Serbs torch US Embassy office, riot over Kosovo’s independence

LadyAria

choke
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Posts
10,413
Angry Serbs broke into the U.S. Embassy and set fire to an office Thursday night as rioters rampaged through Belgrade’s streets, putting an exclamation point of violence to a day of mass protest against Western support for an independent Kosovo.

At least 150,000 people rallied in Belgrade, waving Serbian flags and signs proclaiming “Stop USA terror,” to denounce the bid by Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian majority to create their own state out of what Serbs consider the ancient heartland of their culture.

The United States strongly criticized the violence and the Serb response. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the embassy “was attacked by thugs” and Serb police didn’t do enough to stop it. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the U.S. warned Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica and Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic that it would hold them personally responsible for further damage.

Protesters burned American flags, and the mob that attacked the embassy tore down the U.S. flag there. Crowds also ransacked a McDonald’s, looted stores and fought with police in front of other diplomatic compounds in a display of the resentment seething in Serbia over the secession of what has been its southernmost province.

A charred body was found in the U.S. Embassy after the fire was put out, but all staff were accounted for, embassy spokeswoman Rian Harris said. Belgrade’s Pink TV said the body appeared to be that of a rioter.

At the mass rally earlier, Kostunica attacked the U.S. and others for supporting Kosovo’s independence. “Is there any other nation on Earth from whom (the great powers) are demanding that they give up their identity, to give up our brothers in Kosovo?” he asked the crowd.

Coming after smaller outbursts of violence in Belgrade as well as attacks on a United Nations building and police checkpoints in Kosovo, the surge of rioting underlined the determination of Serbs not to give up Kosovo quietly.

The Serbian government has said it won’t resort to military force, but the street violence could be a tactic to slow moves by more countries to follow the U.S., Britain, Germany and France in quickly recognizing Kosovo’s independence.

Russia and China lead the states standing with Serbia, worrying that Kosovo’s example could encourage separatist sentiment elsewhere. The Kremlin has underlined its displeasure by hinting it might back separatists in pro-Western nations such as the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

Serbian officials dismissed violence earlier in the week as “insignificant,” and no police were guarding the U.S. Embassy compound even though it had been targeted previously. American officials said the offices had been closed at midday because of security concerns.

Milorad Veljovic, a top Interior Ministry official, said that security forces had the situation under control and that mobs had been broken up.

Masked men smashed their way inside the compound’s consular building, tore down the U.S. flag and tried to throw furniture from an office. They set fire to the office and flames shot up the side of the building.

State Department officials said no protesters got into the embassy’s main chancery section, a separate area that was manned by a U.S. Marine guard unit and security personnel.

Police arrived about 45 minutes after the blaze broke out, and after the rioters left the building. A half dozen fire trucks also appeared and quickly doused the flames, leaving the front facade and two police guard posts on the sidewalk smoldering.

Officers from an elite paramilitary police unit drove armored jeeps outside the embassy and fired dozens of tear gas canisters to disperse the crowd. Rioters wheeled out large garbage bins in an unsuccessful attempt to block the police vehicles. Thick clouds of tear gas hung in the street as officers chased rioters into nearby side streets.

It was the first attack on a U.S. Embassy since Sept. 12, 2006, when Syrian security guards stopped an attempt to blow up the compound. The last time a mob broke into one was the Iranians’ seizure of the U.S. Embassy on Nov. 4, 1979, taking the American staffers hostage.



(CNN) — “Russia has not ruled out using force to resolve the dispute over Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia if NATO forces breach the terms of their U.N. mandate, Moscow’s ambassador to NATO warned on Friday.

“If the EU works out a single position or if NATO steps beyond its mandate in Kosovo, these organizations will be in conflict with the U.N., and then I think we will also begin operating under the assumption that in order to be respected, one needs to use force,” Dmitry Rogozin said, in comments carried by Russia’s Interfax news agency.”

Egads! Anyone else remember how pleasant the cold war was?
 
Problem is, Kosovo has never really belonged to Serbia. Even under the Russians (and the Russian puppet Tito) Kosovo had a huge amount of autonomy. The Serbians are barking up the wrong tree.
 
Is it just me, or does this sound a little like the beginning of WWI? Fractious Balkans, anyone?
 
Problem is, Kosovo has never really belonged to Serbia. Even under the Russians (and the Russian puppet Tito) Kosovo had a huge amount of autonomy. The Serbians are barking up the wrong tree.

The Battle of Kosovo was fought on St Vitus' Day (June 15, now celebrated on 28) 1389 between the coalition of Serb lords and the Ottoman Empire. Even though the Serbian army had lost it decisively, The Battle of Kosovo is seen by many Serbs as the first defining moment of the rise of their nation.
 
Is it just me, or does this sound a little like the beginning of WWI? Fractious Balkans, anyone?

On Friday, Russia's NATO envoy, Dmitiry Rogozin, warned that Russia might have to resort to "brute military force" if Europe recognizes an independent Kosovo.

Also, press release says US is likely to establish a military base in Kosovo in the near future.

Rogozin pointed out that Russia was more concerned with the US military presence so close to its western borders than with the potential deployment of a military base in Kosovo.

*sigh*

Edit: Yes, it parallels 1908, where the Austro-Hungarian empire annexed Bosnia from Serbia.
 
Last edited:
The Battle of Kosovo was fought on St Vitus' Day (June 15, now celebrated on 28) 1389 between the coalition of Serb lords and the Ottoman Empire. Even though the Serbian army had lost it decisively, The Battle of Kosovo is seen by many Serbs as the first defining moment of the rise of their nation.

I know that. Even then, Serbia didn't have a legitimate claim on Kosovo and in the intervening 600 and some-odd years, they've never been able to make a stronger claim - not by demographics, culture, or treaty. Indeed, treaties (or at least one) specifically excluded Kosovo from Serbian possession.
 
On Friday, Russia's NATO envoy, Dmitiry Rogozin, warned that Russia might have to resort to "brute military force" if Europe recognizes an independent Kosovo.

Also, press release says US is likely to establish a military base in Kosovo in the near future.

Rogozin pointed out that Russia was more concerned with the US military presence so close to its western borders than with the potential deployment of a military base in Kosovo.

*sigh*

You mean, Clinton got us into an endless war also? Imagine that?
 
Kind of stings, don't it?

What stings? The uninformed nature of such a post?

Or the fact that Clinton got sick of watching Europe sit idly while genocide occured in their hinterland? I'd say its a shining moment in Clinton's terms that he intitiated the end to the genocide as Yugoslavia broke up. The US seemed to be the only country willing to get into the mess. Part of the reason (along with African policy) that I think the EU is all economic and a political failure.
 
What stings? The uninformed nature of such a post?

Or the fact that Clinton got sick of watching Europe sit idly while genocide occured in their hinterland? I'd say its a shining moment in Clinton's terms that he intitiated the end to the genocide as Yugoslavia broke up. The US seemed to be the only country willing to get into the mess. Part of the reason (along with African policy) that I think the EU is all economic and a political failure.

Oh, I applaud him for getting our troops in there and stopping the Genocide. On the other hand, his "winning the peace" and "having an exit strategy" seemed to be more than a bit lacking and are hypocritically undercriticized.

Seems it didn't take long for plenty of folks to completely reverse their positions on getting into a conflict to topple a genocidal tyrant without a perfect plan to help the survivors build a working democracy and bring our troops home in a timely fashion.

(Edited for clarity)
 
Oh, I applaud him for getting our troops in there and stopping the Genocide. On the other hand, his "winning the peace" and "having an exit strategy" seemed to be more than a bit lacking and are hypocritically undercriticized.

Seems it didn't take long for plenty of folks to completely reverse their positions on getting into a conflict to topple a genocidal tyrant without a perfect plan to help the survivors build a working democracy and bring our troops home in a timely fashion.

(Edited for clarity)

Interesting how getting into wars without thinking through a proper exit strategy and post war government does not appear to be limited to one party only.
 
Our sons will have their own "Kosovo" to deal with right here in the good ole US before they are dead, just as soon as the "ethinic Mexicans" pouring across the border have sufficient numbers to decide they want to be independent. Welcome to the future.

Yes, I could see that.

Also, countries such as Russia, Spain and China have the same issues with other ethnic minorities and this event gives that group a chance to separate, regardless of what the law states. I believe they may support Russia on due to their internal issues. I know I lost three classmates when Eta blew up the train they happened to be on.
 
Ok joke or dumbest post ever?

Dunno.
I voted for him twice.

Oh, I applaud him for getting our troops in there and stopping the Genocide. On the other hand, his "winning the peace" and "having an exit strategy" seemed to be more than a bit lacking and are hypocritically undercriticized.

Seems it didn't take long for plenty of folks to completely reverse their positions on getting into a conflict to topple a genocidal tyrant without a perfect plan to help the survivors build a working democracy and bring our troops home in a timely fashion.

(Edited for clarity)

Well said.

Interesting how getting into wars without thinking through a proper exit strategy and post war government does not appear to be limited to one party only.

Exactly.
 
What stings? The uninformed nature of such a post?

Or the fact that Clinton got sick of watching Europe sit idly while genocide occured in their hinterland? I'd say its a shining moment in Clinton's terms that he intitiated the end to the genocide as Yugoslavia broke up. The US seemed to be the only country willing to get into the mess. Part of the reason (along with African policy) that I think the EU is all economic and a political failure.

So, you support Africom?
 
Oh, I applaud him for getting our troops in there and stopping the Genocide. On the other hand, his "winning the peace" and "having an exit strategy" seemed to be more than a bit lacking and are hypocritically undercriticized.

Seems it didn't take long for plenty of folks to completely reverse their positions on getting into a conflict to topple a genocidal tyrant without a perfect plan to help the survivors build a working democracy and bring our troops home in a timely fashion.

(Edited for clarity)

Jim, the Balkans and Iraq were fundamentally different. The clock was ticking in the Balkans, especially in Bosnia where cities were being destroyed, women raped as trophies, and camps of men executed. Yeah, it meant that the planning wasnt as thorough as we would have liked.
 
So, you support Africom?

Well this is a whole new topic but its your thread. Africom does make some sense to me, yes. But my issue is that the continent with a colonial history (Europe) has done so little in debt forgiveness, AIDS drugs, and general engagement of African and its peoples.

Not that the solutions are easy but Europe seems too willing to take the free pass it gets.
 
Jim, the Balkans and Iraq were fundamentally different. The clock was ticking in the Balkans, especially in Bosnia where cities were being destroyed, women raped as trophies, and camps of men executed. Yeah, it meant that the planning wasnt as thorough as we would have liked.

Again, I agree with all but your first sentence. The clock was ticking in Iraq as well, as we have learned pretty clearly. Sanctions were soon to be lifted, thanks to plenty of money going from a failed UN program to bribes instead of food and medicine. WMD programs were mere weeks away from full reconstitution. At least one genocide, complete with destroyed villages (and two, if you count the Marsh Arabs) had already happened. One great difference is that in Iraq, we had a unanimous USSC resolution in our pocket. In the Balkans, we acted against the UN's advice.

You'll get no argument from me that acting in the Balkans was a matter of imperative. I think we have a moral obligation to stop genocide any way we possibly can. The UN should be ashamed for dragging its feet on Kosovo and for creating an almighty cock-up when it finally did get there. I merely note that the party letter behind the President's name seems to have a great effect on who does and does not support a war with massive humanitarian benefits.
 
Well this is a whole new topic but its your thread. Africom does make some sense to me, yes. But my issue is that the continent with a colonial history (Europe) has done so little in debt forgiveness, AIDS drugs, and general engagement of African and its peoples.

Not that the solutions are easy but Europe seems too willing to take the free pass it gets.

Yes, I am bouncing. Well, the EU did offer African countries to sign the IEPA.

Africom just seems to ring of a new flavor of American occupation. Also, in light of the economy, I would think the US would want to let their little empire slip a little while they work on internal issues in the motherland.
 
Yes, I am bouncing. Well, the EU did offer African countries to sign the IEPA.

Africom just seems to ring of a new flavor of American occupation. Also, in light of the economy, I would think the US would want to let their little empire slip a little while they work on internal issues in the motherland.

Insofar as America doesn't actually have an empire, I disagree. But I think it's well past time we got truly engaged in Africa. Now, if we all could work on reducing the overall despot quotient there by, say, three-quarters, we'd really be doing something.
 
Wow. You know a lot more about world affairs than I do.

*feels knocked down a couple pegs*
 
Again, I agree with all but your first sentence. The clock was ticking in Iraq as well, as we have learned pretty clearly. Sanctions were soon to be lifted, thanks to plenty of money going from a failed UN program to bribes instead of food and medicine. WMD programs were mere weeks away from full reconstitution. At least one genocide, complete with destroyed villages (and two, if you count the Marsh Arabs) had already happened. One great difference is that in Iraq, we had a unanimous USSC resolution in our pocket. In the Balkans, we acted against the UN's advice.

You'll get no argument from me that acting in the Balkans was a matter of imperative. I think we have a moral obligation to stop genocide any way we possibly can. The UN should be ashamed for dragging its feet on Kosovo and for creating an almighty cock-up when it finally did get there. I merely note that the party letter behind the President's name seems to have a great effect on who does and does not support a war with massive humanitarian benefits.
I'll maintain the difference between the two situations. Whether people treat the two differently because of Party I'm not sure. Far less people know a damned thing about the Balkans or that we even took action there. So maybe the perception of Iraq is also fueled by a larger volume of information.

Back on topic, the Serbs are what they are... a desperate people trying to hang on to what they have. But they Russians are starting to feel more dangerous to world security every day. Their desire to hang with Iran is more troubling than the verbiage here but nonetheless they seem to be taking on a real edge.
 
Back on topic, the Serbs are what they are... a desperate people trying to hang on to what they have. But they Russians are starting to feel more dangerous to world security every day. Their desire to hang with Iran is more troubling than the verbiage here but nonetheless they seem to be taking on a real edge.

The Russians are really starting to concern me. Putin has never been what you'd call a real champion of democracy and he's always leaned toward his roots. Given the country's faltering economy and the increasing rise of nationalism (that I believe Putin had very purposefully pushed), it's very possible that the old totalitarianism will come back as strong as it ever was, and perhaps stronger. This time I don't think Russia has the population, military, or economy to be the big bad Bear it once was.

It can still cause plenty of trouble, though.
 
Back
Top