Bosnian Genocide and the Siege of Sarajevo: Christian-Europe’s Shame

Many contemporary Muslims have embraced foreign ideologies, such as Critical Race Theory, to the extent that they see “the White man” as nothing but the perpetual oppressor.

Even when the White man is a Muslim, he’s somehow suspect.

Yet Bosniaks are the living proof that Whiteness doesn’t help when you’re Muslim.

Indeed, 30 years ago, on the 5th of April 1992, began the siege of Sarajevo, the single most dramatic episode of the Bosnian War (some rightfully call it the Bosnian Genocide), alongside the Srebrenica massacre. For nearly 4 years, during what’s often called “the longest siege in modern history,” Bosniak-Muslims were submitted, on a daily basis, to the genocidal urges of Serb-Christians.

The Human Losses in Numbers

To get an idea of the level of atrocities, let’s read the final report by a United Nations’ commission of experts headed by the late Egyptian legal scholar Cherif Bassiouni, released in 1994, two years before the end of the siege.

We read on p.8:

Since the beginning of the siege it is estimated that nearly 10,000 persons have been killed or are missing in the city. This total includes over 1,500 children. An additional 56,000 persons have been wounded, including nearly 15,000 children. It has been estimated that over the course of the siege the city has hit been hit by an average of approximately 329 shell impacts per day, with a high of 3,777 shell impacts on 22 July 1993. This shellfire has caused extensive damage to the city’s structures, including civilian and cultural property. The BiH Government has estimated that shelling has destroyed over 10,000 apartments and damaged over 100,000 others. Of the other buildings in the city, 23 per cent were reported seriously damaged, 64 per cent partially damaged and 10 per cent slightly damaged. The Council of Europe’s Committee on Culture and Education concluded that most of the buildings in the city had been damaged to a greater or lesser degree and that 35,000 dwellings had been destroyed through September 1993.

One of the ugliest episodes during this already awful display of Christian humanism was the way the snipers targeted children.

The report continues, on the same page:

The siege has not spared any sector of Sarajevo’s population. UNICEF reported that of the estimated 65,000 to 80,000 children in the city: at least 40 per cent had been directly shot at by snipers; 51 per cent had seen someone killed; 39 per cent had seen one or more family members killed; 19 per cent had witnessed a massacre; 48 per cent had their home occupied by someone else; 73 per cent have had their home attacked or shelled; and 89 per cent had lived in underground shelters. It is probable that the psychological trauma suffered during the siege will bear heavily on the lives of these children in the years to come.

A sniper obviously has all the space to see his potential victim, so imagine purposefully shooting at a child. And here, not one, but tens of thousands of children were targeted!

In fact, there has been a whole report of nearly 900 pages, Zločini nad djecom Sarajeva u opsadi, looking specifically at the war crimes against children during the siege, when more than 1000 were killed and around 25% of the city’s total child population was wounded, too often by these “heroic” snipers (perhaps they’ll be rewarded with a Hollywood biopic).

These are the same peoples who blast the Islamic jurisprudence of war despite the well-known prohibition about purposefully targeting children.

Also, while reading these numbers about civilian deaths and wounded, keep in mind that the city’s pre-war population was at around 500,000 (today it’s just over 300,000 so it hasn’t reached these pre-war numbers).

RELATED: How Bosniaks Reveal the Liberal West’s Hypocrisy

The Cultural Destruction

Physical genocide of the Bosniak-Muslims wasn’t enough for the Serb-Christians. They also had to erase their cultural past, which obviously reminded them of a glorious Islamic legacy.

Bosniak Muslims have produced numerous great Islamic personalities, such as the influential 16th-century polymath Matrakçı Nasuh active during the Ottoman Empire. In fact Bosniak Muslims provided the greatest number of Ottoman grand vizirs (the effective heads of the government) just after the Turks themselves and the Albanians.

These Bosniak Muslim scholars, ministers, military commander, etc., would leave a legacy of Islamic seminaries, mosques, and other grand buildings we can still witness in Istanbul today.

It was thus natural these same Bosniak Muslims leave such a legacy in their own homeland, and Serb-Christians couldn’t tolerate it: they destroyed around 600 mosques during the Bosnian War, and Sarajevo having more than 100 mosques, many were eventually hit during the constant shelling of the city.

Outside buildings, there was another sign of the Bosniak Muslims’ cultural productivity: Their prolific written heritage in books and manuscripts, touching all subjects of classical Islamic civilization, the religious sciences but also fields such as mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and so on.

There were more than 1 million books and hundreds of thousands of manuscripts on all these subjects, attesting to the Bosniak Muslims’ old and deep intellectual achievements, when Serb-Christians targeted them.

AramcoWorld has a long, enlightening article on “the largest single incident of deliberate book-burning in modern history”:

Taking up positions in its surrounding mountains, Serbs firebombed Sarajevo night and day. During lulls in the bombing, snipers watched and waited to pick off pedestrians who emerged from the chaos, desperate for food, water and fuel. Signs reading Pazite, Snajper! (“Beware, Sniper!”) were plastered about like wallpaper. So willfully focused on the eradication of culture was the Serb aggression that philosophy professors at the university were identified as prime assassination targets. So, too, were their writings and those of their cultural predecessors. “The Siege of Sarajevo,” observed Bosnian scholar András J. Riedlmayer a decade after the conflict, “resulted in what may be the largest single incident of deliberate book-burning in modern history.” (…)

Three months later, Gazič and her fellow Sarajevans again watched in horror as, an hour after nightfall on August 25, Serb forces immolated the National Library with a barrage of phosphorus bombs. As they had during the destruction of the Oriental Institute, Serb fighters in the hills “peppered the area around the library with machine-gun fire, trying to prevent firemen from fighting the blaze,” according to Associated Press reporter John Pomfret, who was on the scene. Nevertheless braving the sniper fire, librarians and citizen volunteers formed a human chain, passing what books they could gather out of the burning building. But when the heat exploded the structure’s slender Moorish columns and the roof came crashing in, it was too late: The library’s invaluable collection was gone.

Imagine all these works of Quranic commentary, of logic, and so on which have been lost.

These are the peoples who will then later say that Islam “destroys civilization.”

The European Betrayal

We’ve probably all heard of how during the Srebrenica killings, the Dutch “peacekeepers” basically let the genocidal massacre happen under their watchful eyes. But during the siege of Sarajevo, other Europeans too thought that the most “peacekeeping” they could do was to let Bosniak Muslims get slaughtered.

So let’s look at the case of Hakija Turajlić, who was an economist and important Bosniak Muslim politician, being not less than a deputy prime minister, and how he died.

This is what American journalist Peter Maass reported for the Washington Post a day or so after Hakija’s death, in 1993:

SARAJEVO, BOSNIA, JAN. 9 — The United Nations commander in Bosnia admitted today that his soldiers failed to provide adequate security for a top Bosnian politician who was assassinated while under U.N. protection, and he warned that the killing could provoke an escalation in Balkan warfare. (…)

More than 24 hours after the assassination and just a few hours after Turajlic was buried today in an ancient Muslim cemetery here, there were mounting complaints among Bosnians that the current U.N. policy of using persuasion rather than force to stop harassment and killings by Serb fighters is failing. (…)

Turajlic was killed Friday afternoon as he was returning to Sarajevo from the U.N.-controlled airport in a French armored personnel carrier. The vehicle was stopped at an illegal roadblock by about 40 soldiers of the Bosnian Serb army, and after a nearly two-hour standoff, a Serb soldier pushed aside a French officer and fired at least seven shots at Turajlic, killing him.

The French armored personnel carrier was traveling on a nominally demilitarized road that the Serbs had agreed, in writing, would be controlled by the United Nations. The Serbs are not allowed to set up checkpoints or inspect vehicles on the road. But they frequently do so, and the United Nations has not forced them back into their barracks.

When the French vehicle was stopped at 4:15 p.m. — less than 400 yards from the headquarters of the well-armed French battalion — by Serb soldiers backed up by three armored personnel carriers, the French officer who took charge of the negotiations refused to call for help. (…)

During the standoff, Sartre or one of the five French soldiers under his command at the scene apparently allowed the back doors of the armored personnel carrier to be opened — a violation of U.N. security rules. Once the doors were open, there was nothing protecting the Bosnian deputy prime minister from the Serbs.

So, it’s not the Dutch this time, but the French! Seems they find a sort of European unity only against Muslims!

We gave the specific example of Hakija Turajlić because, if Europeans can’t protect a Bosniak Muslim of such “importance,” imagine what they’d make of the “average” Bosniak Muslim. Well, we saw at Srebrenica.

In conclusion, we could say the siege of Sarajevo contains many lessons: how “Whiteness” is not a protection when you subscribe to Islam, how far Christian hate can go, and how Europe is, well, as usual, hypocritical.

RELATED: Can a Muslim Ever Be a Full Citizen in the West?

For the reader who wants to dig further and looks for an overall picture of the Bosnian Genocide, we warmly recommend Michael A. Sells’ book The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia.

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Serbs are bitter

Shirk and arrogance has a part to play in this. The infamous Serbian meme song which praises Radovan Karadžić is also known as “God is a Serb”, which the Christchurch Shooter terrorist was playing.
Now days the Serbs are very bitter from the results of the war. At least in this case the murderers of Muslims face some justice in this world for the crimes they have done.

Zaid Diaz

Modern-day nationalist Serbs still dream for a Greater Orthodox Serbia and a total annihilation of the Muslim Bosniak people. They even claim that all Bosniaks are Islamized Serbs (Some Muslim Serbs actually exist) and are traitors to Orthodoxy (as if Christianity was the right religion, heh? Slavs were pagans before being Christians)


The balkan wars during the 1800’s were even much worse, during the fall of the ottoman empire. There used to be much more muslims all over the balkans, they got driven out and killed despide being white and the same ethnicity as their Christian counterparts. For example in Greece there were many greek muslims aside from the turkish population, they too were targeted when muslim rule collapsed.

Wee Jim

Muslims in Ottoman-occupied Europe were privileged over christians and regarded as traitors and collaborators. Many of the “muslims” of B-H were descended from those who fled after the independence of European countries.
In addition, in WWII Serbs were victims of a Croat genocide. “Muslims” tended to be neutral, though some enlisted in the SS. Krajina – an area of Croatia with a Serb majority – also declared independence after the break-up of Yugoslavia. The aim was to create a Greater Serbia.


You are mixing different conflicts right now.
During WW2 extremist nationalist croat groups (catholic ) were oppressing serbian people (orthodox). Young bosniaks(muslims) did join the German ss because it was a way out of poverty and also they only joined the most powerful at the moment as a mean of protection because they were in a vulnerable situation , but they were not nazi sympathizers (they saved thousands of Jewish people in mosques for example).

Wee Jim

The reason for the large percentage of muslims in B-H was that many moved there in 1878 from territory lost by the Ottomans. After that B-H was ruled by the Habsburg empire but was still nominally an Ottoman territory and muslims retained some privileges. Both Serbs and Croats were not fond of muslim rule. In many ways “muslim” in Yugoslavia was a class and ethnic identity as much as a religious one “muslims” retained their middle-cass situation and regarded other Yugoslavs as ignorant peasants.


The collapse of Yugoslavia gave way to the old nationalisms from the 1800’s and early 1900’s to take place ; serbian nationalists, croat nationalists, bosnian nationalists, etc.
The roots of the problem was nationalism based on religious differences (muslims, catholics, orthodox), ethnically croats, bosnians and serbians are the same.

Nationalism is primarily to blame here, the same ideology behind most wars in the 1800’s and WW1, that eventually led to WW2.


As for the Ottoman era, it was absolutely not perfect and there was a lot of corruption and many times they didn’t follow the Qur’an and sunnah properly. In Islam,muslim rulers must treat every citizen with justice despite the religion.But one thing you have to acknowledge is that the ottomans did not commit mass conversions of christians like what had happened in the iberian peninsula with the muslim and jewish population, or the mass extermination of muslims after ottoman collapse.

Wee Jim

There weren’t mass conversions of christians in the iberian peninsula. Muslim rule – and later survival – there depended on continued support from North Africa. There were mass exterminations by the Ottomans – the Chios massacre is probably the most famous – and expulsions – the population of Hungary halved under Ottoman rule and the devshirme was compulsory conversion.
Both Moorish Spain and Ottoman colonies discouraged general conversion to islam – they needed the jizya.


If Ottomans were so ready to mass murder like you claim, why didn’t they commit mass genocide against the Christians in the Balkans during the centuries in which they were the unparalleled superpower of the world? If Christians feel comfortable letting a million Iraqi children starve to death today, I can only imagine what they’d have done governing over Muslims back then. The crusaders aren’t making it look too good.


Muslims in Ottoman Europe were primarily Turks, and over 600,000 of them were exiled, raped and murdered by Christians as the Ottomans fell. Nothing you’ve written has addressed that. Christians under the Ottomans were largely left alone for 500+ years so long as they paid Jizya, yet in a few decades those same Christians gleefully raped and murdered their Muslim neighbours, while Ottomans never ethnically cleansed the Christians even though they had the power to do so for centuries in the past.

Wee Jim

over 600,000 of them were exiled, raped and murdered by Christians as the Ottomans fell“… but not necessarily in that order.
It looks like the Ottomans and their local collaborators weren’t quite as popular with the natives as they thought they ought to be. The muslims in their European colonies weren’t neighbours of the christian natives but their overlords.
The Ottomans did commit mass genocide when it suited them.


It literally was in that order. The average Muslim potato farmer in the Balkans was the not the overlord of his neighbouring Christians.If you’re trying to portray it that way, you’re completely at odds with reality. Muslims and Christians alike were fed by the Ottoman state. The millet system sucked in some ways, but it was far superior to the Christian way of just wiping out whoever they came into contact with, once again seen in the crusades and the colonisations of North and South America.

Last edited 7 months ago by joe