN as UN studies. The continued tiresomeness of constantly blaming everything bad as the fault of all Muslims rather than specific groups. And that he and Jatras represented the American Council for Kosovo but were actually fronting for the Serbian National Council of Kosovo which is headquartered in Belgrad and receives it funding from the Serbian government.
To be perfectly honest I don't really have a real philosphical objection to the source of their funding. But considering the attempts to hide or dismiss these sources makes both enterprises suspect.
I have probably over 100 links tracking this. It would take you a year to read it all.
But Charles put up another thread with 2 links yesterday evening that sums up some things you should be aware of.
Especially read kejda's on the Jatras file (kedja is medaura)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32780/comments/#cc6714577
Here's the best background-in-one-piece I can give you - from Kejda again.
JihadwatchWatch: Robert Spencer’s amorous flirt with European Fascism
http://www.kejda.net/2008/11/07/jihadwatchwatch-robert-spencers-amorous-flirt-with-european-fascism/
woah, it's Spencer fest :lol:
Well I also find that he pushes a bit too much into the corner, though we get aware of the facts through the articles, and the comments part is often "educative" too
"I know she is of 75% american jewish that voted for Obama"
I think she's implying that there was overwhelming Jewish support for Barack Obama, and therefore Obama is part of a grand conspiracy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Actually, there was also overwhelming black and latino support as well, so we have an Afro-Hispanic-Semitic conspiracy against ....what?
What, Pres Obama is an agent of ZOG? I thought it was the Masons, either Ancient Free and Accepted or Prince Hall. It's so hard to keep up these days. Hmmm, since both white and black Masonic groups are in accord now maybe they have decided to take their orders from AIPAC. Unless of course they are Albanian and then everybody knows what they are.
kedja says on her own website
Nationality: Albanian
Likely Ethnic Makeup:
At least 25% but less than 50% Ashkenazi Jewish
The rest is Albanian, but may contain traces of polish, greek, and other nuts
she has written elsewhere she did not know of any Jewish 'heritage' until she was grown
there is no way to verify anything she claims about herself
she is a Albanian muslim apologist-probably muslim herself
are you one of her sock puppets?
Joerg-You've been spammed! BTW is "pommer" a pear in German as well as English?
Still waiting for a response to the original charge that Biden was a lobbyist and the quote concerning concentration camps. Its pretty well established that there was not the level of genocide that some newspapers claimed but that was more than likely the result of the ineptness of the Serbs and not from lack of trying. Or is it some plot that the bulk of the ICJ investigations concern actions of the Serbs rather than any of the other groups that the Serbs lost a series of wars too. Serbia is ripe for this kind of nationalistic self-pity considering that they view themselves as the legitimate rulers and had the strongest army at the beginning of the new Balkan Wars. They couldn't possibly have lost so it must be either the UN, or NATO, the Muslims, the Pope or the Jews that "...stabbed them in the back."
Contact Us
ar-team AT atlanticreview.org
We are available for interviews, and appreciate feedback and suggestions.
Subscribe and Follow
You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW,
a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis.
More about us.
Follow Atlantic Review on
Facebook or on
Twitter.
Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter.
Sponsor
SUPPORT THIS SITE
or 
:Blogroll
Hot Topics
Afghanistan
Anti-Americanism
Economics
Iran
Iraq
Merkel
Polls
Terrorism
Click here for the full list of all topics.
