This file is available on a Cryptome DVD offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for a DVD of the Cryptome 10-year archives of 35,000 files from June 1996 to June 2006 (~3.5 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. Archives include all files of cryptome.org, cryptome2.org, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org. Cryptome offers with the Cryptome DVD an INSCOM DVD of about 18,000 pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985. No additional contribution required -- $25 for both. The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost.

3 February 2005. Thanks to MB.

Plamenko Cvitiæ, lies distortion and pure invention.

Nacional journalist’s lies

28/01/2005

A recent article by a Croatian journalist attempted to discredit a Croatian defence war veteran. The attempt failed revealing a classic example of the media misinformation campaign surrounding General Ante Gotovina.

Last Tuesday the print edition of Nacional published an article by journalist Plamenko Cvitiæ entitled ‘Lik Laznog Heroja’.  Published one week after a number of international newspapers, reported an imminent MI6 disinformation campaign in the Croatian media to discredit former Croatian combatants, Nacional’s article was a crude attempt to discredit Tony Cascarino’s character, his manuscript, dedication to the Croatian cause and support for General Ante Gotovina though only resulted in confirming Cascarino’s wartime account.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050113-041835-4514r.htm

We shall now reveal how Cvitiæ employed blatant lies, distortion and pure invention resulting in yet another farcical episode in the ongoing media circus and speaks volumes as to the quality of information prevented to the Croatian public.

Tony Cascarino is an Irish national who volunteered to defend Croatia from the Serbian aggression in 1991 as a 20 year old. He arrived in August and fought on several battlefields, served briefly under General Gotovina and took part in several operations alongside him in the Novska area. In 2000 Cascarino wrote a manuscript chartering his wartime experiences between October and December 1991, published on the Internet gratis in 2001. That same year Gotovina was indicted by the ICTY for alleged war crimes following a 1995 Croatian army operation to reclaim land previously seized by Serb rebels. Gotovina disappeared before the indictment could be served and claims innocence of the charges.

Cascarino has voiced criticism against the indictment and the British government’s treatment of Croatia. He has also, amongst others, campaigned in support of Gotovina.  Unsubstantiated media allegations against Gotovina alleging criminal links first began to circulate in the Croatian media soon after his 2001 disappearance. It progressed from alleged localised criminality to that of international. In 2003 these spurious allegations began to include the name of Cascarino, who has repeatedly denied the allegations. Gotovina’s supporters believe these media reports are part of a systematic campaign to discredit Gotovina and affect his popularity with the Croatian public.

False pretences

Cvitiæ first approached the Cascarino camp via email and requested to speak direct with Cascarino. He emphasised that Nacional was the only one to interview Gotovina since his disappearance. “To be clearly honest, my intention is to proove (sic) that Mr. Gotovina is not involved in any criminal activity, especially not these alleged by brit services that are published by their associates. I also want to believe that Mr. Cascarino is not involved in any criminal activity, but in order to influence others to think the same, I need some evidence about it. If you can help me, that would be great,” he said, and spoke of Nacional’s biggest “enemy” Globus. (Copy of email correspondence available.)

Cvitiæ was informed access to Cascarino wasn’t possible. However an associate contacted the journalist. The associate informed him the allegations against Cascarino were all false and part of a systematic media misinformation campaign based solely on speculation and not fact and which commenced in September 2003 in Globus, which is also confirmed in previously published statements. Cvitiæ then took this information almost word for word, attributed it to himself, and used it as his main theme in his distorted finished article. Despite his expressed ‘wish to believe Cascarino’s innocence’ ­ Cvitiæ then maliciously attacked Cascarino. Instead of stating the truth that the false “Irish allegations” are just one of many created by anti-Gotovina sources; Cvitiæ attempted to portray Cascarino as the source of all false allegations against Gotovina. He also omitted other pertinent information such as the fact that Cascarino has offered to report himself to the police authorities if they should seek to question him as he has nothing to fear and has committed no crime other than to sympathise with Gotovina and criticise the case against him.

Contradictory Cvitiæ

Cvitiæ’s blatant cut and paste story is riddled with transparent contradiction such as his claim that nobody in Croatia had heard of or knew the name Tony Cascarino, but later when it suits him, Cvitiæ states he showed photos to ‘anonymous’ veterans who miraculously all recognised the person on the photo ­ as someone known as Tony Cascarino. Another anonymous witness “T.K” states: "Cascarino was obviously too young to have any war experience whatsoever….”, - at a time when most people in Croatia regardless of age would have had no war experience whatsoever.

In fact, Cvitiæ bases much of his argument on Cascarino’s alleged youthful appearance and repeatedly refers to it as if to infer that bravery somehow corresponds with one’s age. Amusingly, blinded in his quest to discredit and devoid of any evidence and fact to support his lies, Cvitiæ with his fabricated anonymous witness statements, unwittingly confirms Cascarino’s account that he was where he states at the times he states in the manuscript.

Cvitiæ’s personal prejudice and hostility, particularly against the foreign and expatriate volunteers who he portrays as “Problematic Alcoholic adventurers and hooligans, with no military experience and used as canon fodder by the Croats” is a disgrace and displays a total lack of understanding of the volunteers, their motivation and the reality of the time.

Cvitiæ bases his theory on the following illogical argument: “If the (media) allegations (alleging criminality) against Tony Cascarino are fabricated, then his (Cascarino’s) statements of his military past and skills fall apart, as well as the credibility of his claims about his war credentials and friendship with Ante Gotovina.”

Leaving aside the fact that Cascarino’s military past and skills can be easily confirmed, as can his pre-1991 biography as stated in his manuscript and that Cascarino, who holds Gotovina in high respect, has never claimed personal friendship with him, Cvitiæ’s logic equates to the ridiculous statement: “If a person claims to be wrongly accused by others, and his claim is later confirmed to be fact; then previous statements made by the exonerated person are false.” It simply doesn’t follow. Indeed, in all probability the opposite is true.

He is also the first journalist to libel Cascarino a ‘mercenary,’ calls him a ‘fake hero’ and infers he is not the grandson of a legendary IRA commander. He claims Cascarino’s pre-1991 biography is “re-constructed,” though provides no evidence whatsoever to support these false allegations. In reality, Cascarino’s pre-1991 biography, as stated in his manuscript, can and will be confirmed.

Cvitiæ claims to have read the manuscript ‘Millenium Memory’ and asserts its content is neither true nor written by Cascarino, but is in fact the work of British intelligence. He backs up this outrageous assumption with alleged statements of “anonymous” sources, who if they even exist, clearly have never met Cascarino nor know Gotovina, nor participated in any of the described military operations. The unreliability of these as well as the one named witness ‘Goran Pavkovic,’ a man once considered a friend by Cascarino who features in his manuscript shall now be demonstrated.

Anonymous Accusers

Supposed Witness ‘D.M’ states: “According to his (Cascarino’s) accounts (in his manuscript), it looks like he came to Vukovar at the time when the city was under siege and when leaving Vukovar was impossible.”

Nowhere in the manuscript does it state Cascarino was in Vukovar during the siege.

D.M, a supposed Vukovar veteran then alleges he “only saw Cascarino a few times in Vinkovci in a HOS uniform”, when Cascarino has in fact, never worn a HOS uniform nor that of a British army Engineer as another alleged witness stated. The precise uniform he actually did wear during his time in Croatia can be verified by witnesses and is not what Cvitiæ alleges.

Cvitiæ attempts to deliberately mislead by falsely stating the manuscript ‘Millennium Memory’ appeared on the Internet “In the spring of 2003” to tie it in with the 2003 Globus report and so re-enforce his fabricated ‘British intelligence’ theme. It was completed in actual fact in 2000, a year before Gotovina’s indictment, and appeared on the Internet in 2001. This is confirmed by a variety of sources including the press statement issued by Gotovina’s defence team on the 24/09/2003 confirming www.tonycascarino.com which hosts the manuscript had been there “the past two years.”

Cvitiæ’s alleged anonymous witnesses make derogatory comments insinuating someone other than Cascarino authored the manuscript: “the person like him wouldn't be capable of writing a book,” and "It was obvious that he was un-educated, prone to alcohol, he never took notes about anything and had a look of the most ordinary young football hooligan, and by no means a war hero or someone capable of writing three complex sentences."

Cvitiæ himself states: “it's indicative that there are no dates whatsoever, and in particular there's no information about the time of Cascarino's arrival to Croatia, nor the information on the time and circumstances of his departure from the country.”

These observations are really interesting, particularly as the very first page of Chapter 1 states the date was October 1991, and other dates when relevant are mentioned throughout the chapters. The first page of Chapter 2 states he arrived in Croatia three months earlier in August and if the circumstances of his departure from the country are covered in great detail in Chapter 11.

“The parts of his book where he writes that he was the instructor on Sljeme are ridiculous. Cascarino wasn't an instructor of anything,” stated another alleged anonymous witness.

Cascarino instructed the expatriate volunteers on an intensive training course on Sljieme hill as he states in Chapter 1. This included fitness runs, the assault course and high ropes and weapons training. The precise location of spent FN FAL 7.62 mm NATO rounds around Sljieme can also be disclosed to confirm where the target practice took place; as can certain other things about Sljieme such as what happened each morning outside the main entrance as the national anthem played through the loudspeakers.

“…it is questionable how they could have communicated, as Gotovina only returned to Croatia then, and because of his long stay abroad he had almost forgotten Croatian (language) and issued orders in French, while Cascarino knew only his native language - English," said I.M., one of Gotovina's (alleged) co-veterans.

This statement, as well as the derogatory remarks concerning the expatriates and foreign volunteers signifies the individual/s from whom they originate have little personal knowledge of either Ante Gotovina or Cascarino and is clearly speculating. Gotovina conversed with Cascarino in English as it clearly states in his manuscript. Both men also have knowledge of more than one language.

“…the military arsenal which Croatian forces possessed at that time does not match Cascarino's descriptions…”

This statement suggests it originates from someone with no practical knowledge of the war but specifically Gotovina’s unit in late 1991. It can only refer to the Heckler and Koch weapons specified in Chapter 1, which were the exact models stated and possessed by the individual’s stated; or the FN FAL rifles. The latter were Argentinean originated with collapsible butts and issued to the expatriates by the armourer Ivica, an ethnic Albanian, at the Vrapce barracks at Senjak in October 1991.

Having stated that Cascarino’s role in the manuscript is overblown, which conflicts with the feedback from people who’ve actually read the story, Cvitiæ then attempts to mislead once again by stating Cascarino spent ‘only a few months’ and infers that he departed Croatia ‘early’ in December 1991 whilst the battles were still in full swing by pointing out the Croatian war lasted between 1991-1995.

Cascarino has consistently stated his purpose was to defend the Croatian people from the foreign aggression and to fight until independence came. The facts of the matter are he was in Croatia during the worst of the aggression and he departed several days before the Sarajevo ceasefire was signed on January 2nd 1992, the arrival of 14,000 peacekeepers and official recognition of independence.  Sporadic fighting, bombardments and liberation operations by the now strong Croatian army occurred between 1992-1995, but Croatia was neither defenceless nor savagely attacked as it had been in previous months.

“Equally, it is unclear why Cascarino never joined the First International Volunteer platoon at 160th Osijek brigade which was comprised of precisely the foreigners. Some of them fell in the war, while the survivors, at the end of the war, were credited with the Croatian citizenship so that some of them still today live and work in Croatia.”

Again this demonstrates Cvitiæ’s crass ignorance of the facts and ignorance as to the content and message of Cascarino’s manuscript. It also makes one think where Cvitiæ was during the war. The aforementioned unit was one of many comprising foreigners during the war. Unlike Cvitiæ who displays the traits of a materialist, Cascarino arrived in Croatia without expectation of profit or reward. The fact that someone receives citizenship or other reward is in itself no measure of bravery. Some men remained after the war; some men didn’t.

Goran Pavkovic (G.P)

Cvitiæ’s only named witness is Goran Pavkovic whose alleged statements have, like those of the anonymous soldiers, more holes than a Tetley Tea-bag and are transparently false.

Goran (who I’m informed dislikes his own first name) states:

“Cascarino showed up one evening on the fence of the military base in Senjak. I instantly concluded it was about a young man who most probably run away from his home and came here to make a hero of himself. We placed him in one room in the military base and he was assigned to me because I was the only one who spoke English.”

Whilst again confirming the fact that Cascarino volunteered to fight for Croatia as a young man during the worst of the Serbian aggression, Goran’s initial statement contains some major flaws. Firstly, Goran himself was 21 years old, a mere one year older than 20-year-old Cascarino. Thus by attempting to ridicule Cascarino by his age (and not what he was actually doing), Goran ridicules himself.

Secondly, Cascarino arrived at the entrance of the camp at night, not evening, in darkness, having been driven there by a military escort from central Zagreb. He was briefly questioned by the medical officer ‘Dr. N’, who, due to the dark, shone a torch in his face before permitting entry. The only other witnesses were the sentries and the escort who then departed. Goran Pavkovic was not present and did not meet or even see Cascarino until several days later. On entry to the camp Cascarino was escorted by ‘Dr. N’ and a sentry to a room and was searched. He spent the first night on a bunk bed in the guardroom and the next day an English-speaking guardsman named Ivica was assigned to look after him.

Goran Pavkovic first met Cascarino beside the sentry box at the camp entrance approximately one week later. A nurse from Zadar had been instructed to sew the Tiger Brigade patch on Cascarino’s personal military smock by the C/O. A thief snatched the jacket from the nurse and made off. Cascarino searched for the culprit to no avail, picked up his belongings and decided to leave to another unit. Goran overheard Cascarino complain to a sentry and apologised for the theft. He then persuaded Cascarino to remain in the camp and invited him to share his barrack room. Goran then encouraged Cascarino to drink with him at a nearby bar in the evenings where his girlfriend ‘J’ worked and was owned by her parents. This was around early October in 1991.”

Goran’s alleged statements are at variance with those of witnesses who are in contact with the author of this article and who were there at the time.

Witness ‘A.A’ described Goran as a “bullshitter” and states: “Pavkovic claims not to have been Tony’s mate, slags him off and pretends to have hardly known him in the (Nacional) report but this is untrue. He asked him to share his room and often took him out on the piss. Tony genuinely considered him a friend but I warned him (about G.P).” The same witness states: “Tony was itching to get back to the front and grew impatient with him (G.P) who kept saying “keep safe in the barracks and let the others work like mules.”  Witness ‘AA’ also told the present author that Goran spent most evenings with his girlfriend in the bar and criticises Cascarino’s time on the frontline with the 1st Battalion of the 1st Brigade though repeatedly told Cascarino and witness ‘AA’ to their faces they were “heroes who’d always be remembered for helping them (Croatians) out.”

“I never knew Goran Pavkovic to have ever been to any front line. Every time I came back from the front he was prancing round in uniform with pistol and baseball cap, in either the camp or the bars,” ‘A.A’ said.

Witness ‘T.J’ a former British soldier, in a phone conversation with the present author stated: “He (G.P) was a proper wanker who apart from playing at soldiers in the barracks lived with his mum in a nearby apartment. He always talked about joining the (French Foreign) Legion and swore he’d do it at the end of the war but never did. He said he wasn’t Catholic anymore and was thinking of becoming a Buddhist or some other religion. He never did that either. A guard warned me he’d been in an ambush at the beginning of the war and later tried to shoot himself.”

‘TJ’ then revealed some other relevant information, which may cast some light on the motive behind Goran’s questionable allegations.

“He (G.P) was minging out of his head on brandy and talked of shooting the medical officer ‘Dr.N’ in the head. This was in his (G.P’s) barrack room in Vrapce and in front of witnesses. We had to reassure ‘M’ (a nurse and colleague of Dr.N) who became highly distressed. This was around October 1991. Then a few days before Christmas TC and the Frenchman visited him (G.P) before they left Croatia. Anyway TC handed him a bag, which had weapons inside and one of which I know was a black Steyr sniper-rifle. This was also witnessed by ‘A.A’. TC instructed Pavkovic to ensure it was given to a senior Novska based Croatian army officer to whom the weapons belonged. The bag and contents never reached that Croatian officer. Some time later Pavkovic approached me. He was very nervous and worried. He said “That fucking mule threatened me with his pistol!” He claimed the officer from Novska had pointed a pistol at him and threatened him because the weapons were missing. I don’t know what happened later or if the weapons were ever recovered. I assumed he’d flogged them and pocketed the cash.”

Goran allegedly claims to Cvitiæ that Cascarino communicated with him in 1995 requesting photographs of his time in Croatia, which he claims not to have, and states he never communicated with Cascarino again.

In October 1991, Goran Pavkovic helped himself to Cascarino’s camera, and using Cascarino’s film, took a number of photographs. Some of these photographs featured Cascarino whilst others were of corpses described in one of his manuscripts early chapters. Cascarino asked him several times for the film and Goran for some unknown reason, refused with bizarre excuses. Firstly he claimed his brother had it and was missing at the front. Then he claimed the film was missing then later found. Finally he claimed the film had been developed though no pictures came out due to bad lighting. In September 1997, Cascarino telephoned Goran and requested the photos be sent to him regardless of their condition. Goran promised numerous times to do so but never did. Cascarino then ceased all contact with him. It’s believed some of the photographs that Cvitiæ claimed Goran didn’t have, and which Goran claimed didn’t exist, were published in the very same article.

Cvitiæ’s allegations are contradictory and plainly absurd. Tony Cascarino has provided specific details of events in his manuscript, which could only have been written by someone who witnessed or participated in the said events and confirmed by others who witnessed or participated in said events. Whilst purporting to expose the manuscript accounts as false, Cvitiæ completely avoids its actual content, and attempts to discredit Cascarino by presenting alleged testimonies of ‘anonymous’ individuals who may or may not exist, and who clearly have no knowledge whatsoever of the events in question, or disagree with claims they allege Cascarino has made and written in his manuscript, but which on inspection Cascarino hasn’t made and do not feature in the manuscript. Not one of his witnesses has actually challenged any of Cascarino’s accounts.

For instance Cascarino either was or was not based around Novska in a small unit opposite Gotovina’s quarters and took part in operations with Gotovina. He either did or didn’t carry rockets on his back with a Muslim man named Ninja who destroyed a vehicle on a small track in a valley. There either was or there was not a vehicle destroyed by explosives on a small bridge in a valley and Cascarino either was or wasn’t present. Cvitiæ’s one named witness is a man who never went to the front-line himself, who admits Cascarino did, and discredits Cascarino’s combat experience by his alleged drunken barrack room behaviour.

According to Cvitiæ, heroism is based on age and appearance, a 5-year service in the International Brigade and Croatian residency.

It seems Cvitiæ is not interested in the truth. Like a Doubting Thomas he sees what he wants to see. One wonders what his response will be if he was to be faced with the facts.

And when the time’s right, the facts will be presented.