AGGIORNAMENTI SU BOBBY FISHER


Vedi anche:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3654
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3659

SCACCHI: FISHER CHIEDE ASILO IN SERBIA/MONTENEGRO

(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 2 AGO - Bobby Fisher, l'americano ex campione
mondiale di scacchi arrestato nei giorni scorsi in Giappone su mandato
di cattura degli Usa, avrebbe chiesto asilo politico a Serbia e
Montenegro e starebbe negoziando con Tokyo il suo trasferimento a
Belgrado: lo sostiene il presidente della federazione serbomontenegrina
di scacchi Bozidar Ivanovic. Fisher, noto per il carattere insofferente
e i gesti clamorosi, era ricercato dalla giustizia americana per aver
violato nel 1992, nel pieno delle guerre balcaniche, l'embargo
internazionale decretato contro la Jugoslavia di Slobodan Milosevic.
Incurante degli ostracismi diplomatici, l'americano aveva giocato a
Sveti Stefan, in Montenegro, contro l'eterno rivale, quel russo Boris
Spassky al quale aveva tolto nel 1970 il titolo mondiale. La borsa
dell'incontro, ovviamente ben pubblicizzato dal regime di Milosevic,
era stata di un milione di dollari, al quale si era aggiunta la
soddisfazione di una nuova vittoria. A favore dello scacchista
americano e' intervenuto lo stesso presidente montenegrino Filip
Vujanovic, che ha definito un ''obbligo morale'' per Podgorica aiutare
Fisher. Secondo la stampa serbomontenegrina, che cita Ivanovic, il
campione statunitense avrebbe avuto dalle imbarazzate autorita'
giapponesi una scelta di cinque paesi disposti ad accogliere una
richiesta di asilo politico (fra cui Russia e Filippine), e avrebbe
decisamente optato per Serbia e Montenegro. Tanto per non smentire la
sua fama di ribelle: solo qualche anno fa, sarebbe stato enorme lo
scandalo di un vip americano che chiede asilo politico a Belgrado.
(ANSA). OT
02/08/2004 13:21
http://www.ansa.it/balcani/serbiamontenegro/20040802132133030147.html

UN COMITATO PER LA LIBERAZIONE DI BOBBY FISHER

-------- Original Message Minja --------
Subject: BOBBY FISCHER UPDATE
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 06:55:45 -0000
From: John Bosnitch

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 31, 2004

Bobby Fischer hires a lawyer… Masako

She is a young, attractive Japanese professional. She studied abroad
and
can function well in English in a field dominated by men. Like the
Japanese
Crown Princess Masako, with whom she shares the same first name, this
Masako
is an expert in a field tied to international relations. But Masako
Suzuki
is not giving up her profession - quite the opposite - she has just
taken on
a high-profile legal challenge involving chess legend Bobby Fischer.

Fischer, who has been detained at Narita Airport since July 13 for
allegedly
carrying a revoked U.S. passport, has appointed lawyer Masako Suzuki as
his
legal counsel in his fight against his "kidnapping" by Japanese
Immigration
authorities. Masako studied in the United States and specializes in
immigration-related cases. She will be filing documents in support of
Fischer’s appeal to the Justice Ministry by Monday, after having
successfully negotiated an extension from the original Friday midnight
deadline. Fischer had not wished to appoint counsel, but he acted on
the
advice of his supporters to try to protect his rights in the face of his
continuing "unlawful detention."

The appointment of counsel follows the rejection on Friday of Fischer’s
initial application for a provisional release. Fischer had applied for
release with the backing of Japanese former Vice Foreign Minister Ichiji
Ishii, a friend who came forward to act as his guarantor. Temporary
immigration detention in Tokyo’s Narita Airport can last up to 60 days
and
provisional release in the early part of that period is highly unusual.
Nevertheless, Fischer’s new lawyer is filing another request for a
provisional release and is citing additional grounds, including a
complaint
that the airport jail in which Fischer is confined allows smokers
access to
cigarettes all day, sickening Fischer, who is 61, a nonsmoker, and has
already complained of a lack of fresh air and sunlight.

John Bosnitch, a Tokyo-based Canadian communications consultant who
intervened in the Immigration hearings to try to protect Fischer’s
rights,
said Fischer has not claimed any other citizenship despite the fact
that he
has all the necessary documents to get a German passport. Bosnitch
calls
the deportation a "kidnapping on trumped up charges that constitute
political persecution and violate the UN Charter of Human Rights." He
says
Fischer’s U.S. passport was valid and had three years remaining validity
when it was "illegally seized by Japanese officials on U.S. orders."

Bosnitch, who heads the Tokyo-based Committee to Free Bobby Fischer,
says
the United States has flagrantly violated its own laws and international
treaties in its attack on Bobby Fischer and needs to be told that
"might is
not always right" by the international community. According to Ms.
Miyoko
Watai, the acting president of the Japan Chess Association, Fischer
expects
U.S. officials to soon order Japan to violate its own laws and to simply
hand him over without due process. Masako Suzuki has her work cut out
for her.

- 30 -

(Masako photo available on e-mail request)

Media Contact:
John Bosnitch
Committee to Free Bobby Fischer
+81(90)8119-6679
j o h n . b @ i m c n e w s . c o m
http://www.freebobbyfischer.net

Soldati di ventura / Soldiers of Good Fortune

Sono mercenari del terzo millennio - e' vero - ma mercenari ed
assassini restano: checche' ne dica qualche ministro della Repubblica,
checche' ne dica qualche documentario para-scientifico presentato da
Piero Angela (vedi in fondo, il seguito di una polemica iniziata da
alcune settimane nei confronti di SuperQuark). Stiamo parlando di
personaggi utilizzati per operazioni militari delicate, scabrose, da
effettuare al di fuori di ogni controllo ed all'oscuro dei media e
delle opinioni pubbliche. Come la pulizia etnica delle zone della
Croazia a maggioranza serba.
Ne parla ampiamente anche questo articolo di Barry Yeoman, apparso
sulla rivista progressista statunitense "Mother Jones" un anno fa -
segnalato da Paolo Teobaldelli, che ringraziamo. (IS)


---

http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/soldiersfortune.html


Soldiers of Good Fortune

They fly helicopters, guard military bases, and provide reconnaissance.
They're private military companies—and they're replacing U.S. soldiers
in the war on terrorism.

By Barry Yeoman

Originally published in Mother Jones, May/June 2003

AT A REMOTE TACTICAL training camp, in a swamp 25 miles from the
world's largest naval base, six U.S. sailors are gearing up for their
part in President Bush's war on terrorism. Dressed in camouflage on a
January afternoon, they wear protective masks and carry nine-millimeter
Berettas that fire non-lethal bullets filled with colored soap. Their
mission: recapture a ship—actually a three-story-high model constructed
of gray steel cargo containers—from armed hijackers.

The men approach the front of the vessel in formation, weapons drawn,
then silently walk the length of the ship. Suddenly, as they turn the
comer, two "terrorists" spring out from behind a plywood barricade and
storm the sailors, guns blazing. The trainees, who have instinctively
crowded together, prove easy pickings: Though they outnumber their
enemy 3-to-1, every one of them gets hit. They return from the ambush
with heads hung, covered in pink dye.

"You had people hiding behind their teammates!" barks their instructor,
Tony Torres, a compact man with freckles and salt-and-pepper hair.
"That's as shameful a thing as I can think of. That's fucked up. That's
just fucked up." When approaching a "bad guy," Torres reminds them, a
unit must move aggressively, fanning out to divert the terrorists'
attention. "You guys need to get your shit together," he scolds.
"There's not a lot of cover in this structure. The only thing to do is
move toward your threat."

The men listen attentively. They know that Torres, a Navy vet, honed
his skills during nine years in the service, performing
search-and-rescue operations and providing nuclear-weapons security.
But Torres no longer works for the military. These days he is an
employee of Blackwater USA, a private company that contracts with the
U.S. armed forces to train soldiers and guard government buildings
around the world. Every day, the Navy sends chartered buses full of
trainees from Naval Station Norfolk to the company's 5,200-acre
facility in Moyock, North Carolina. Last fall, Blackwater signed a
$35.7 million contract with the Pentagon to train more than 10,000
sailors from Virginia, Texas, and California each year in "force
protection." Other contracts are so secret, says Blackwater president
Gary Jackson, that he can't tell one federal agency about the business
he's doing with another.

When Blackwater opened in 1998, the business of war didn't look like
such a sure bet. "This was a roulette, a crapshoot," recalls Jackson, a
former Navy SEAL. During the Gulf War, the Pentagon had begun replacing
soldiers with private contractors, relying on civilian businesses to
provide logistical support to troops on the front lines. Blackwater's
founders were banking on predictions that the military was eager to
speed up the process, privatizing many jobs traditionally reserved for
uniformed troops. Their investment paid off: Since the attacks of
September 11, the company has seen its business boom—enough to warrant
a major expansion of its training facility this year. "To contemplate
outsourcing tactical, strategic, firearms-type training—high-risk
training—is thinking outside the box," Jackson says. "Is this
happening? Yes, this is happening."

As the U.S. military wages the war on terrorism, it is increasingly
relying on for-profit companies like Blackwater to do work normally
performed by soldiers. Defense contractors now do more than simply
build airplanes-they maintain those planes on the battlefield and even
fly them in some of the world's most troubled conflict zones. Private
military companies supply bodyguards for the president of Afghanistan,
construct detention camps to hold suspected terrorists at Guantanamo
Bay, and pilot armed reconnaissance planes and helicopter gunships to
eradicate coca crops in Colombia. They operate the intelligence and
communications systems at the U.S. Northern Command in Colorado, which
is responsible for coordinating a response to any attack on the United
States. And licensed by the State Department, they are contracting with
foreign governments, training soldiers and reorganizing militaries in
Nigeria, Bulgaria, Taiwan, and Equatorial Guinea.

In recent months, private military companies have also played a key
role in preparing for a war with Iraq. They supply essential support to
military bases throughout the Persian Gulf, from operating mess halls
to furnishing security. They provide armed guards at a U.S. Army base
in Qatar, and they use live ammunition to train soldiers at Camp Doha
in Kuwait, where a contractor, whose company ran a computer system that
tracks soldiers in the field, was killed by terrorists last January.
They also maintain an array of weapons systems vital to an invasion of
Iraq, including the B-2 bomber, F-117 stealth fighter, Apache
helicopter, KC-10 refueling tanker, U-2 reconnaissance plane, and the
unmanned Global Hawk reconnaissance unit. In an all-out war against
Saddam Hussein, the military was expected to use as many as 20,000
private contractors in the Persian Gulf That would be 1 civilian for
every 10 soldiers—a 10-fold increase over the first Gulf War.

Indeed, the Bush administration's push to privatize war is swiftly
turning the military-industrial complex of old into something even
more far-reaching: a complex of military industries that do everything
but fire weapons. For-profit military companies now enjoy an estimated
$100 billion in business worldwide each year, with much of the money
going to Fortune 500 firms like Halliburton, DynCorp, Lockheed Martin,
and Raytheon. Secretary of the Army Thomas White, a former vice
chairman of Enron, "has really put a mark on the wall for getting
government employees out of certain functions in the military," says
retired Colonel Tom Sweeney, professor of strategic logistics at the
U.S. Army War College. "It allows you to focus your manpower on the
battlefield kinds of missions."

Private military companies, for their part, are focusing much of their
manpower on Capitol Hill. Many are staffed with retired military
officers who are well connected at the Pentagon—putting them in a prime
position to influence government policy and drive more business to
their firms. In one instance, private contractors successfully
pressured the government to lift a ban on American companies providing
military assistance to Equatorial Guinea, a West African nation accused
of brutal human-rights violations. Because they operate with little
oversight, using contractors also enables the military to skirt troop
limits imposed by Congress and to carry out clandestine operations
without committing U.S. troops or attracting public attention. "Private
military corporations become a way to distance themselves and create
what we used to call 'plausible deniability," says Daniel Nelson, a
former professor of civil-military relations at the Defense
Department's Marshall European Center for Security Studies. "It's
disastrous for democracy."

THE PUSH TO PRIVATIZE WAR got its start during the administration of
the elder President Bush. After the Gulf War ended, the Pentagon, then
headed by Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, paid a Halliburton subsidiary
called Brown & Root Services nearly $9 million to study how private
military companies could provide support for American soldiers in
combat zones. Cheney went on to serve as CEO of Halliburton—and Brown &
Root, now known as Halliburton KBR, has since been awarded at least
$2.5 billion to construct and run military bases, some in secret
locations, as part of the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program.
In March, the Pentagon hired Cheney's former firm to fight fires in
Iraq if Saddam Hussein sabotages oil wells during a U.S. attack.

Pentagon officials say they rely on firms like Halliburton because the
private sector works faster and cheaper than the military. When U.S.
Marines distributed relief supplies in Somalia in 1992, for example,
the military contracted with Brown & Root for logistical support. "They
had laborers and vehicles at the Port of Mogadishu within 11 hours
after we had given them notice," recalls Don Trautner, who runs the
Army logistics program.

The use of private military companies, which gained considerable
momentum under President Clinton, has escalated under the Bush
administration. "There has been a dramatic increase in the military's
reliance on contractor personnel to provide a wide range of support
services for overseas operations," one Washington law firm advises its
defense-company clients in a recent briefing paper. "In addition, the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, resulted in a rapid expansion
of U.S. military activity in many areas of the globe, and President
Bush's ongoing war on terrorism will likely require even greater
contractor support for military operations in the future."

Because the Geneva Convention expressly bans the use of
mercenaries—individual soldiers of fortune who fight solely for
personal gain—private military companies are careful to distance
themselves from any associations with such hired guns. To emphasize
their experience and professionalism, many firms maintain websites
brimming with colorful PR material; the industry even funds an advocacy
group, the International Peace Operations Association, which portrays
military firms as more capable and accountable than the Pentagon.
"These companies want to run a professional operation," says the
group's director, Doug Brooks. "Their incentive is to make money. How
do you make money? You make sure you don't screw up."

When the companies do screw up, however, their status as private
entities often shields them—and the government—from public scrutiny. In
2001, an Alabama-based firm called Aviation Development Corp. that
provided reconnaissance for the CIA in South America misidentified an
errant plane as possibly belonging to cocaine traffickers. Based on the
company's information, the Peruvian air force shot down the aircraft,
killing a U.S. missionary and her seven-month-old daughter. Afterward,
when members of Congress tried to investigate, the State Department and
the CIA refused to provide any information, citing privacy concerns.
"We can't talk about it," administration officials told Congress,
according to a source familiar with the incident. "It's a private
entity. Call the company."

The lack of oversight alarms some members of Congress. "Under a shroud
of secrecy, the United States is carrying out military missions with
people who don't have the same level of accountability," says Rep. Jan
Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a leading congressional critic of privatized war.
"We have individuals who are not obligated to follow orders or follow
the Military Code of Conduct. Their main obligation is to their
employer, not to their country."

Private military companies emphasize their patriotism and expertise,
positioning themselves as a sort of corporate battalion staffed by
ex-soldiers who remain eager to serve their country. Military
Professional Resources Inc., one of the largest and most prestigious
firms, boasts that it can call on 12,500 veterans with expertise in
everything from nuclear operations to submarine attacks. MPRI deploys
its private troops to run Army recruitment centers across the country,
train soldiers to serve as key staff officers in the field, beef up
security at U.S. military bases in Korea, and train foreign armies from
Kuwait to South Africa. At the highest echelons, the Virginia-based
firm is led by retired General Carl Vuono, who served as Army chief of
staff during the Gulf War and the U.S. invasion of Panama. Assisting
him are General Crosbie Saint, former commander of the U.S. Army in
Europe; Lt. General Harry Soyster, former head of the Defense
Intelligence Agency; and General Ron Griffith, former Army vice chief
of staff.

It is precisely this concentration of experience that makes military
firms so politically formidable. Their executives have worked with—and
sometimes commanded—officials in the U.S. military, diplomatic, and
intelligence communities. (Secretary of State Colin Powell describes
General Vuono, his one-time boss, as "one of my dearest friends.")
"Someone at MPRI opens the Defense Department phone book and says, 'Oh,
so-and-so, I served with him,'" explains Nelson, the former Marshall
Center professor. "He picks up the phone: 'Joe, remember me? I'm
working with MPRI now. Hey, listen, bud, we have a real opportunity to
go to Equatorial Guinea.' Nothing more complex than that. It is a
relationship based on years of camaraderie." (MPRI—along with
Halliburton and DynCorp—declined requests for interviews from Mother
Jones.)

The companies don't rely on informal networking alone, though. They
also pour plenty of money into the political system—especially into the
re-election war chests of lawmakers who oversee their business. An
analysis by Mother Jones shows that 17 of the nation's leading private
military firms have invested more than $12.4 million in congressional
and presidential campaigns since 1999. DynCorp, a Virginia-based
military and technology company that receives more than 96 percent of
its $2 billion in annual revenues from the federal government, wrote
more than a dozen checks to the Republican National Committee over the
past three years and made dozens of other contributions to key Capitol
Hill lawmakers on committees that deal with defense issues.

The firms also maintain platoons of Washington lobbyists to help keep
government contracts headed their way. In 2001, according to the most
recent federal disclosure forms, 10 private military companies spent
more than $32 million on lobbying. DynCorp retained two lobbying firms
that year to successfully block a bill that would have forced federal
agencies to justify private contracts on cost-saving grounds. MPRI'S
parent company, L-3 Communications, had more than a dozen lobbyists
working on its behalf, including Linda Daschle, wife of Senate Minority
Leader Tom Daschle. Last year L-3 won $1.7 billion in Defense
Department contracts.

THE CAMPAIGN CASH and personal connections give private military
companies an unusual degree of influence, even by Washington standards.
In at least one case, a company has successfully shifted U.S. foreign
policy to bolster its bottom line. In 1998, the government of
Equatorial Guinea asked MPRI to evaluate its defense systems,
particularly its need for a coast guard to protect its oil reserves. To
do so, MPRI needed a license from the U.S. State Department. But the
Clinton administration flatly rejected the company's request, citing
the West African nation's egregious record of torturing and murdering
political dissidents.

MPRI launched a full-scale blitz to overturn the decision, quietly
dispatching company officials to work the hallways of the Pentagon,
State Department, and Capitol. "This is the kind of lobbying that's
surgically executed," says Rep. Schakowsky. "This is not something they
want a wide discussion on in Congress." MPRI's executives argued that
the United States should be engaging Equatorial Guinea, both to improve
its record on human rights and to ensure access to its oil reserves. It
didn't hurt that the company could effectively pull rank, citing its
extensive military experience. "Remember, these are high-level
four-star generals, who can really make an argument that this is
consistent with foreign policy," says Deborah Avant, an
international-affairs expert at George Washington University.

In 2000, the State Department did an about-face and issued a license to
MPRI. Bennett Freeman, a high-ranking State Department official who
initially opposed the deal, says he changed his mind after meeting with
Lt. General Harry Soyster of MPRI, who convinced him that the company
would include human-rights training in its work. "These private
military companies, if properly directed by U.S. government officials,
can in fact play positive roles," Freeman says. MPRI refuses to reveal
the terms of its contract with Equatorial Guinea.

The United States has a history of dispatching private military
companies to handle the dirtiest foreign assignments. The Pentagon
quietly hired for-profit firms to train Vietnamese troops before
America officially entered the war, and the CIA secretly used private
companies to transport weapons to the Nicaraguan contras during the
1980s after Congress had cut off aid. But as the Bush administration
replaces record numbers of soldiers with contractors, it creates more
opportunities for private firms to carry out clandestine operations
banned by Congress or unpopular with the public. "We can see some merit
in using an outside contractor," Charles Snyder, deputy assistant
secretary of state for African affairs, recently told reporters,
"because then we're not using U.S. uniforms and bodies."

Like the Clinton administration, the Bush administration is relying
heavily on private military companies to wage the war on drugs in South
America. Federal law bans U.S. soldiers from participating in
Colombia's war against left-wing rebels and from training army units
with ties to right-wing paramilitaries infamous for torture and
political killings. There are no such restrictions on for-profit
companies, though, and since the late 1990s, the United States has paid
private military companies an estimated $1.2 billion, both to eradicate
coca crops and to help the Colombian army put down rebels who use the
drug trade to finance their insurgency.

The largest beneficiary of this privatized war has been DynCorp, which
is helping Colombia's national police destroy coca crops with aerial
defoliants. But according to experts familiar with the war, the
company's role goes well beyond spraying fields. DynCorp employees "are
engaged in combatant roles, fighting in counterinsurgency operations
against the Colombian rebel groups," says Peter Singer, a
foreign-policy fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of
Corporate Warriors. "Indeed, the DynCorp personnel have a local
reputation for being both arrogant and far too willing to get 'wet,'
going out on frequent combat missions and engaging in firefights."
DynCorp has not responded to the allegation.

Relying on DynCorp and other private military companies has enabled
Washington to circumvent Congress and avoid attention. "If the
narcotraffickers shot American soldiers down, you could see the
headlines: 'U.S. Troops Killed in Colombia,'" says Myles Frechette, the
U.S. ambassador to Colombia during the Clinton administration. By
contrast, the 1992 assassination of three DynCorp employees, whose
helicopter was shot down during an anti-drug mission in Peru, merited
exactly 113 words in the New York Times. (In February, when another
aircraft crashed during a drug operation in Colombia, three employees
of Northrop Grumman were taken hostage.)

Private military companies also played an unheralded role in the
Balkans. After the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, the United Nations
placed an embargo on providing military assistance to either Serbia or
Croatia. Some in the State Department, however, wanted to counter the
dominance of Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic by strengthening
Croatian president Franjo Tudjman, a self-proclaimed Aryan supremacist.
Private military companies once again provided the answer. In 1994, the
State Department issued a license to MPRI to provide military training
to the Croatian army. "It allowed the United States to exert a good
deal of political heft while reserving its official stance of not being
involved," says Avant, the international-affairs expert at George
Washington University.

MPRI insists that it provided no combat training to Croatian troops,
saying it merely instructed the country's military in how to operate in
a Western-style democracy under civilian control. But according to
independent reports, the company taught basic infantry tactics to
Croatian soldiers and explained how to coordinate assaults. In August
1995, after the training ended, the Croatian army launched Operation
Storm, a U.S.-style military operation designed to take back the
disputed Krajina region from the Serbs. The four-day assault was a
bloody episode of ethnic cleansing. Croatian graduates of MPRI's
training carried out summary executions and indiscriminately shelled
civilians, leaving hundreds dead and more than 150,000 homeless.
Afterward, the Croatians expressed their gratitude for MPRI's help.
"They lecture us on tactics and big war operations," one officer told
The Observer of London, "which is why we needed them for Operation
Storm."

SUCH INCIDENTS POINT TO the greatest danger underlying the increasing
push to privatize war. Soldiers who disobey orders or violate standards
of conduct can be court-martialed and incarcerated; their supervisors
can be reassigned or forced to retire. Private companies, by contrast,
are able to operate in almost complete secrecy, with little
accountability to civilian or military authorities. Consider the case
of two DynCorp employees who exposed a sex-trafficking scandal in
Bosnia, where the company was assisting the American military with
peacekeeping operations during the late 1990s. According to court
documents, DynCorp employees bought and sold local Bosnian girls, some
as young as 13, for use as sex slaves, often confiscating the passports
of victims so they couldn't escape. The men were not subjected to local
or U.S. criminal charges; DynCorp simply whisked them home—and fired
the two whistleblowers.

The lack of accountability could have grave consequences in battle. The
Pentagon has become so dependent on private military companies that it
literally cannot wage war without them. Troops already rely on
for-profit contractors to maintain 28 percent of all weapons systems,
and the Bush administration wants to increase that figure to 50
percent. In most cases, private military companies can legally withdraw
their employees if faced with danger in a combat zone—an escape clause
that worries many military officials. If contractors flee when the
shooting starts, it could sever supply lines, ground aircraft, and
leave soldiers to run complex weapons systems they no longer have the
skill or know-how to keep in working order. "There are some weapons
systems that the U.S. military forces do not have the capability to do
their own maintenance on," concedes David Young, a deputy commander at
the Defense Contract Management Agency. "When you take these weapons
systems into a combat zone, is contract support still reliable,
especially if you are facing weapons of mass destruction? It's a source
of worry when you're talking about chemical or biological weapons."

Military insiders, from the Defense Department's inspector general to
the Army War College, echo that concern. "Will using contractors place
our service personnel at greater risk of losing their lives in combat?"
one Air Force military journal has asked. "Are we ultimately trading
their blood to save a relatively insignificant amount in the national
budget?"

Blackwater USA's Gary Jackson, whose company operates in hostile parts
of Africa and southwestern Asia, insists that his employees would
never bolt from a war zone. "They're paying us good money to go to
places that are already ugly," he says. "If it gets real ugly, that's
why they hired us in the first place." Pentagon
officials also insist that private firms have proved reliable so far.
"I've never seen any deficiencies, even under fire," says the Army's
Don Trautner. "I challenge anyone to come up with a situation where a
contractor would run under harsh or hostile conditions."

Brian Boquist doesn't have to come up with a hypothetical scenario.
Boquist is the founder of International Charter Inc., a small private
military company based in Salem, Oregon, that has provided air
transportation for peacekeeping operations in Africa and Haiti. In
1996, Boquist subcontracted with DynCorp to fly helicopters for
international peacekeepers in Liberia. Four months into the contract,
rebels from the countryside spilled into the capital city of Monrovia,
shooting people and burning homes. While black smoke hung over the
city, refugees trying to escape the violence poured into the U.S.
Embassy compound. All around them, corpses lay in the street.

Boquist and his colleagues fled to the embassy from their downtown
hotel—but when they got there, their superiors from DynCorp were
nowhere to be found. "They had left the day before," Boquist says.
"Just disappeared." Boquist tried to contact the company for several
days and finally reached DynCorp's U.S. offices by telephone. "Do the
best you can to get your personnel out," he recalls being told. By
then, though, the airport in Monrovia was closed. Stranded in the
burning city, Boquist and his colleagues armed themselves—buying
weapons on the black market and picking up abandoned guns from the
street—and defended the embassy and the refugees inside until U.S.
military reinforcements arrived. "It's easy to be patriotic when you
don't have anyplace to go," he says.

Boquist hasn't forgiven DynCorp ("it was hell on earth"), but notes
that it's only natural for businesses to be concerned with their bottom
line. "They're worried about liability and being sued, and that takes
precedence," Boquist says. "That's the same problem you're going to
face in any major conflict."

Despite such experiences in the field, the Bush administration is
rapidly deploying private military companies in the Persian Gulf and
other conflict zones. By March, DynCorp alone had 1,000 employees in
the Middle East to assist in a war with Iraq. "The trend is growth,"
says Daniel Nelson, the former professor at the Pentagon's Marshall
Center. "This current president and administration have—in part because
of September 11, but also because of their fundamental ideology—taken
off constraints that somewhat limited the prior administration."
According to some estimates, private military companies will double
their business by the end of the decade, to $200 billion a year.

President Bush only has to look to his father's war to see what the
consequences of this trend could be in a second conflict with Iraq. In
the Gulf War's single deadliest incident, an Iraqi missile hit a
barracks far from the front, killing 28 Army reservists who were
responsible for purifying drinking water. Other troops quickly jumped
in to take their place. "Today, the military relies heavily on
contractors for this support," Colonel Steven Zamparelli, a career
contracting officer, notes in the Air Force Journal of Logistics. "If
death becomes a real threat, there is no doubt that some contractors
will exercise their legal rights to get out of the theater. Not so many
years ago, that may have simply meant no hot food or reduced morale and
welfare activity. Today, it could mean the only people a field
commander has to accomplish a critical 'core competency' task such as
weapons-system maintenance...have left and gone home."

Copyright © 2004 Barry Yeoman


---


Sulla polemica con SUPERQUARK vedi anche:

http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3633


Da: andreamartocchia
Data: Lun 26 Lug 2004 19:34:17 Europe/Rome
A: Pinna Lorenzo, superquark
Oggetto: Sulla risposta della redazione di SuperQuark -- Re: I:
servizio Eserciti Privati

Gentile redazione di SuperQuark,

la vostra risposta alla nostra Lettera ci lascia ulteriormente
sconcertati ed amareggiati.

Il coinvolgimento della MPRI nelle operazioni "Lampo" e "Tempesta" ha
avuto come principale risultato la cacciata di almeno
centocinquantamila persone, ed ha comportato centinaia di morti ed
altrettanti scomparsi. Non si e' dunque affatto trattato di operazioni
mirate a "ristabilire la pace", a meno che per "pace" non si intenda
semplicemente l'annientamento dell'avversario. Questo, di fatto, ha
motivato la nostra lettera di protesta; eppure tutto cio' non viene
nemmeno menzionato nella vostra risposta, la quale contiene invece
valutazioni e commenti di carattere essenzialmente politico, e
nondimeno fortemente superficiali, in merito a quelli che definite
"vecchi stereotipi".

Dove sia l'informazione scientifica, in tutto questo, resta per noi un
mistero! Chi ha diffuso "stereotipi" sulla guerra di squartamento della
Jugoslavia, in tutti questi anni, sono stati innanzitutto i mass-media
occidentali: voi compresi, purtroppo, almeno a partire dalla
trasmissione dello scorso 6 luglio. Questi stereotipi non vengono
diffusi "per caso", bensi' proprio allo scopo di nascondere la verita'
sulle responsabilita' e sulle conseguenze del conflitto. In questo caso
specifico, voi avete scelto di nascondere la pulizia etnica dei Serbi
della Croazia, e di tessere le lodi dei suoi maggiori responsabili,
cioe' certi settori militari degli Stati Uniti d'America. Il vostro
documentario e' stato costruito sulla base di UNA SOLA FONTE, quella da
voi citata nella vostra risposta, e nondimeno con ampio spreco di
denaro pubblico, laddove una semplice ricerchina in internet avrebbe
consentito di trovare informazioni ben piu' accurate, e comunque non
cosi' unilaterali, sullo stesso argomento (vedi ad es. l'articolo "La
privatizzazione della guerra" di Ken Silverstein, pubblicato da "The
Nation" il 28 luglio 1997, e tradotto nel n. 47, marzo 1998 di
"Guerre&Pace").

Questo modo di nascondere i fatti per spostare tendenziosamente le
responsabilita', come sanno tutti gli esperti di strategia militare,
viene definito "disinformazione strategica". Forse il vostro prossimo
documentario potreste dedicarlo proprio a questa ed alle altre tecniche
di guerra psicologica (sulla disinformazione strategica nel caso
jugoslavo e nelle altre guerre contemporanee suggeriamo di partire ad
es. da qualche ricerca Google su: "Ruder&Finn Public Global Affairs",
"Hill&Knowlton", "Office of Strategic Influence", "Fourth Psychological
Operations Group, Fort Bragg, North Carolina", "PsyOps", ...), visto
che pare abbiate scelto di "aprire" SuperQuark alle questioni militari
- in questo purtroppo assecondando la tristissima tendenza che
caratterizza la fase storica in cui viviamo.

Con l'occasione segnaliamo che si sono uniti alla nostra protesta
l'ing. Giacomo Alessandroni, Giancarlo Chieregato, il prof. Mauro
Cristaldi, e, dalla Francia, il generale Pierre-Marie Gallois,
notissimo esperto di geopolitica - che conosce bene la lingua italiana
- e Bogdan Manojlovic, ricercatore all'Université Paris12.

Seguono tutte le adesioni aggiornate:


Giacomo Alessandroni, ingegnere, Associazione PeaceLink

Angelo Baracca, docente di Fisica all'Universita' di Firenze

Vincenzo Brandi, ricercatore presso l'ENEA Casaccia, Roma

Giuseppe Catapano, operatore nel settore delle telecomunicazioni, Roma

Andrea Catone, storico del movimento operaio, Bari

Giancarlo Chieregato, artigiano, Crandola Valsassina (Lecco)

Franco Consalvi, funzionario pubblico, Roma

Mauro Cristaldi, prof.associato, Dip. Biologia Animale e dell'Uomo,
Univ. Roma "La Sapienza"

Olga Daric, traduttrice, Parigi

Pasquale De Sole, Laboratorio di Chimica Clinica del Policlinico
Gemelli (Università Cattolica S.Cuore), Roma

Spartaco Ferri, già partigiano nella Lotta di Liberazione contro il
nazifascismo, Roma

Miriam Pellegrini Ferri, scrittrice e Presidente del Gruppo Atei
Materialisti Dialettici (G.A.MA.DI.), Roma

Maria Fierro, funzionario pubblico, Roma

Pierre-Marie Gallois, géneral de l'air (CR), théoricien de la force de
frappe nucléaire française

Babsi Jones, www.babsijones.org, Milano

Ivana Kerecki, sociologa e collaboratrice editoriale, Milano

Anita Krstic, operatore turistico, Milano

Bogdan Manojlovic, chercher université Paris12, cofondatore della
rivista Balkans Infos e membro della redazione

Serena Marchionni, bibliotecaria, Strasburgo (Francia)

Andrea Martocchia, Osservatorio Astronomico di Strasburgo

Edoardo Nucci, Ass. Internazionale per l'Amicizia e la Solidarieta' tra
i Popoli (AIASP), Roma

Ivan Pavicevac, conduttore della trasmissione radiofonica "Voce
jugoslava" , Roma

Cristiano Roman, lavoratore autonomo, Milano

Fabrizio Rossi, ingegnere industriale, Roma

Libero Vitiello, Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita' di Padova

Gilberto Vlaic, Dipartimento di Scienze Chimiche, Universita' di Trieste

Milica Vukelic, Milano


> Da: Pinna Lorenzo
> Inviato: giovedì 15 luglio 2004 11.18
> Oggetto: servizio Eserciti Privati
>
>
> Roma,15 .7.2004
>
> Gentilissimi,
> Il servizio sulle Imprese Militari Private tentava di spiegare una
> trasformazione in corso nell' organizzazione militare
> dell'Occidente,di cui il caso "Croazia" e' solo uno degli esempi
> citati. Una trasformazione di cui non ci si rendera' conto e che
> quindi non si riuscira' a regolare o a limitare finche' si
> continueranno a dare giudizi morali o a usare vecchi stereotipi come:
> merceneri, avventurieri, manovre oscure, avidi interessi, imperialismo
> americano, etc.
> La base del nostro " disinformato" servizio era il libro di J. Singer
> "Corporate Warriors" Cornell University 2002 e un lungo colloquio di
> circa tre ore con lo stesso autore del libro nel suo ufficio della
> Brookings Institution di Washington.
> Non era nostra intenzione entrare nella storia specifica del complesso
> conflitto jugoslavo, cosa d'altronde impossibile visto il tempo che ci
> era concesso ( circa 7 minuti) per trattare
> questo argomento.
> Grazie per l'attenzione con la quale ci avetre seguiti. I nostri piu'
> cordiali saluti.
>
>
> La Redazione di SuperQuark

Source:
http://www.anti-imperialism.net/lai/index.php?section=BB&language_id=1


Le mensonge de Dubrovnik

John Peter Maher    01/07/2004
source : Balkans-Info

URL :
http://www.anti-imperialism.net/lai/
texte.phtml?section=BB&object_id=22839


I. La propagande

Il y a une douzaine d'années, l'assaut de cette pittoresque ville
fortifiée du Moyen âge sur la mer Adriatique face à l'Italie, a
enflammé la conscience mondiale en rappelant des noms du passé
comme Guernica, Coventry ou Hiroshima. J'ai appris les détails de
l'histoire pendant un voyage d'études le mois dernier sur la côte
dalmate de l'ex-Yougoslavie. Je pense qu'elle intéressera les
importants groupes ethniques croates, serbes et Slovènes de Pittsburgh.

Au début de la visite, nous avons contemplé Dubrovnik des hauteurs à
partir desquelles les Serbes ont bombardé pendant sept mois, en
1991-92, quelques-uns des plus beaux monuments d'Europe au cours de la
soi-disant guerre civile. Pour dire vrai, il a été difficile
d'apprécier l'envergure de l'assaut jusqu'à ce qu'on note la différence
de teinte de rouge entre les tuiles anciennes des dessins des toitures
et les nouvelles tuiles de remplacement. Mais cela n'avait rien à voir
avec les villes écrasées que j'avais vues comme soldat de la Seconde
guerre mondiale. Mais au fur et à mesure des explications des guides
fournis par les organisateurs, l'histoire du siège de Dubrovnik et de
son impact sur l'opinion publique est devenue plus claire.

L'experte en art Kate Bagoje a décrit la sinistre situation de ce
qu'elle a appelé une "agression inattendue" pour laquelle cette ville
touristique méditerranéenne n'était "absolument pas préparée". Elle a
cité un total de 824 bâtiments endommagés, dont 563 directement
frappés, et 9 palais incendiés pour un coût total de 30 millions de
dollars. Plus de 150 personnes ont été tuées, et 1.000 blessées par les
bombardements. La colère de la communauté internationale a été
provoquée par le fait que les forces serbes semblaient prendre pour
cibles les symboles spécifiques de la culture croato-dalmate dans une
ville que l'UNESCO avait désignée comme faisant partie du patrimoine
mondial en 1979. Par exemple, il y a eu 51 frappes sur le célèbre
monastère franciscain. Le cœur de l'histoire de Dubrovnik au XXe siècle
a été la réaction mondiale à l'agression serbe. D'abord, il y a eu un
afflux international d'argent et d'aide technique pour restaurer la
ville. Des contributions sont venues des agences de l'ONU, d'Amérique,
d'Angleterre, d'Allemagne et du Japon, de Croates vivant à l'étranger,
et de fondations de sociétés ou de particuliers. L'argent de l'UNESCO a
servi à réparer les murs épais qui donnent à la cité son caractère. La
France a envoyé des tuiles de remplacement, les USA de l'argent pour
remettre en état les pavés et les fameux "escaliers espagnols" (ainsi
nommés par comparaison avec ceux de la Piazza di Spagna à Rome). Une
équipe allemande de Düsseldorf a restaurée une précieuse fontaine. En
fait, a dit Bagoje, le travail a été si bien fait que les gens ne
réalisent pas l'étendue des dommages ainsi effacés.

Le second résultat majeur a été l'impact sur la politique mondiale.
Quelles qu'aient été les responsabilités de la guerre - Croates et
Serbes ont commis des atrocités - le siège a contribué à tourner
l'opinion publique contre les Serbes. Quand la guerre s'est étendue à
la Bosnie et au Kosovo, l'aboutissement a été le bombardement USA-OTAN
de Belgrade et de restant de la Serbie.

Vjekoslav Vierda, directeur de l'Institut pour la restauration de
Dubrovnik, a expliqué à notre groupe que "tout le monde pensait qu'on
pouvait résoudre les vieux problèmes en s'entretuant." Les difficultés
remontent à des siècles de relations tendues entre les Serbes chrétiens
orthodoxes, les Croates catholiques romains et les Bosniaques
musulmans, exacerbées au cours de la Seconde guerre mondiale quand les
Oustachis croates ont pris le parti de l'Allemagne nazie contre les
Techtniks serbes, avec les partisans de Josip Tito remportant la
victoire à la fin. Après la mort de Tito en 1980, la désintégration de
la Yougoslavie une décennie plus tard a coïncidé avec l'écroulement du
communisme en Europe. Pendant quelque temps, la Serbie a détenu les
meilleures cartes avec l'armée yougoslave, la troisième d'Europe. Mais
les Croates, à travers les marchands d'armes clandestins, sont arrivés
à construire leur armée - en particulier avec des armements en
provenance de l'ex-Allemagne de l'Est - au point de pouvoir reconquérir
des territoires aux dépens des Serbes. Vierda a ajouté la peu
réjouissante conclusion que ces marchands d'armes possèdent aujourd'hui
80 % de la richesse croate - industries, hôtels, etc.

La communauté internationale est finalement arrivée à imposer les
accords de Dayton de 1995. Malheureusement, la démocratie n'a pas pris
pied en Croatie jusqu'à la mort de son leader autocratique, Franjo
Tudjman, en 1999. En Serbie, la situation est encore fragile, bien que
son chef de guerre, Slobodan Milosevic, soit inculpé à La Haye de
crimes de guerre. Une heureuse exception est la Slovénie, qui a si bien
mis en ordre ses affaires qu'elle a rejoint l'Union européenne le 1er
mai. En tous cas, il est clair que la communauté internationale a été
la clef de la paix et du progrès dans les Balkans, à dater du siège de
Dubrovnik.

Clarke THOMAS.
"The Lesson of Dubrovnik", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12 mai 2004.

II. La vérité

Cher Monsieur Thomas.

A première vue, votre rubrique donne l'impression d'être écrite par un
homme correct à l'esprit ouvert. Mais votre article sur Dubrovnik du 12
mai dernier ressort un scénario qui est faux du début à la fin. Je suis
allé à Dubrovnik, pas convaincu par la propagande du genre "armes de
destruction massive" répandue dans les médias à l'époque. J'ai pris
avec moi un cameraman professionnel. Ceci se passait juste trois mois
après la "destruction". La Vieille ville était entière et intacte.
Votre texte ne fait que perpétuer et propager un faux.

Vous avez écrit incidemment que vous aviez du mal à croire les récits
de destruction, car vous n'arriviez pas à discerner des traces de
dommages comparables à ce que vous aviez vu en Allemagne après la
Seconde guerre mondiale, mais vous avez tout de même répété la leçon
mensongère apprise de ceux qui vous ont manipulé. Vous et moi avons à
peine quelques années de différence d'âge. J'avais tout juste 12 ans
lors du jour V de la victoire. J'ai été diplômé en grec et latin à
l'Université catholique d'Amérique de Washington, et j'ai enseigné
l'anglais, le français et le latin en 1956-57. En 1957, je me suis
enrôlé aux USA, et j'ai été volontaire pour apprendre le serbo-croate
dans l'Ecole militaire de langues du Praesidium de Monterey. Puis j'ai
travaillé pendant deux ans au bureau yougoslave d'une unité en Italie
du Nord. Au cours des quarante années qui ont suivi, je me suis
maintenu à jour de mes langues, j'ai enseigné et fait de la recherche
aux USA, en Angleterre, en Irlande, en Allemagne, en Italie, en Suisse,
en Tchécoslovaquie, en Bulgarie et en Yougoslavie. Aujourd'hui, en tant
que retraité, j'ai suivi de près les conflits en Yougoslavie, avec une
attention particulière portée à la propagande de guerre. J'ai voyagé en
Slovénie, Serbie (y compris le Kosovo), Croatie, Bosnie-Herzégovine,
Slavonie et Dalmatie. Venons-en à Dubrovnik. Comme vous devez le
savoir, l'ancienne Raguse a été une ville-Etat pendant 750 ans, jusqu'à
ce que Napoléon la remette à l'Autriche. Les Autrichiens n'ont jamais
incorporé Dubrovnik à la Croatie. La région étroite autour de Zagreb
appartenait au royaume de Hongrie. Ce n'est qu'en 1939, une grande
année pour Hitler, que Dubrovnik a été rattachée à une Croatie
délimitée pour des raisons politiques, en violation des implantations
ethniques et sans le consentement des populations concernées, par le
royaume de Yougoslavie qui craignait les visées allemandes sur
l'Adriatique.

En 1945, Tito a parachevé l'intégration de la vieille république de
Dubrovnik. En 1991, les Allemands et leurs satellites, les fascistes
croates, étaient de retour. Les Croates non-fascistes, les Serbes et
les autres ont été expulsés de la "perle de l'Adriatique". Cela s'est
passé le 1er octobre 1991, et l'exode a été occulté par le rideau de
fumée de la propagande de guerre à laquelle vous participez.

En ce qui me concerne, j'ai rencontré en l'été 1990 une de mes
étudiantes de Chicago, une croato-hongroise qui, l'année précédente,
exultait à l'idée de rentrer comme professeur d'anglais dans sa ville
natale de Subotica, en Serbie, à la frontière hongroise. La ville a une
importante population croate et hongroise. La Serbie est le seul Etat
multiethnique qui subsiste de l'ex-Yougoslavie.

Le projet de mon étudiante était en cendres. "Mes parents reviennent
de vacances près de Dubrovnik, m'a-t-elle raconté. Ils m'ont dit qu'il
ne fallait pas que je revienne à la maison. Il allait arriver des
malheurs... Les fascistes croates s'attaquaient aux voitures avec des
plaques d'immatriculation serbes et les jetaient à la mer."

Plus d'un an avant que la guerre ne fasse la "une" des médias, au
printemps 1990, j'avais lu dans les journaux yougoslaves, au cours d'un
séjour en Slovénie, que les militants croates incendiaient les maisons
de vacances sur l'Adriatique appartenant aux Serbes et aux Slovènes.
L'été suivant, en 1991, les seuls "touristes" à Dubrovnik étaient des
irréguliers croates équipés d'armes fournies en contrebande par
l'Allemagne. Vous pouvez vérifier les registres des hôtels. En août
1991, les irréguliers croates ont attaqué une base militaire yougoslave
à l'entrée de la baie de Kotor, à deux douzaines de km au sud de
Dubrovnik. Les Croates ont massacré les recrues non armées de l'Armée
populaire yougoslave (JNA), une force multiethnique.

La JNA était l'armée légale d'un Etat constitué. C'était une force
multiethnique, ni serbe, ni commandée par des Serbes. Il y avait des
Slovènes, des Albanais, des Macédoniens, des Tchèques, des Slovaques,
des Serbes de toutes les régions de la Serbie... et des Croates.
Beaucoup ont été tués. Le commandant en chef était un Croate, pas
Milosevic. Un officier du renseignement naval m'a dit que l'opération
avait été filmée de bout en bout par le service du contre-espionnage de
la JNA. Celle-ci a observé sans bouger. Les ordres sont les ordres.

D'octobre à décembre 1991, les "militants" croates ont multiplié les
sorties de la vieille ville fortifiée pour attaquer les forces de la
JNA. Celles-ci ont riposté. Voilà vos "150 morts croates". A l'automne
1991, les journaux croates (lisez-les, si vous pouvez) étaient pleins
de nécrologies de leurs tués. Un des héros tombés y a même figuré comme
membre de la "3e escouade génocide". Vous pouvez trouver la référence
dans le quotidien de Zagreb Globus. En voulez-vous une photocopie ?
Tout le monde sait aujourd'hui que les racontars, si souvent martelés
dans nos têtes, sur les armes de destruction massive de Saddam Hussein
étaient des faux, comme la crise du Tonkin de Lyndon Johnson ou les
"atrocités serbes" de Bill Clinton.

La firme de relations publiques de Washington Rudder Finn a orchestré
une campagne qui comprenait un appel "achetez une tuile".
L'hebdomadaire croato-américain Zajednicar a publié des photos montrant
soi-disant Dubrovnik "avant" et "après" la destruction. Quant j'ai
montré le journal à Pippa Smith, elle a dit : "Ce sont deux villes
différentes. Regardez les lignes des toits. J'ai étudié l'architecture."

La fable que l'historienne d'art K. Bagoje vous a racontée est
contredite par la spécialiste croate Lejla Miletic-Vejvozic dans un
article de Spécial Libraries. Elle apporte la preuve que des containers
étanches avaient été fournis par l'Allemagne. Les trésors ont été
embarqués à l'étranger, en premier lieu en Italie. Où sont-ils
maintenant ? Y avait-il parmi eux des icônes orthodoxes serbes ?

Le seul bâtiment de la Vieille ville de Dubrovnik qui a été détruit
par un incendie contenait une collection d'icônes orthodoxes serbes. Le
mensonge de "Dubrovnik détruite et reconstruite" a été révélé par le
capitaine Michael Shuttleworth (représentant anglais à l'Union
européenne à l'époque), par les journalistes Stephen Kinzer (New York
Times), Michael Steiner (National Review), Bruno Beloff, par l'écrivain
autrichien Peter Handke, et par moi. Je vous enverrai à Pittsburgh la
chronologie de cette falsification.

John Peter MAHER.
Ph. D. Professeur émérite, Chicago.

TURCHIA: MOSCHEA INTITOLATA AD ALIJA IZETBEGOVIC


Coerentemente con la tradizione di amicizia che lega i separatisti
bosniaco-musulmani alla Turchia -- e che ha legato, mentre era in vita,
Alija Izetbegovic agli islamisti turchi -- e' stata inaugurata pochi
giorni fa ad Istambul una moschea intitolata allo stesso Izetbegovic.

Si veda al sito degli islamisti bosniaci una fotografia e commenti su
questo "evento":
http://www.islambosna.ba/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=4279

Sulle amicizie internazionali di Alija Izetbegovic vedi:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2906
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2953

Sulle radici naziste della politica di Izetbegovic vedi:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2879
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2881
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2884
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2897


http://www.islambosna.ba/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=4279

Dzamija Alija Izetbegovic

IslamBosna.ba Forum Index » BOSANSKI jezik » Vijesti

Posted: Jul 31, 2004 - 02:19 AM

Danas je u Istanbulu, u cetvrti Pendik poznato po velikom broju
Bosnjaka koji u Turskoj zive vise godina, otvorena dzamija "Alije
Izetbegovica"-nazvana po prvom predsjedniku nezavisne BiH...

kako to turcin rece:

today in Istanbul there was a ceremony for opening of a mosque which is
named as "Alija Izzetbegovic Camija". The camija is builded in the
district where Bosnian Turks mostly populated, the name of the district
is "Pendik". The ceremony was just before the Dzuma, and after the
ceremony Dzuma is prayed.

not only for Bosnians, but also for all muslims around the world Alija
Izzetbegovic is a great man. He did his best for Bosnian Muslims'
rights and independence.

there is not only the camija also a library is located at the place
also with the name of our leader.

Head of Greater Municipality of Istanbul Kadir Topbas, Alija
Izetbegovic's son, Bakir Izzetbegovic and his wife Sabiya Izzetegovic,
Head of Turkish Governmental Religion Office Prof. Dr. Ali Bardakoglu,
Head of Bosna-Hersek Religion Office Prof. Dr. Mustafa Ceric,
Bosna-Hersek Istanbul Consulate Yusuf Pusina, District Governor of
Pendik Mustafa Haluk Saygı, Head of Municipality of Pendik Erol Kaya,
Head of Municipality of Tuzla(near district) Mehmet Demir, Assistant
Secretary General of Greater Municipality of Istanbul Saban Erden and
muftis from different districts of Istanbul were in the ceremony.


MORE COMMENTS ON:
http://www.islambosna.ba/
Forum Index » BOSANSKI jezik » Vijesti
Dzamija Alija Izetbegovic