In the Fort Dix/terrorism story, I was struck by the repeated use, by mainstream media (CNN, WashPo etc) of the term “Yugoslavians.”
1) Yugoslavia no longer exists, so why would anyone call them Yugoslavians?
2) The other term used later on was “ethnic Albanians from the former Yugoslavia.” Again, why not say where they’re really from, instead of saying they’re from a country that no longer exists?
Anyone who follows news of the region knows that “ethnic Albanians” likely means they’re from Kosovo –a fact that took many hours to get out in the press (which seemed purposely evasive to me). Some I suspect are trying to prevent a possible interpretive subtext (fair or unfair) from being discussed: That some of those Clinton went to war for are now on our own soil trying to attack us.
I suspect this is a little uncomfortable to all the Democrats (and some Repubs) who not only pushed for the Kosovo war, but are pushing for Kosovo’s independence, partly on the basis that if we let the predominantly Muslim region break off from Serbia, then all Muslims everywhere will know we’re their true friends. (A line that Joe Biden has frequently pushed.) (Also coming into play: ethnic Albanians in Kosovo were threatening violence if they were not to receive independence, and to have those we went to war for, wrecking havoc, would be embarrassing to the politicians who whitewashed those they sided with. This was a hot potato they wanted to wash their hands of, in part to preserve the Clinton legacy.)
The exposure of the plot provides an unfortunate foil to this recent comment from Tom Lantos (which I witness in person w/ Col. Peterson at the recent hearing):
REP. LANTOS: "Thank you very much.Let me just raise a few items, Mr. Secretary.The first one: just a reminder to the predominantly Muslim-led governments in this world that here is yet another example that the United States leads the way for the creation of a predominantly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe. This should be noted by both responsible leaders of Islamic governments, such as Indonesia, and also for jihadists of all color and hue. The United States' principles are universal, and in this instance, the United States stands foursquare for the creation of an overwhelmingly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe "
Rep. Wexler also struck the same tone, saying Muslims should “take their hats off” to us for creating a Muslim state for them. Even though he at least added the caveat that what the US did, it did not do for religious reasons. If it was never our intent to create a religiously hegemonic state, then how can we take credit for having done so?
From today’s Washington post:
Clarification to This ArticleEarlier versions of this story said four of the men arrested were Albanians, based on information provided by U.S. officials. The men are ethnic Albanians born in the former Yugoslavia. (interesting that they hold on to the “former Yugoslavia.” )This version has been changed to reflect that.
Plot Illustrates Balkans' Role As Islamist Foothold
4 Ethnic Albanians Face Charges
(Washington Times, May 9, 2007, Pg. 16)
The six foreign-born Muslims accused of planning a shooting attack at the U.S. military base included four ethnic Albanians, and U.S. officials say their arrests highlight how Islamist groups are using the Balkans region to help in recruiting and financing terrorism.
Prosecutors described the men as "radical Islamists," with four coming from the province of Kosovo in the former Yugoslavia, where the ethnic Albanian population of Muslims fought one of the several wars that grew out of the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s
(I have to say, WashTimes also uses “former Yugoslavia” which is silly. It is in Serbia.)
