[cxromos]

I don't dispute that fact. The Muslims in Bosnia are moderate in nature. It's traditional. Ottoman empire was against the type of Islam like the one that originated in Saudi Arabia. I don't dispute the fact that WMD was a stunt of the crony capitalism of Cheney and his friends. But those Muslims in Syria, 'moderate' rebels, were victims of Assad family for decades. It's bound to happen, sooner or later, for people to rebel, when victimized. One doesn't need to study history to recognize this basic truth.

[acqq]

> The Muslims in Bosnia are moderate in nature.

The real "moderates" haven't had a chance or influence. The Muslim Bosniak leader in the nineties was a known Islamist. He hasn't accidentally received the support of the Islamists abroad. The Wahhabis are there since that times (decades already):

"Sharia Villages Bosnia's Islamic State Problem" (2016)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/islamic-state-pre...

Regarding "the nature" the history of the WWII (1939-1945) is also clear, even then the inherent religious intolerance (most of the Quran) towards the others was used:

http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/muslim-waffen-ss-13th-divisi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_...

Going back to even earlier times, the Ottoman empire removed some typical obligations inherent in Islamic Sharia law only after it was defeated, only around the middle of 19th century. The "moderation" of Muslims probably started only after Austria took over the control of Bosnia in 1878. It was also surely helped by the abolition of the Caliphate by the secularist Turkish president Ataturk in 1924. But then see WWII and the Nazi influence, above. Similar to what happened in the nineties.

Regarding Syria, the "rebels" were fought against by Assad also because they were Islamists, that means, wanted the rule of the Islamic law for everything. Their fanaticism and readiness for destruction is now widely known. There's nothing in these beliefs that anybody (but the Islamists) can wish: intolerance towards women, towards other religions, and the death for insulting the "religion of pieces." But the rebeles were supported by the Arab states and the U.S. because Assad wasn't an Islamist and he was potentially closer to Shia Iran (and Sunni Arabs don't like that) and because he's too close to Russia too (and the U.S. politics doesn't like that).

Thanks to the support from the abroad, the Islamic State claims to have a functioning Caliphate since 2014, a religiously (eschatologically!) important part of it in Syria. Also see the effective destruction of the secularism in Turkey, an U.S. ally.

Same old.

[cxromos]

The Muslim Bosniak lader was a religious man, after decades of Communism, which prohibited the religion. This happened on all sides, and the atrocities were committed by the Christians, both sides, Catholic and Ortodox, between themselves and on Muslim population. Number of accounts in front of the International Court for War Crimes tells all bout that.

Ottoman empire was in war what you call Wahhabism. They were enemies then and they are enemies now.

Assad regime, his father and him, are of a different version of Islam, Alawites. Let's put aside the fact that Syria was dictatorship for decades, with Sunni population of 74%, and that of Alawites of 12%. One can't expect for 12% to rule for decades with an iron fist over the majority of the population without problems. As I wrote previously. The war in Syria started after Sunni population, students and the other children of Arab Spring, asked for the elections and Assad took military and tanks on them. Later on extremists found its way in. I'm just pointing out stupidity that caused the war. You're thinking is that of post-stupidity.

[acqq]

Religion wasn't prohibited in Yugoslavia. Islamism and Sharia, sure. That guy was an Islamist.