Ah, Those Journalists

[Sarmatian]

In the "Iranian Elections" thread it was mentioned that Iran is locking up journalists. I've pointed out how nato doesn't have too good record with journalist with this (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/no-justice-victims-nato-bombings-20090423).

From the link:


Ten years on, no-one has been held to account for the NATO attack on the Serbian state radio and television building that left 16 civilians dead. Sixteen civilians were also injured during the air attack on 23 April 1999 on the headquarters and studios of Radio Televizija Srbije (RTS) in central Belgrade.

Those killed included a make-up artist, a cameraman, an editor, a programme director, three security guards and other media support staff. An estimated 200 staff are thought to have been working in the building at the time.

To that my good friend Louis said...

I'd say that this 'something in you' are the lingering whisperings of Serbian state propaganda about victimization and warmongering, one source of which was targeted in this attack.

Sorry for the dead, they didn't deserve to die. Serbian warmongering, however, did.

... which led me to deduce that some people think that apparently there are instances when blowing up TV stations and killing journalists is appropriate. Two sides involved in an armed conflict, one side decided that the other is using teh evil propaganda and starts killing journalists and bombing buildings.

So, instead of going OT in the Iranian thread, I'd thought this would a nice topic for a new one. When is it okay to kill journalists, is it okay to kill journalists from oppressive regimes, who has the authority to decide it etc, etc...

Fire away...

[Pannonian]

In the "Iranian Elections" thread it was mentioned that Iran is locking up journalists. I've pointed out how nato doesn't have too good record with journalist with this (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/no-justice-victims-nato-bombings-20090423).

From the link:


To that my good friend Louis said...


... which led me to deduce that some people think that apparently there are instances when blowing up TV stations and killing journalists is appropriate. Two sides involved in an armed conflict, one side decided that the other is using teh evil propaganda and starts killing journalists and bombing buildings.

So, instead of going OT in the Iranian thread, I'd thought this would a nice topic for a new one. When is it okay to kill journalists, is it okay to kill journalists from oppressive regimes, who has the authority to decide it etc, etc...

Fire away...
It's tempting sometimes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/09/andy-coulson-hacking-news-world).

[rory_20_uk]

Simple rule: as the winner everything was justified, proportionate and fair. The looser started it, committed all the big crimes and it was their actions / inaction that led to any that superficially looked like being caused by the other side.

Our regime is never oppressive, theirs almost always is.

In that conflict we were told daily how the Serbs were lying, everything was propaganda and only we know the Truth. At the end of the war more Serbian tanks left than intelligence stated were there at the start, and it turned out that loads of smart missiles and bombs were blowing up mock-ups of tanks.

In war anything goes. Rules are made up by people who've never been anywhere near a battlefield who think you can watch half your squad die and calmly take them prisoner when they surrender. As an ex-girlfriend's father said (who was ex-SAS) "if you need to use your gun, make sure they're dead. Then there's only one version of what happened".

We bomb civilians, mine roads, block food, destroy water and electricity supplies. Morals are the thin veneer we add to the narrative after the stench of cooked meat and rotting corpses has cleared.

It's OK to kill journalists when doing so helps beat the other side. If killing some is causing an outcry, the kill the rest.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Was uncalled for. War-crime, yeah.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It all boils down to the question:

Were the Serbian State and its organs the victims of foreign aggression? (As some, more nationalistically inclined, parties like to continue to portray it?)
Or was the Serbian State governed by aggressive nationalists, who used state power as a tool for genocide and war crimes, the likes of which Europe hadn't seen in fifty years?

Some debunking of Serbian nationalistic myths:
Serbia is never alone held responsible.
Nor was this the case in the 1990s - this simplification never existed.
It is not 'The West' vs Serbia. The West is a mere sideshow to internal Serbian politics.

Meh, why type myself when so many reporters and truth committee's within former Yugoslavia spend so much time reporting to the world, or, in this case, to the human rights tribune in Geneva:

30 June 09 - Serbia’s war crimes prosecutor plans to investigate the role of media in fomenting ethnic hatred and encouraging war crimes during the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. But for many observers it is too little, too late

IWPR/Iva Martinovic in Belgrade, Goran Vezic in Split, Dzenana Karabegovic in Sarajevo and Biljana Jovicevic in Podgorica - The investigation announced earlier in June opens the possibility of prosecuting journalists for biased reports published at the bidding of nationalist regimes across former Yugoslavia.

The investigation grew out of testimony heard during Belgrade trials on the massacre of 200 Croats at the Ovcara farm near Vukovar in 1991 and the murder of 25 Bosniaks in Zvornik in 1992, when some of the accused said that certain reports from electronic media incited them to commit the crimes.

The prosecution will not limit itself to the Ovcara and Zvornik cases, but “a comprehensive analysis is being conducted in which journalist and media experts, domestic and foreign, are involved”, he added. The investigation will not cover only Serbian media, but those in Bosnia, Montenegro and Croatia as well. “We want to be completely clear that we as prosecutors want to find elements of possible crime, which would be consequently taken to another level – a criminal proceeding,” Vekaric said.


The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY, has not indicted any journalists for war crimes nor passed any such cases down to local courts. In contrast, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Tanzania has found three Rwandan journalists guilty of stoking ethnic hatred during the 1994 genocide. Two were jailed for life and a third was sentenced to 35 years.
The most notorious journalist to ever face trial was Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher, founder and publisher of Der Stuermer newspaper, a central cog in the Nazi propaganda machine, who was sentenced to death at Nuremberg.
No one has yet been named in the Serbian probe, but speculation abounds that it will focus on the more blatant war-mongering by loyalists of the late autocrat Slobodan Milosevic.But whereas the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has not indicted journalists, Serbia's own war crime prosecuters might. Including this state television that was bombed.


“It’s late because so much time has passed, many have died or have been forgotten, and it’s early, because many of those who were then orchestrating media are still in power, in politics, and are still indirectly influencing media through the political parties they are in,” said Filip David, former editor of drama programmes at Serbian state TV.

Lazar Lalic, who produced the series Pictures and Words of Hatred, dealing with the role of state TV in the wars, said the prosecution would have little trouble finding material for its investigation.
“Documentation exists. It all comes down to instigating propaganda, which was horrible and which managed to make thousands in Serbia volunteer to fight,” said Lalic. “In general, I am a sceptic regarding those trials. It seems to me that things are going in reverse direction. Those people should have first been forbidden from working in media.”All quotes from this
IWPR article (http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/Serbia-probes-media-role-in-war,4651) about war crimes prosecution of media within, and by, states in former Yugoslavia.


Serbia as the poor victim of foreign agression? No. Genocidal it was, and truth is what is needed, not victimization. This, I am sorry to say, I think an affront to the massacred.

[econ21]

Morality in war is complicated - this kind of case even more complicated, because nowadays nearly all conflict is not described as a war (but Operation Iraqi Freedom or whatever).

I think there is slippery slope - some black and some white, lots of grey.

For me, white would be bombing the Rwandan radio station that was broadcasting to Hutus and telling them to kill their Tutsi neighbours. Hell, yeck, absolutely, bomb those *****

Almost equally white: bombing Goebbels and Nazi radio stations. In a total war, if they are stiffening enemy resistance, then yes, they are legitimate targets. Taking them out is like taking out power stations and bridges. Civilians will die, but the capacity of the enemy to fight will be hindered.

For me, black is the (was it "accidental"?) bombing of Al-Jazeera in Iraq - IIRC, it happened twice. Absolutely outrageous - worse than if George Bush personally pulled out a pistol and shot the chap who threw his shoe at him. Al-Jazeera is a reasonably neutral station, which just happened to be reporting civilian casualties.

With Serbia, the case seems rather grey to me. I want to be evasive and say that bombing them was probably counter-productive and hence wrong. It creates a sense of grievance and hostility that is particularly important in a case of limited war (or even no war). It's the same point as can be made about bombing civilians in Afghanistan or Pakistan. But in the latter cases, at least you are targeting terrorists, rather than journalists.

[Fragony]

edit: come to think of it, this whole post was a bad idea.

[Vladimir]

... which led me to deduce that some people think that apparently there are instances when blowing up TV stations and killing journalists is appropriate. Two sides involved in an armed conflict, one side decided that the other is using teh evil propaganda and starts killing journalists and bombing buildings.


Correct.

[KukriKhan]

...blowing up TV stations and killing journalists is appropriate...

In my opinion, that is true ONLY in time of a formally declared war. Otherwise, it's criminal. I know it's old-fashioned, and regarded as irrelevant, and not flexible enough to suit today's modern international terrorism environment, but:

Formally declaring war on another country puts them on notice that henceforth everything and everybody within its borders is gonna be considered a valid target.

[Sarmatian]

Correct.

I've pretty much taken that as a given, the issue I wanted to discuss is when, why and who decides... Feel free to broaden it, the TV station bombing is just an example...


It all boils down to the question:

Were the Serbian State and its organs the victims of foreign aggression? (As some, more nationalistically inclined, parties like to continue to portray it?)
Or was the Serbian State governed by aggressive nationalists, who used state power as a tool for genocide and war crimes, the likes of which Europe hadn't seen in fifty years?

I wouldn't say it was so black-or-white either way as you try to portray it here but discussing it further would take us off topic too much.




Some debunking of Serbian nationalistic myths:
Serbia is never alone held responsible.
Nor was this the case in the 1990s - this simplification never existed.
It is not 'The West' vs Serbia. The West is a mere sideshow to internal Serbian politics.

This is again very complex issue to present it in such simple way. What do you mean "Serbia alone was never held responsible"? It is correct in some ways - yes there were politicians and various media outlets that didn't agree with the official story, but overwhelming majority supported that Serbia is, in fact, responsible. Fact that all repressive/punitive actions were taken against Serbia and other sides involved in the conflict were given assistance and support. Few days before "Oluja", NATO planes bombed Serbian radar stations and artillery positions.



Meh, why type myself when so many reporters and truth committee's within former Yugoslavia spend so much time reporting to the world, or, in this case, to the human rights tribune in Geneva:

But whereas the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has not indicted journalists, Serbia's own war crime prosecuters might. Including this state television that was bombed.

All quotes from this
IWPR article (http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/Serbia-probes-media-role-in-war,4651) about war crimes prosecution of media within, and by, states in former Yugoslavia.

Serbia as the poor victim of foreign agression? No. Genocidal it was, and truth is what is needed, not victimization. This, I am sorry to say, I think an affront to the massacred.

Interesting points, but still many issues need to be addressed.

Firstly, all that refers to the wars in Croatia and Bosnia and not to the 1999 bombing. There's half a decade between that. There's no doubt that regime used media (tv especially) as its tool, but news coverage was in 1999 was much more objective than from 1990-1995.

Secondly, there were biased and selective reporting in western media of earlier conflicts in Bosnia and Croatia. Many stories were exaggerated or simply false outright. That one sided coverage in turn incited population in NATO countries to support direct actions against Serbia and Serbs in other parts of Yugoslavia. In a sense, it also incited to violence and murder. Does that make CNN, BBC or whatever station and their reporters legitimate targets. Let's not forget that media was used a tool of propaganda since its inception and that there always were falsehood and bias in the media, and there always will be. Your position simply approves violent actions against the journalists and the media whenever one side thinks they're not giving objective reports.

"They say we have weapons of mass destruction? But we don't! Ok, let's kill/imprison them all"

Thirdly, let's say you're completely right, and that national television was nothing more than a tool used by the regime to further its own goals. Do you really think that killing three security guards, programme director, make-up artist, a cameraman and various other support staff with minor roles will change that?

Finally, let's not forget that NATO official justification for the bombing of TV station was because it was supposedly used for military stuff. Bollox in its own right, but it shows that even NATO was aware that the reason "it was used for propaganda" sounded really pathetic.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Formally declaring war on another country puts them on notice that henceforth everything and everybody within its borders is gonna be considered a valid target.

I know the Geneva Conventions are feeling a bit tattered these days, but no it doesn't.

[Adrian II]

I know the Geneva Conventions are feeling a bit tattered these days, but no it doesn't.Aye. :bow:

Those who think there is no such thing as an innocent civilian shouldn't complain about 9/11 and the logic behind it.

I suppose eight years of Bushism have taken their toll on some of the better backroom minds.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Military targets should be the only valid targets in any conflict. I woudln't be surprised if the people running the propaganda are as much a victim of it as anyone else, I would imagine they would be reflecting the more deeply-rooted attitudes of the populace, rather than inventing their ideas and influencing the people with them from the top-down.

Is there any regime in history where the propaganda used to fuel genocidal campaigns has not already had strong roots in the people targeted by the propaganda (and most likely those producing it as well)?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In my opinion, that is true ONLY in time of a formally declared war. Otherwise, it's criminal. I know it's old-fashioned, and regarded as irrelevant, and not flexible enough to suit today's modern international terrorism environment, but:

Formally declaring war on another country puts them on notice that henceforth everything and everybody within its borders is gonna be considered a valid target.

That could only be true if the targeted civilian structure were of relevance to the war effort, arms factories, smelting works, radio relay stations, communications. Studios do not count, nor do other passive civilian structures.

There's a reason Bomber Harris doesn't have a statue.

[Vuk]

In my opinion, that is true ONLY in time of a formally declared war. Otherwise, it's criminal. I know it's old-fashioned, and regarded as irrelevant, and not flexible enough to suit today's modern international terrorism environment, but:

Formally declaring war on another country puts them on notice that henceforth everything and everybody within its borders is gonna be considered a valid target.

Yup, hang people for blaspheming the name of allmighty Michael Jackson, but who gives a drrn about innocent civilians. I seem to recall you denouncing the civilian deaths in Iraq a while back on a different thread though. I guess you can murder innocents only if it is politically correct, huh?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Frag, Kukri, Banquo, Adrian, others - yes, you have got your heart in the right place and you show a willingness for self-criticism. Great.

However, you give the right answer to another question. This thread isn't about journalists. It is about Serbian mythification and victimization.

Here's the debate in a nutshell, transposed to a more familiar setting, where the subtext may be more obvious:
North Ireland Protestant: 'An innocent woman walking the streets of Belfast was killed by Paddy o'Donnel. Question: Is the killing of innocents by Catholics a war crime?'
Luigi: 'This is the echoed whisperings of Protestant agitation about victimization and warmongering.'
Reasonable poster: 'Yes, the killing of innocents is a war crime'
Luigi: 'This propaganda is part of a narrative of revenge that has led to mindless bloodshed, which Norn Iron could well do without'
Reasonable poster: 'Come on. Surely you have to agree that the killing of innocents is a crime?'


See what I mean?
There are two threads in one here. One: 'killing of journalists - yes or no'. Two: 'Serbia is the victim of foreign aggression!'
The second topic, the subtext, is the real topic of this thread. The question is not a question (the answer, though shrouded in shades of grey, is mostly a given). The question serves to impose a narrative. It is subtle propaganda. Not by Sarmatian, but indirectly. Indirectly because Sarmatian is merely faintly echoing the propaganda that fills Serbian television night after night.



The year 1999 added another layer of sediment. Once again, the nation confronted the chance to express readiness for suffering, martyrdom and victimization and thus to substantiate the sense of narcissistic ethical superiority. Even the aggressors are portrayed in the same manner of "othering." Images of the armies of the Ottoman Empire, Fascists, Nazis and NATO as epitomes of pure evil, with evidently underlined similarities in iconography, context, comparisons, aims, attitudes and overall qualifications served as the bias for the very primitive propaganda broadcasted by some TV stations.

The nationalist films talk about the senseless destruction in Kosovo, Novi Sad, Aleksinac they talk about collateral damage, as elegantly phrased by Jamie Shea. On one hand, they comment on the brutality of the bombing--injustice in extremis. On the other hand, they automatically wholeheartedly argue with the accepted image of isolated, heroic, rebellious Serbia under bombs, proclaiming victory under any conditions and at any price.
Link (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10438963_ITM).

Serbia is second only to North Korea in the extent, aggression and singular autism of its nationalistic discourse/propaganda. Today's propaganda/nationalist discourse about the NATO bombings is a direct continuation of the imagery of victimization of Serbia that led to the genocides and etnic cleansing in the 1990's. This, incidentally, is why I shot from the hip in the Iran thread.
It is an insult to the countless victims of Serbian nationalist aggression.


Might as well borrow Brenus' sig (Where are you, mon pote? If you're not responding to a Serbia thread, then you are not lurking either):
'Those who can make you believe absurdities will make you commit atrocities' (A famous quote from Buddha)

[Fragony]

Serbia is second only to North Korea in the extent, aggression and singular autism of its nationalistic discourse/propaganda. Today's propaganda/nationalist discourse about the NATO bombings is a direct continuation of the imagery of victimization of Serbia that led to the genocides and etnic cleansing in the 1990's. This, incidentally, is why I shot from the hip in the Iran thread.
It is an insult to the countless victims of Serbian nationalist aggression.

It aren't a few images that led to the genocide, the place has a rather complex history. They did what was done to them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Frag, Kukri, Banquo, Adrian, others - yes, you have got your heart in the right place and you show a willingness for self-criticism. Great.

However, you give the right answer to another question. This thread isn't about journalists. It is about Serbian mythification and victimization.

Here's the debate in a nutshell, transposed to a more familiar setting, where the subtext may be more obvious:
North Ireland Protestant: 'An innocent woman walking the streets of Belfast was killed by Paddy o'Donnel. Question: Is the killing of innocents by Catholics a war crime?'
Luigi: 'This is the echoed whisperings of Protestant agitation about victimization and warmongering.'
Reasonable poster: 'Yes, the killing of innocents is a war crime'
Luigi: 'This propaganda is part of a narrative of revenge that has led to mindless bloodshed, which Norn Iron could well do without'
Reasonable poster: 'Come on. Surely you have to agree that the killing of innocents is a crime?'


See what I mean?
There are two threads in one here. One: 'killing of journalists - yes or no'. Two: 'Serbia is the victim of foreign aggression!'
The second topic, the subtext, is the real topic of this thread. The question is not a question (the answer, though shrouded in shades of grey, is mostly a given). The question serves to impose a narrative. It is subtle propaganda. Not by Sarmatian, but indirectly. Indirectly because Sarmatian is merely faintly echoing the propaganda that fills Serbian television night after night.



Link (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10438963_ITM).

Serbia is second only to North Korea in the extent, aggression and singular autism of its nationalistic discourse/propaganda. Today's propaganda/nationalist discourse about the NATO bombings is a direct continuation of the imagery of victimization of Serbia that led to the genocides and etnic cleansing in the 1990's. This, incidentally, is why I shot from the hip in the Iran thread.
It is an insult to the countless victims of Serbian nationalist aggression.


Might as well borrow Brenus' sig (Where are you, mon pote? If you're not responding to a Serbia thread, then you are not lurking either):
'Those who can make you believe absurdities will make you commit atrocities' (A famous quote from Buddha)

All this sidesteps the fact that civilians were bombed. Either someone screwed his sights, or it was deliberate.

Even allowing for the Balkan tendancy to victimise oneself, feeding it is not in any way helpful.

So perhaps the real question is why it was done.

[Brenus]

“Where are you, mon pote?” Coming, coming…:beam:
“There are two threads in one here. One: 'killing of journalists - yes or no'. Two: 'Serbia is the victim of foreign aggression!'” Agree.

Killing of journalists: I have nothing against in principle. I myself was tempted few times to do so…:shame:
If the use of false information as propaganda is a valid reasons to attack TV stations that makes all TV channels valid targets
Manipulation and disinformation were the corner stones of all our media campaign for Yugoslavia.
I even don’t speak of the special filter about military operations. Only the Serbs had snipers, mortars and tanks. 90 % of the attacks on UN forces (according UN reports) were done by the Muslims/Bosnian forces (which by the way would explained why the Dutch battalion was not really keen to protect the innocents population in Srebrenica)…
Or the use of manipulated pictures to blame the Serbs for crimes they didn’t commit: Slaughter of Muslim in Vitez (the Croats did it) or pictures wrongly attributed to Serbs even when a clear Sehovnica (Croatian Coat of Arm) can’t be misinterpreted.
Louis according your definition of steering hate against others, what about the “systematic” campaign of rapes, the horseshoe tactic and other blatant lie used by our media? So, the Serbs would have been right to attack TF1, BBC and CNN, and all the others because they in fact served the NATO propaganda machine…
And here I speak only of lies, even not mentioning manipulation and disinformation…

So, Louis your point is the Serbs being the aggressors and the one starting the war got their due…
The fact is the Serbs were living from ever in Croatia, Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo should end the claim of aggression and expansion… They were living in their farms, their lands in their houses.
You can blame the Serbs to want to live in one state but NOT of an aggression on somebody else territory.

I red the link: Err, what does he means by the Serbian Colonialism/imperialism?:tired: Again, the Serb population were indigenous in all the parts of Former Yugoslavia.

[Sarmatian]

Sorry, accidentally I managed to get my hands on the two free EXIT festival tickets, or I would have replied sooner.



Frag, Kukri, Banquo, Adrian, others - yes, you have got your heart in the right place and you show a willingness for self-criticism. Great.

However, you give the right answer to another question. This thread isn't about journalists. It is about Serbian mythification and victimization.

See what I mean?
There are two threads in one here. One: 'killing of journalists - yes or no'. Two: 'Serbia is the victim of foreign aggression!'
The second topic, the subtext, is the real topic of this thread. The question is not a question (the answer, though shrouded in shades of grey, is mostly a given). The question serves to impose a narrative. It is subtle propaganda. Not by Sarmatian, but indirectly. Indirectly because Sarmatian is merely faintly echoing the propaganda that fills Serbian television night after night.


Serbia is second only to North Korea in the extent, aggression and singular autism of its nationalistic discourse/propaganda. Today's propaganda/nationalist discourse about the NATO bombings is a direct continuation of the imagery of victimization of Serbia that led to the genocides and etnic cleansing in the 1990's. This, incidentally, is why I shot from the hip in the Iran thread.
It is an insult to the countless victims of Serbian nationalist aggression.


Like in the marbles thread, you again missed the point. It wasn't my intention to start another "Serbia thread". Maybe in a way, there are two threads here, the first one being the obvious. The second is: Is there hypocrisy among western, nato, democratic however-you-want-to-call-them politicians and media?

Bombing the TV station is really just an example. Whenever something like that happens, politicians and judiciary systems simply ignore it, media is disinterested in and various "experts" on and off the net won't mention it.

On the other hand, if a single journalists from some western media house is just imprisoned, all hell would break loose.

There are millions of examples. Racak, we now know, was a hoax. Is someone going to answer for that? Will someone even start an investigation? Even if it is only about William Walker. Report of Dr. Helena Ranta that "it might have been a massacre" made all the headlines and was often quoted by the politicians and the media. Her admission that she made that report because she was under immense pressure was ignored. You could have found it on the net if you knew exactly what were you looking for. Just typing Helena Ranta will give you thousands of links which lead to her original report.

We now know that there were no WMD in Iraq - is someone going to answer for that mistake? Saying that "Saddam was a bad guy anyway" isn't enough, or at least, it shouldn't be enough. Not to the thousands of Iraqi civilians. Or hundreds of thousands? Do we even know? Did someone bother to make a comprehensive report of civilian casualties in Iraq? Were those politicians who sent soldiers in Iraq talking about thousands of civilian casualties? Did some media house even bother to check? Is there a single legal action taken against someone because of that? Have anyone even lost his job because of that?

We know about the death of Neda, Neda is by now a household name, probably most spoken name in the world after Michael Jackson. Neda Agha-Soltan. Just typing "Neda" into google will give you hundreds of links - wikipedia, news reports, support groups and whatever. And yet, the only reason we know about it is because she died during protests against the current regime in Iran. How many Nedas there have been in Iraq, in Kosovo, in Afghanistan? We may choose to ignore it, but there was a lot.

Milica Rakic, three year old girl killed on her potty by a bomb.
https://img390.imageshack.us/img390/5817/milica1.jpg (https://img390.imageshack.us/i/milica1.jpg/)

Try typing just "Milica" in google, you'll get links to beauty salons and spas. Even typing her full name will yield only slightly better results.

I'm not even going to mention the blunders in Afghanistan. Again, no responsibility, even individual.

Now, you may choose to ignore it all. You may cover your ears and go: "La-la-la Iraq had WMD, those journalists deserved it la-la-la!!!" It won't make it any different. We will just sink deeper into it. And yes I use the word "we". Even though it looks different today, in 10-15 years Serbia will recognize Kosovo and become a full, upstanding NATO member, whether I or you like it or not.



That could only be true if the targeted civilian structure were of relevance to the war effort, arms factories, smelting works, radio relay stations, communications. Studios do not count, nor do other passive civilian structures.

There's a reason Bomber Harris doesn't have a statue.

Actually...

https://img513.imageshack.us/img513/3548/arthurharris.jpg (https://img513.imageshack.us/i/arthurharris.jpg/)

Or is there another Bomber Harris I'm not aware of?

[KukriKhan]

place-holder.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Actually...

https://img513.imageshack.us/img513/3548/arthurharris.jpg (https://img513.imageshack.us/i/arthurharris.jpg/)

Sad, isn't it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually...

https://img513.imageshack.us/img513/3548/arthurharris.jpg (https://img513.imageshack.us/i/arthurharris.jpg/)

Or is there another Bomber Harris I'm not aware of?

Ah, I stand corrected, it did take until 1992, though. That more or less proves my point. Whether or not he should have a statue is an entirely different question.

As to whether anyone will answer for the WMD, I would point out that the Republicans are out of the White House and Labour is soon to be obliterated from the House of Commons. Louis point is, I think, that you fail to recognise the Serbian bias and the narrative of victimisation that bias creates.

[Brenus]

No, Sarmatian asked a question about journalists and the fact that during the NATO attack, the leaders of the Alliance did decide that Radio and TV station were fair game as regarded as Propaganda tools so legitimate target, as bridge, railways and others components in a modern war.

“Louis point is, I think, that you fail to recognise the Serbian bias and the narrative of victimisation that bias creates.” That is of subject.
Louis, I think fail to recognise he was brain washed during this period of time. Even if today, Kouchner and Simone Veil recognised in various books and interview that they didn’t tell the truth, even if nowadays nobody dear to speak of the systematic campaign of rapes, the horse shoes tactic, Racak and Merkale as Serbian atrocities, Louis is still under the feeling he had in watching the French news…
In few days it will be the 15 anniversary of Srebrenica: And the number of victims still will be between 7000 and 8000. No change. Even if the number of bodies recovered till today for the entire war is around 3600, this including the Serbian victims (by the way, can somebody tell me where is the native Serbian population of Srebrenica?).
I don’t want to go too much in detail, but the bias in this case in the NATO side.

A part of the Serbian population was indeed nationalist, but less than the Croats. If you go in both countries you won’t notice until somebody tell you (me): In Croatia, flags everywhere… In Serbian only where it has to…
About the aggression, interesting enough, in the main cases, it wasn’t the Serbs who started… Not in Sarajevo, not in Vukovar. Not in Slovenia were a JNA helicoptere was shot down…
It was one of the points in the opening of Milosevic’s trial and to see the face of Carla del Ponte when Milocevic was able to refute this was quite a good moment of TV reality show.
Not I have any sympathy for Milocevic, the man having too much blood on his hand, as much as his accomplices Tudjman and Izetbegovic, for the main…

[Sarmatian]

Ah, I stand corrected, it did take until 1992, though. That more or less proves my point. Whether or not he should have a statue is an entirely different question.

Well, the fact that Brits welcomed the unveiling of the statues with boos and jeers and that the statue has to be guarded 24/7 proves your point even better. Even though some politician decided erecting the statue was a good idea, many Brits didn't and still don't agree. And this gives a great deal of credit in my book to the British, if I may add.



As to whether anyone will answer for the WMD, I would point out that the Republicans are out of the White House and Labour is soon to be obliterated from the House of Commons.

Suffering a political defeat and facing responsibility is not the same. They'll be back in 5 or 10 years.


Louis point is, I think, that you fail to recognise the Serbian bias and the narrative of victimisation that bias creates.

I understood his point but I think he's barking up the wrong tree. Once again Louis wants to be a shrink of an entire nation. Serbs certainly aren't the biggest of nations, but twelve millions, give or take, is still to much, even for Louis, but that's a minor point. The major point is, even if Louis is right, that it doesn't change the anything. I agree with him to a point. There was rampant nationalism (it exists even today, on a much lesser scale, but still too much for my liking) and there is a narrative of victimisation, but not even close to what he was saying. I say not even close for two reason - because it's not nearly on that scale and because parts of it are justified. That doesn't, or shouldn't excuse, the other sides. It shouldn't be an excuse for their mistakes, blunders and crimes just like crimes against Serbs can't be an excuse for crimes committed by Serbs.

Since we mentioned Bomber Harris - his strategy of pursuing terror bombing was done in a total war. It was literally us or them. It doesn't justify it in my book, but at least it gives some more food for thoughts.
In case of NATO vs Serbia... Serbia's entire GDP comes to what... few percents of NATO combined military spending. Technologically, Serbia was decades behind. It wasn't a total war, heck it wasn't a war at all. It was an action against "Serbian mechanisms of repression", or something like that, I'm not sure how exactly Clinton phrased it. It makes the rules even more strict.

I'm sorry that I'm always returning to Serbia, it wasn't my intention when I started this thread, it's just that I'm naturally more familiar about that than about Iraq or Afghanistan or other events. The point still remains that anything not fitting the accepted image was ignored by the media and the politicians. Reports on the internet are scarce, too. Unless you know exactly what you're looking for, you won't find it. I'm sure we could find many similar examples about Afghanistan or Iraq, and more importantly, I'm sure that there are many more that we couldn't find, which is kinda a point of this thread...

EDIT: Exceptional documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13yRxBStGyY&feature=related) that covers what I'm trying to say. Made in Netherlands, I believe. Among other things it deals with the infamous "concentration camps" photographs made in 1992 that very most influential in turning the public opinion in the western countries against Serbia. I strongly encourage watching because it's exactly about what we're talking here...

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am happy that Dresden has been brought up. I wanted to use it as an example, but feared the 'Godwin' of it.

There are two ways to discuss 'Dresden':
- As part of an objective, at least, honest, debate about atrocities, Allied self-criticism, needless suffering, strategical value, rightful avengement. Let's call it Truth and Reconcilliation.
- As part of a revisionist narrative. Where the argument is: 'Dresden was a war crime!! The Allies are just as bad as Hitler. Dresden = Auschwitz. The suffering of the German people proves Hitler was right when he stood up for persecuted Germany'. 'Dresden' here is not a debate, but an instrument of political propaganda.

These two 'debates' (one is, another isn't) are unfortunately often hopelessly intertwined. Much to the delight of professional Nazi revisionists. They will argue the second, and when confronted with criticism, claim they are merely debating the first. Slippery weasels.

I accuse the arguments of Sarmatian (and Brenus :knight:) of belonging to a discourse belonging to debate two. Not out of any deliberate act, but unwittingly so.

Perhaps, Sarmatian, you really just wanted to discuss killing of journalists in war as a genereal subject. In which case I am sorry for turning this thread into 'Serbia'. I can not read your mind. However, the origin of this thread lies in the accusation of NATO hypocracy. So this tangent I pursued.



Once again Louis wants to be a shrink of an entire nation. Serbs certainly aren't the biggest of nations, but twelve millions, give or take, is still too much, even for Louis, but that's a minor point. Louis wants truth to be known and justice to be done. So I support democracy and human rights groups in Serbia. And I have a distinct dislike of nationalist discourse.

These three are pretty much the considerations behind what I write and why I write it in any 'Serbia' thread. Other than that, I have no special feeling for or against Serbia. I wish Serbians all the best.



Edit: I am sooo tempted to deconstruct your statement 'Serbia has only twelve million people, but even that is too much'. It fits in perfectly with what I've argued about Serbian national discourse.

Serbian nationalist discourse describes the wars as a 'a foreign plot to diminish Serbia. The world fears the might of Serbia. And therefore wants to bring Serbia down'. This ethnic narcissim is combined with victimization: 'evil world, Turks, the West, NATO. All forever keeping Serbia down'

Am I incorrect in presuming this line of thought to be behind the statement in question?

In fact, I seem to remember you arguing in a previous Serbia thread that the US was behind the break-up of Yugoslavia: it feared an intact Yugoslavia as a competitor for global domination.
(A faint echo of what Russian nationalism claims about the break-up of the Soviet Union. I am not sure whether Serbian nationalism took its cue from Russia here.)

[Louis VI the Fat]

The nature of Serbian nationalist discourse and how it permeates Sarmatian and Brenus' posts, I must leave for another post. I shall adress three issues that have come up:

The NATO bombings.
My opinion in brief: Certainly ill-conceived and poorly executed. But neither undeserved nor, in fact, all that ineffective. For one thing, the wars in Yugoslavia pretty much ended after the bombings. Which seems to support the case both for the bombings and for the claim Serbian agitiation was a main driving force behind the wars of the 1990's.
Whether an independent Kosovo is desireable, I think maybe not. However, that was not the sole reason for the war. The war was a concluding act of the decade before, not an independent event.

'Killing journalists yes or no'.
I am tempted to be a goody two-shoes and say never. But I won't.
There are two kinds of journalists: mere mortals, and Adrian. No wait. A more useful distinction is: journalists who report; and secondly, reporters, writers, documentary makers, filmmakers who make propaganda. Alas, the second will always pose as the first. The first are not always (postmodern: never) able to distinguish themselves from the latter.
So I would say, never shoot the first, the second are fair game. If only the distinction could be made. And even if it could, I am not sure it isn't a pandora's box of tragedies.
(A similar discussion could be had about medics. Medicine is not neutral, and can be an effective instrument of war. The conventional wisdom, as with journalists, to never consider them a legitimate war target, is slippery)
(If only military targets are legitimate, then nobody fighting on a losing side will ever be a soldier distinguishable as such again. Which would make for an even bigger mess than the already blurred and uncomfortable wisdom of only targetting military targets. The wars in Yugoslavia serve as an excellent case in point.)

The attack on the Serbian state television.
Shade of grey. The wars in Yugoslavia were not one of conventional, large armies. Paramilitaries mostly. The wars had such bizarre sub-plots as Al-Qaida groups fighting against (football club) Red Star Belgrade hooligans.
The Serbian state, however, aided and abetted paramilitiaries and etnic cleansing. So while no army could be bombed back to Serbia, the Serbian state and its organs could be the target. The state television as much as the state. For one thing, as argued in a previous post, the Serbian television was not as innocent or civilian as it might appear. It was a state-run instrument of propaganda and incitement of hatred.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yes, Serbia should not be singled out as perpetrator.
Yes, innocent Serbs died, who didn't deserve this fate.
Yes, other countries have not come to terms with dark episodes from their past.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1675992.stm)

Having said that, here's a short article about Serbian dealings with the wars:

In South Africa, Nelson Mandela established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that offered amnesty to individuals in return for their public disclosure of the truth. It took new generations to come to terms with much of Nazi Germany's behavior. The U.S. civil rights movement forced the crimes of segregation into the arena of public scrutiny and shaming.

Serbs have not begun that process. They have played down the Srebrenica massacre and other atrocities from the 1990s wars they instigated. Former prime minister Zoran Djindjic, under international pressure and under cover of night, did send Slobodan Milosevic to trial in The Hague, Netherlands. Djindjic was assassinated in 2003. His successors have been more timid.

Serb nationalism

Before the wars, in the 1980s, the Serb capital Belgrade was the cosmopolitan Paris of Eastern Europe. It is now a dreary backwater, left behind as neighbors sprout modern shopping malls, McDonald's and skyscrapers and join Western clubs from NATO to the European Union. The Serb mafiosos and gangsters remain a nationalistic, intimidating force. Despite the efforts of some human rights campaigners and hard-hitting media outlets, nationalist sentiment still runs high. In a Serb opinion poll in May, more than half denied the Srebrenica massacre even took place.

Last month, however, Serbs got a chance to break out of the denial. Serb TV broadcast a video of part of the massacre. In it, Serb paramilitaries — the "Scorpions" — pull six battered, emaciated men from a truck, hands tied behind their backs. At least three are shot at close range. A Serb Orthodox priest blesses their actions against the "infidels." It was the Serbs' first incontrovertible evidence that they, not just rogue Bosnian Serb "cousins," were complicit: The Scorpions, as other paramilitary groups, were under the direct command of the Serb police.

The fact that it took a full 10 years for the video to emerge is already testimony to the resistance. The film was first played at The Hague tribunal, where it was sent by Serb human rights campaigner Natasha Kandic, who has long been subject to death threats. The Hague has, until now, largely enabled Serbs' denial. Milosevic's trial is being carried out far away, by foreigners, encouraging many to feel they, too, are being victimized. But the videotaped evidence cannot be so easily dismissed.

There are signs it might provide the needed psychological jolt out of the surreal world that Milosevic — much as Hitler — constructed. His nationalist propaganda denied inconvenient realities — though the truth was known.

Serbian men, as the Scorpions, were drafted to fight in the wars, often going with gusto. They knew what was happening, bringing information back to families and friends. When I visited Serb homes near Srebrenica months after the massacre, people shrugged about what might have happened to the "disappeared." But their exchanged glances told a different story. Police cars pulled up at the houses after I left, suggesting an official effort to suppress any breaking of the collective coverup.

A chance to come clean

Serbia is at a crossroads. It has a choice: Face up to the past, fully cooperate with The Hague tribunal, find a way — even if it's a South Africa-style commission — to come to terms with the past. The European Union has told Serbia that any future in its fold is conditional on that kind of cooperation; in recent weeks, in apparent response, several suspected war criminals have been handed over. Or continue on its present slide with an economy in shambles and no happy future.

That might seem like a no-contest choice. But it isn't. Serbia has had it for a decade now.http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-11-srebrenica-edit_x.htm

[Louis VI the Fat]

Kouchner and Simone Veil recognised in various books and interview that they didn’t tell the truth…But let's not get carried away:
French PM demonized Serbia, author
Mar 26, 2009

French author Pier Pean has written a book in which he documents that the current Foreign Minister of France, Bernard Kouchner, was an servant of American internationalism and was engaged in a 20 year long campaign to remake borders in the Balkans which primarily includes dismemberment of Serbia and ethnic cleansing of Serbs across the Balkans.

“Bernard Kouchner is a man who wears a military coat under his doctor’s mantle,” said Pean during his book presentation at the Belgrade University.

Bernard Kouchner

During the presentation, Pean told that Kouchner took part in satanization of Serbs by repeatedly claiming falsehoods of alleged Serbian atrocities.

Pean cites Kouchner’s claim, while he served in Doctors Without Borders, that Serbs have murdered 11,000 “Kosovars” a code word for ethnic Albanians to whom internationalists wanted to assign a state that they planned to carve out off Serbia.

Pean said that Kouchner was the chief of the Kosovo UN mission, the UNMIK, when the former chief war crimes Prosecutor at the Hague, Carla del Ponte approached for help in gathering evidence that Kosovo Albanians ran an extensive international network in which they kidnapped Kosovo Serbs, took out their organs to sell them then killed the kidnapped.

Pean says that del Ponte never received an answer from Kouchner.

Pean said that investigation in wars in the Balkans will continue which will include possible hiding of evidence of war crimes.

Former French military officers, Patrick Bario and Jacques Ogar were also present at Pean’s book promotion in Belgrade who said that they are not proud of their involvement in attacks on Serbia.

“We visited the monuments of Gratitude to France on Kalemegdan and I would like to tell you that a monument is being built in France on which it will say: ‘We love Serbia, as it loved us once’, but, regrettably, that moment has not come yet,” said Pean.

Because of his claims about Kouchner, Pean has numerous legal difficulties in France.

March 26, 2009*guesses Brenus real name is Patrick or Jacques :sweatdrop:*

Link SERBIANNA.com

[Brenus]

“Louis wants truth to be known and justice to be done.” So do I.
“ So I support democracy and human rights groups in Serbia.” I did.
“And I have a distinct dislike of nationalist discourse.” So do I.

And all theses reasons we will argue.:beam:

The Truth is Ethnic Cleansing was first use by the Serbs (some academy of Arts in think) to describe what happened in the Autonomous Territory of Kosovo and Metohjia against the Serbian Minority under TITO!!!!

“The Serbian state, however, aided and abetted paramilitiaries and ethnic cleansing.” So did Croatia with the HVO and Bosnia (the Mudjahidin were under direct command of Alija Izetbegovic…).

In 1993 the WFP estimation was 160,516 Serbian Refugees in Krajina 2, Northern Bosnia and the town of Brcko: 30.10 % from Croatia, 2.40 % from Slovenia, 67.50 % from Bosnia (so technically IDP, Internal Displaced Person).

The rise of nationalism didn’t start in Serbia but in Slovenia and Croatia…
“Yes, Serbia should not be singled out as perpetrator.” But it is.

Justice will be achieved in other place than in The Hague where each time Serbs are guilty of Mass Genocide (at least in the intention) and killing Serbian Civilians is unfortunate but collateral.
The Muslims, Croats and Kosovar were ethnically cleanse where as the Serbian just voluntarily leaved on their will…
:yes:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Where the argument is: 'Dresden was a war crime!!

That is a perfectly sensible assertion. Dresden being a war crime may be included in [bad] revisionist history (there is good revisionism as well, mind you, and I don't like it when people group the two), but it may also be included in legitimate and civil historical debate.


The Allies are just as bad as Hitler. Dresden = Auschwitz. The suffering of the German people proves Hitler was right when he stood up for persecuted Germany'. 'Dresden' here is not a debate, but an instrument of political propaganda.

I agree with you that these kind of assertions are laughable. That is just one reason why us normal Germans, whatever our thoughts on the subject, despise the Nazis who try to intrude on the debate.

[Sarmatian]

Hey, one post at a time!


I am happy that Dresden has been brought up. I wanted to use it as an example, but feared the 'Godwin' of it.

There are two ways to discuss 'Dresden':
- As part of an objective, at least, honest, debate about atrocities, Allied self-criticism, needless suffering, strategical value, rightful avengement. Let's call it Truth and Reconcilliation.
- As part of a revisionist narrative. Where the argument is: 'Dresden was a war crime!! The Allies are just as bad as Hitler. Dresden = Auschwitz. The suffering of the German people proves Hitler was right when he stood up for persecuted Germany'. 'Dresden' here is not a debate, but an instrument of political propaganda.

These two 'debates' (one is, another isn't) are unfortunately often hopelessly intertwined. Much to the delight of professional Nazi revisionists. They will argue the second, and when confronted with criticism, claim they are merely debating the first. Slippery weasels.

I accuse the arguments of Sarmatian (and Brenus :knight:) of belonging to a discourse belonging to debate two. Not out of any deliberate act, but unwittingly so.

Ok. Now, let's take it easy. Are you really comparing NATO intervention in SFRY and FRY with Second World War? In WW2, allies were attacked and they responded to that attack. During the war, some information about the crimes and genocide came to be known, but most of it was discovered afterward. In case of Yugoslavia, NATO intervened because of the crimes and genocide, after which they proved either false outright in most cases or blown out of proportions after.



Louis wants truth to be known and justice to be done. So I support democracy and human rights groups in Serbia. And I have a distinct dislike of nationalist discourse.

Completely agree.



These three are pretty much the considerations behind what I write and why I write it in any 'Serbia' thread. Other than that, I have no special feeling for or against Serbia. I wish Serbians all the best.

And to me particularly, I hope. :beam:



Edit: I am sooo tempted to deconstruct your statement 'Serbia has only twelve million people, but even that is too much'. It fits in perfectly with what I've argued about Serbian national discourse.

Serbian nationalist discourse describes the wars as a 'a foreign plot to diminish Serbia. The world fears the might of Serbia. And therefore wants to bring Serbia down'. This ethnic narcissim is combined with victimization: 'evil world, Turks, the West, NATO. All forever keeping Serbia down'

Nah, another miss, but to be fair, you couldn't possibly know my opinion about that. In fact, you are right that many Serbs hold such views, especially about the Ottoman Empire. I hold totally different position and am of an opinion that Ottoman rule of Serbia was in many ways beneficial and that Ottomans were a great empire, organized and efficient. In fact, I believe that during 15th and 16th century, Ottomans were the most advanced state in Europe. Bad rep they have comes from the later part of their rule when the empire fell behind and corruption, waste, inefficiency, crimes and atrocities happened all over the empire, rather than just in Serbia or in the Balkans, like many Christians who were under Ottoman rule like to believe. I'm often at odds with my friends about this and many other aspects of the Serbian history. So, in short, no I don't believe that and never have. For the fact that many people who share my nationality do, well, what can I say. Some French apparently believe that there have been a thousand years of French cultural superiority :oops:

You're arguing with me, I don't represent Serbia or Serbs and I'd appreciate if you'd stop deciding what Serbian national attributes are and assigning them to me. I may do something similar to you, decide that your mind is contaminated by the false image the western media and politicians created about Serbia. So we can either play the game called "1054" and mutually excommunicate each other or we can continue the discussion and maybe, just maybe, get somewhere.



In fact, I seem to remember you arguing in a previous Serbia thread that the US was behind the break-up of Yugoslavia: it feared an intact Yugoslavia as a competitor for global domination.
(A faint echo of what Russian nationalism claims about the break-up of the Soviet Union. I am not sure whether Serbian nationalism took its cue from Russia here.)

I'm not sure which thread are you talking about, but I'm pretty certain I didn't say US was behind the break-up of Yugoslavia. I may have said something along the lines of "Yugoslavia was already a mess, standing on the edge and US applied a gentle push at the appropriate moment". And yes, I still hold that view. If instead of the push, someone big enough tried to pull back, we might have had still functioning Yugoslavia after, albeit in a different form.

Concerning "it feared an intact Yugoslavia as a competitor for global domination" - if you really think that my opinion is even close to that, well, I don't know what to say to that. I'll take that you really don't, since you're still arguing with me (and Brenus). I presume if you really thought that, you wouldn't even be a part of this discussion.

Louis, great powers react, even when they are not directly threatened. In the case of Serbia, I don't think I need another example but First World War. Do you think that Austria-Hungary peed in their pants on the prospects of war with Serbia and had to call Germany in, so that together they could maybe prevail against Serbian might? No, back then, as today, it was more at stake. Small countries tend to be pawns in the game played by the big countries. Unfortunately, most times, small countries get ****** over in the end.



The nature of Serbian nationalist discourse and how it permeates Sarmatian and Brenus' posts, I must leave for another post. I shall adress three issues that have come up:

The NATO bombings.
My opinion in brief: Certainly ill-conceived and poorly executed. But neither undeserved nor, in fact, all that ineffective. For one thing, the wars in Yugoslavia pretty much ended after the bombings.

Can't remember the exact time and place but I remember reading about a Roman general called to end barbarian unrest and restore piece in the province. He did just that. He killed half of the population of the province and peace war restored. It prompted another important Roman to say this wasn't what general was called to do and said something along the lines of "achieving peace through desolation" (can't remember the exact phrase, either in Latin or the English translation). He calmed the population of the province down by killing them all. As I said, the exact phrase and the particular event eludes me, maybe someone here will know. Something similar has happened in Kosovo. You had Albanians and Serbs having difficulties living together. NATO solved that problem by removing Serbs from the equation. The exact same result could have been achieved by removing Albanians from Kosovo. Peace in Croatia when Serbian component was removed. So the point isn't whether the war ended, but how it ended and how it was fought.

End of the wars is not an argument at all. You could have dropped several nukes and end all wars in the territory for centuries to come.



Which seems to support the case both for the bombings and for the claim Serbian agitiation was a main driving force behind the wars of the 1990's.

It doesn't, as I believe I proved in the paragraph before.



Whether an independent Kosovo is desireable, I think maybe not. However, that was not the sole reason for the war. The war was a concluding act of the decade before, not an independent event.

Wrong, two totally separate events. It may seem to you that way since both involved Serbia, but they are separate. WW1 and WW2 are two separate event even though both include UK with Churchill holding some position in the command structure.



'Killing journalists yes or no'.
I am tempted to be a goody two-shoes and say never. But I won't.
There are two kinds of journalists: mere mortals, and Adrian. No wait. A more useful distinction is: journalists who report; and secondly, reporters, writers, documentary makers, filmmakers who make propaganda. Alas, the second will always pose as the first. The first are not always (postmodern: never) able to distinguish themselves from the latter.
So I would say, never shoot the first, the second are fair game. If only the distinction could be made. And even if it could, I am not sure it isn't a pandora's box of tragedies.
(A similar discussion could be had about medics. Medicine is not neutral, and can be an effective instrument of war. The conventional wisdom, as with journalists, to never consider them a legitimate war target, is slippery)
(If only military targets are legitimate, then nobody fighting on a losing side will ever be a soldier distinguishable as such again. Which would make for an even bigger mess than the already blurred and uncomfortable wisdom of only targetting military targets. The wars in Yugoslavia serve as an excellent case in point.)

Congratulations, you've just justified Srebrenica. People killed in Srebrenica were all men of military age. Many of them have been caught and released/exchanged several times before by the Serbian forces, only to have to fight them again and again. They have indeed been a very effective instrument of war. Your logic dictates that they should be shot. A reporter, even if he reports nothing but the truth, can still be a very effective instrument of war.

There are rules, very strict rules that should be enforced harshly. A soldier without weapons, medics, journalists, civilians, prisoners of war are not legitimate targets and no amount of brainstorming can make them legitimate targets.



The attack on the Serbian state television.
Shade of grey. The wars in Yugoslavia were not one of conventional, large armies. Paramilitaries mostly. The wars had such bizarre sub-plots as Al-Qaida groups fighting against (football club) Red Star Belgrade hooligans.
The Serbian state, however, aided and abetted paramilitiaries and etnic cleansing. So while no army could be bombed back to Serbia, the Serbian state and its organs could be the target. The state television as much as the state. For one thing, as argued in a previous post, the Serbian television was not as innocent or civilian as it might appear. It was a state-run instrument of propaganda and incitement of hatred.

Partially true. I'll agree with you here rather the to run around in circles with this particular issue. Just explain this to me - how is blowing up a building, killing people with minor roles in that TV station and not hitting anyone from the state who uses that TV station to spread propaganda or anyone from the TV station who has a say in what will be aired gonna change that?

Make-up artist don't decide what's the TV station gonna show.




Having said that, here's a short article about Serbian dealings with the wars:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-11-srebrenica-edit_x.htm

I'm not going to dissect that article, my post is long enough as it is. Suffice to say that take some vague issues as facts and puts them in the wrong context. Instead, I'll agree with you that Serbia still has to do some facing with the past but not in the way or in the magnitude it was implied in the article. I'll just add that double standards by the Hague, UN, NATO aren't helping either. I'm seeing much less readiness to let go now than I had seen in October 2000.

[Louis VI the Fat]

. Are you really comparing NATO intervention in SFRY and FRY with Second World War?No. WWII was of an entirely different order of magnitude. What I compare is how a neutral description of (historical) events can be intertwined with a politically motivated one.


And to me particularly, I hope. :beam: I do take you for a moderate, a man of intelligence and an honest conscience at that, who's trying to understand the events that occured. Nor do I think most Serbians are mean spirited. More stuck in a discourse that is not conducive to objective dealing with the recent past.
Not WWII, more North Ireland. Normal people, with academic degrees and footy on the telly at night. In a society unfortunenately poisoned by lingering sectarianism that it could well do without.

I do expect Serbia to join NATO in the not to distant future. And the EU too. In fact, by coincidence, as of today Serbians can travel to the EU without the need of a visum.
Kosovo will for the foreseeable future remain a mix between Afghanistan and a former Eastern Bloc mobster state. Tragic, yes. But then, the NATO bombings were not so much the result of any fuzzy feeling towards Kosovo, but to put an end to a decade of violence and etnic cleansing.



I'm not sure which thread are you talking about, but I'm pretty certain I didn't say US was behind the break-up of Yugoslavia.I have a long memory. Eight months ago you wrote:

Sarmatian: 'I can not conclude anything else except that break up of Yugoslavia and reducing influence and power of Serbia was a goal of American foreign policy throughout those years. Instead of a single, unified state now we have 6 statelets (7 if you count Kosovo) reduced to economic dependency and Nato soldiers and bases throughout the territory of former Yugoslavia.

Of course, this doesn't mean that various internal factors weren't involved but foreign factors were dominant. There are three major factors for the break-up of Yugoslavia:
1) Foreign influence
2) economic situation
3) nationalism'
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2090912&postcount=17

[Sarmatian]

I do take you for a moderate, a man of intelligence and an honest conscience at that, who's trying to understand the events that occured.Nor do I think most Serbians are mean spirited. More stuck in a discourse that is not conducive to objective dealing with the recent past.

Thanks mon ami, can't think of a deserving response at the moment that won't sound too gay. Imagine I've said something similar. And I was kidding when I implied that I don't believe in French cultural superiority. I do believe in it and consider Asterix comics to be the pinnacle of that superiority.



I have a long memory. Eight months ago you wrote:

Sarmatian: 'I can not conclude anything else except that break up of Yugoslavia and reducing influence and power of Serbia was a goal of American foreign policy throughout those years. Instead of a single, unified state now we have 6 statelets (7 if you count Kosovo) reduced to economic dependency and Nato soldiers and bases throughout the territory of former Yugoslavia.

Of course, this doesn't mean that various internal factors weren't involved but foreign factors were dominant. There are three major factors for the break-up of Yugoslavia:
1) Foreign influence
2) economic situation
3) nationalism'
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2090912&postcount=17

Well, that's like 10% of my post. I go to great lengths in that post to explain my position. I didn't say that someone in the CIA decided in the 70's that Yugoslavia should be broken up. I explained how American position changed to the point that they didn't consider saving Yugoslavia was a worthwhile goal and that breaking it up is a better option, since there's a possibility that the country may break-up by itself. I said the foreign factor was dominant because it was crucial to the final development. You already had rising nationalism, economic crisis and political instability, the question was only what kind of influences will come from abroad. If support came, the country could have been saved, Instead, the west supported nationalist leaders, Milosevic and Tudjman, first and foremost but Izetbegovic deserves more than an honourable mention. If the suport was given to Ante Markovic (Croat from Bosnia, federal prime minister at the time for those unfamiliar with the guy, moderate and economic expert). So, there's a bit more to it than just the part you quoted.


What bothers me the most in the entire thing is how my feelings changed. I could have swallowed the bombing, the sanctions, the lot. In the year 2000, when it ended, I was very pro-western. Not so much pro-NATO, but definitely pro-western. The stuff that happened between 2000 and 2009 alienated me much more from the west than Milosevic did in more than a decade of his rule. It's not so much the stuff that happened in the 90's but the stuff that happened afterward. And that, more than a thousand expert opinions, proves to me that something wasn't and still isn't right. People who are ignoring their mistakes are putting pressure on you to admit yours. Britain went to war because of the Falkland Islands and then British ambassador in Belgrade explains to Serbia how territory isn't really important and that by refusing to recognize Kosovo we're just clinging to nationalism... And then you try to look at the broader picture and to discern who's crazy in all of that. Or who's sane, not really sure which is easier.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Point of Order:

The Falklands are very different. They were held by one power, whose citizens happily occupied it; then it was invaded by another power illegally.

Kosovo itself wanted to be independant.

A better comparison would be Wales or N. Ireland in the UK.

[Brenus]

“The Falklands are very different.” It is always different. That is the problem.

The point about Yugoslavia is the Serbs were charged about crimes they didn’t commit and overcharged for the ones they did.
The others camps didn’t commit any…

Louis carefully avoid to answer to these questions, because he knows he had it wrong:
The first nationalists were not the Serbs. It wasn’t the Serbs who shot down a JNA helicopter, it was not the Serbian Government that imported weapons from Hungary, it was not the Serbs who started the war of the barracks.
The first to play nationalism were not the Serbs but the Slovene, then the Croats.

It was not Milosevic who wrote the Islamic Declaration and who thanked God his wife was not from other ethnicity and religion.
It was not the Serbs who paraded in uniforms from the WW2.

It was not the Serbs who shelled villages; it was not the Serbs who demanded from their minorities a oath of loyalty…
Serbia is still the most multicultural country of the former Yugoslavia, rights still recognised in the Serbian Constitution.
The Serbs are the only population that expelled their authoritarian leader and not waiting him to die…
(Do you know the Croatian joke when Tudjman died: Serbian boy: A a a , your President is dead…
Croatian Boy: A a a , your President is still alive…)

If Milosevic didn’t succeeded in keeping Yugoslavia under his rule it is because the vast majority of the Serbian youth refused the conscription order.

[rory_20_uk]

Post-war trials are always a way of settling scores against the loosers. Look post-WW2 where of course no allied commander did anything wrong whatsoever, and some Japanese commanders were convicted on the flimsiest evidence (if any) basically as they'd had the temerity of beating the allies.

Post war trials are the first step in writing the post-war narrative of "what really happened"

~:smoking:

[KukriKhan]

Post-war trials are always a way of settling scores against the loosers. Look post-WW2 where of course no allied commander did anything wrong whatsoever, and some Japanese commanders were convicted on the flimsiest evidence (if any) basically as they'd had the temerity of beating the allies.

Post war trials are the first step in writing the post-war narrative of "what really happened"

~:smoking:

Just to beat a dead horse, this is another reason why a formal Declaration of War is required. It lays out the reasons for the impending conflict, making the "who started it" argument moot. Then all that remains after the mindless, stupid, bloody, wasteful, barbaric, atrocity-laden event is: "who cheated?", who failed to abide by the victor's notion of fair conduct.

And yes, I confess... I am a secret war-monger, and Geneva and Hague Conventions disregarder, and victim of Bushism, and proponent of killing children.

There. It's out there. The last 35 years of my life have been a lie, a subterfuge, a distraction from my real purpose: world domination, and the extinction of the human race.

For I am Jim, the Antichrist. From California. By day: a mild-mannered civil servant and poster on these boards. By night: Satan. And a part-time grocery-bagger at the Albertson's on Valley Parkway.

You have been warned.

[drone]

And yes, I confess... I am a secret war-monger, and Geneva and Hague Conventions disregarder, and victim of Bushism, and proponent of killing children.

There. It's out there. The last 35 years of my life have been a lie, a subterfuge, a distraction from my real purpose: world domination, and the extinction of the human race.

For I am Jim, the Antichrist. From California. By day: a mild-mannered civil servant and poster on these boards. By night: Satan. And a part-time grocery-bagger at the Albertson's on Valley Parkway.

You have been warned.

You are a postal worker. None of this comes as a surprise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_(Seinfeld)) :clown:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis carefully avoid to answer to these questions, because he knows he had it wrongActually, you are right. Now that I think about it, yes, Serbia received a larger share of the blame in the press than it was due.
But not enormously so.
The wars were recognised as having many sides, and it was perfectly clear Tudjman, Izbetgovic and others were scum just as much as Milosovic.

None of which exonerates Serbia's 'we didn't do it, and besides, the others did it too'.


You and Sarmatian bring up excellent and controversial points. I can not possibly answer all of them point-by-point. Besides, a 'quote-rebuttal; quote-rebuttal; etc' post is unreadable for third parties. Instead, I've filled the thread with some more general thoughts and links.

And instead of posting more links (and I've got some great one's up my sleeve!) I have a challenge for you and Sarmatian. Can you get yourselves to openly say: 'Yes, Srebrenica was a human disaster. An atrocity. Serbia(ns) were responsible for mass murder. I deplore this.'

I mean, in all these Serbian threads, in all these posts, all I ever hear is 'Serbia didn't do this, Serbia didn't do that'. I have never once heard any acceptence of atrocities committed by Serbians. Which wouldn't be all that important, if only I wouldn't think it so telling of the Serbian discourse.

Because every little injustice that befell Serbia is endlessly explored. Every atrocity that bears a faint resemblance to some similar foreign atrocity is only discussed as proof of hypocricy. Every Serb who died is meticulously mentioned. Name 'Srebrenica' and either of these Serbian reactions is possible:
- It didn't happen (50% of Serbians believe it didn't happen at all)
- Look! Here is a picture of a Serbian child who died four years later.
- It wasn't 8000. Only 4000 bodies have so far been discovered yet!!
- Foreign agitation caused it. NATO, the US, Europe, the Turks.

Never do I ever hear even a simple 'Serbians killed many'.

[Banquo's Ghost]

For I am Jim, the Antichrist. From California. By day: a mild-mannered civil servant and poster on these boards. By night: Satan. And a part-time grocery-bagger at the Albertson's on Valley Parkway.

You have been warned.

We were already warned when you inadvertantly revealed your true nature in this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=100665). (And EMFM reacted by giving you the number 13...)

https://img391.imageshack.us/img391/2707/orgpoliticalcompasskp2.gif

:wink:

[Brenus]

“The wars were recognised as having many sides, and it was perfectly clear Tudjman, Izbetgovic and others were scum just as much as Milosovic.” It is more now, it wasn’t.

'Yes, Srebrenica was a human disaster. An atrocity. Serbia(ns) were responsible for mass murder. I deplore this.”
I said it. One of the most massive “discussion” I had with my best friend (my kum) was about Srebrenica. I was a professional soldier so you just don’t kill prisoners of war.
It was a war crime, not a genocide.
If you speak with Serbs who were involved in the wars, they, most of them, don’t deny their side did bad things. They are not proud of it but the defence reaction comes because they are presented as the only culpable.

I read somewhere about Ocarva, Vukovar, how the Serbs killed Croatians Defender. Again, they were caught (more or less naked as they tried to escape) just after the Serbians local defence, militia, paramilitaries whatever, found the kinder garden massacre, Toddler, old person, teenagers and some adult slaughtered by the Croatian local defence, militia, paramilitaries whatever using axes, hammers and other tools.
Yes, they should have been judge in front of a court and not killed. But did the article did mentioned the first bit? No, of course…
No body speak about the disappearance of dozen of Serbian patients from Vukovar hospital under the control of the Angel of Vukovar as she was named in the media. The Serbs prefer the Mengele of Vukovar…

Ooops, have to go to work… To be continued…

[Fragony]

We were already warned when you inadvertantly revealed your true nature in this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=100665). (And EMFM reacted by giving you the number 13...)

https://img391.imageshack.us/img391/2707/orgpoliticalcompasskp2.gif

:wink:

Muahahahaha way to go Kukri a diehard facist under that friendly facade you never see it comming, can I polish your boots?

edit; Brenus, glad I'm not you.

[Brenus]

"Brenus, glad I'm not you": Happy for you you are happy to be you.
However any reason for this comment?:huh::huh:

[Fragony]

"Brenus, glad I'm not you": Happy for you you are happy to be you.
However any reason for this comment?:huh::huh:

As in not having to be there

lil edit, I have heard some pretty harrowing things.

[Vladimir]

For I am Jim, the Antichrist. From California. By day: a mild-mannered civil servant and poster on these boards. By night: Satan. And a part-time grocery-bagger at the Albertson's on Valley Parkway.

You have been warned.

Huh. Have you ever worked with Chad Vader (http://www.google.com/search?q=chad+vader&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rlz=1R1GGGL_en___US334&client=firefox-a)?

[Sarmatian]

And instead of posting more links (and I've got some great one's up my sleeve!) I have a challenge for you and Sarmatian. Can you get yourselves to openly say: 'Yes, Srebrenica was a human disaster. An atrocity. Serbia(ns) were responsible for mass murder. I deplore this.'

Can I copy/paste it or do I have to type it personally? Should I say it out loud, record and upload it to youtube? Children, can you say "redundant"...

Yes, I believe Srebrenica was a massacre, an atrocity, a war crime and a crime against humanity. I believe I've said it earlier.



I mean, in all these Serbian threads, in all these posts, all I ever hear is 'Serbia didn't do this, Serbia didn't do that'. I have never once heard any acceptence of atrocities committed by Serbians. Which wouldn't be all that important, if only I wouldn't think it so telling of the Serbian discourse.

Because every little injustice that befell Serbia is endlessly explored. Every atrocity that bears a faint resemblance to some similar foreign atrocity is only discussed as proof of hypocricy. Every Serb who died is meticulously mentioned. Name 'Srebrenica' and either of these Serbian reactions is possible:
- It didn't happen (50% of Serbians believe it didn't happen at all)
- Look! Here is a picture of a Serbian child who died four years later.
- It wasn't 8000. Only 4000 bodies have so far been discovered yet!!
- Foreign agitation caused it. NATO, the US, Europe, the Turks.

Never do I ever hear even a simple 'Serbians killed many'.

Because you ask the wrong questions. When you presenting your case as Serbs=Bad Guys, everybody else=Good Guys, I'm hardly gonna start talking about Serbian crimes. That would mean that I agree with your position.

Even though I agree with the part that Serbs committed crimes, I don't agree with your position in general.

You say that every Serb who dies is meticulously mentioned. Name one. Name one atrocity against Serbs (without googling). From the top of your head... Do you know of any? Now name an atrocity committed by the Serbs, again without googling. I'm pretty sure you'll have hard time with the first one and that you will be to name several in the second. Now, we still lack really reliable data about casualties but what we know is that number of killed civilians is relatively similar for all sides. It's not like there are 10 Muslim civilians killed for every Serbian civilian. It's relatively close (depends on the source somewhat).

I wanna challenge something else that you've said, namely the part where 50% of Serbs don't believe it happened. I find that hard to believe. Pretty much all people I've ever talked with about Srebrenica don't deny it happened. What's your source on that and how was the question phrased? If it was something like "Do you believe that Srebrenica was a genocide?" or "do you believe that 8000-10000" people were killed at Srebrenica?" I guess many people would say no. Answer would probably be different if it was phrased "Do you believe that massacre at Srebrenica happened?" or "do you believe that Srebrenica is a war crime?"...

[Louis VI the Fat]

I wanna challenge something else that you've said, namely the part where 50% of Serbs don't believe it happened. I find that hard to believe. Pretty much all people I've ever talked with about Srebrenica don't deny it happened. What's your source on that and how was the question phrased?I always have a link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/international/europe/03serbia.html)for those who request one.


LJUBLJANA, Slovenia, June 2 - Almost 10 years after the massacre of more than 7,000 Muslim men and boys by Serbian security forces in Srebrenica, a video has surfaced that presents graphic details of their fate. Several people in the video were arrested as a result, the Serbian prime minister said Thursday.

The tape - shown at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague on Wednesday and rebroadcast on Serbian television on Thursday - shows the killing of six Muslim men by members of a Serbian paramilitary police unit.

While the number of those killed represents a tiny proportion of those who died in July 1995, the video is being seen as irrefutable evidence that Serbia's police forces, and not just Bosnian Serb forces, took part in the massacre, evidence that challenges the commonly held view among Serbs that the atrocity never took place.

The killings, which began July 11, 1995, in a designated United Nations safe haven overrun by Serbs, are widely acknowledged to be the worst atrocities committed in Europe since World War II.

The massacre represented the final push by Bosnian Serb forces to forge an "ethnically pure" state within Bosnia and end the war on their own terms. The atrocities ultimately prompted Western military intervention to end the conflict.

A decade later many Serbs say they are either unaware of war crimes or refuse to accept that their police or security forces could have committed them.

[...]

Public opinion remains strongly nationalist in Serbia a decade after the end of the war in Bosnia. An opinion poll published by the Belgrade-based Strategic Marketing Research in April showed that more than 50 percent of respondents either did not know about war crimes in Bosnia, or did not believe they had taken place. The poll was conducted by phone and surveyed 1,200 people.I assume the poll and its results were conducted in Serbian, so I didn't pursue it any further to its original source.

Edit: Okay I did pursue it. Searching 'Srebrenica' or 'Bosnia' on what I assume is the site of this
Strategic Marketing Research yielded no results.
http://www.smmri.co.yu/code/navigate.asp?Id=38

[Sarmatian]

Hmm, I was hoping for something concrete. A link to the actual survey or something like that. Strategic Marketing is known for delivering results that are expected by the party that ordered the surveys and their methods aren't exactly to the highest standards (I did some part time work for them), so margin of error is a bit bigger than usual.

Anyway, the article is a bit vague in that part, first part is about one particular crime and then mentions survey about war crimes in general. There's no link to the actual survey, it doesn't say how was the question phrased and when was the survey performed. The article itself is 4 years old. I'll try to find something fresher.

[Brenus]

Louis, I am not convince by your link. It is an affirmation more than a study: who, when and where being absent…
Can do better as would have said our teachers…:beam:

Now, you ask the Serbs to stop the victimisation.
Will you ask the others sides to do the same?
Will you ask the Bosnians to stop to pretend they had no weapons and that they never ever did bad things? Will you ask them to stop to produce inflated figures concerning their casualties?
To stop to commemorate unproved Serbian crimes?

Will you recognise that the Croatian Serbs had good reasons to fear the new Tudjman Regime and the return of the Ustasa? That they were right to fear the Kosovar Albanians will to leave together in the same country?
Will you recognise that when the Serbian population asked for independence/autonomy they were bombed, and when a minority ask to separate from the Serbs the Serbs were bombed?
Do you accept that in all the Former Yugoslav wars, bomb the Serbs was the result and the politic?

When Serbia, arms (both) twisted by the so-called International Community (in a method known in all school yards as bullying) “admitted" the 7000 victims in Sebrenica (victims we still don’t have the bodies, graves or names, it didn’t bring a “South African” type of reconciliation but a claim for compensation… So I can understand why they won’t admit any wrongdoing.

And Louis, figures are important. If not we go for "who steal an egg, steal a cow, who steal a cow kill the cow boy"...:sweatdrop: (qui vole un oeuf vole un boeuf, qui vole un boeuf tue le bouvier).
And a video for a cold blood murder is not a proof of a genocide by the way...

The civil war in Bosnia is still presented as an aggression by the media. The war in Croatia is still presented like a war of conquest.
It wasn’t.
The Serbs were far from innocents. But in saying this I was accused to be pro-Serb, so can’t be trusted.
You could be openly pro Croats (as Filkenkraut did), pro Bosnian (Izetbegovic, of course, not Fikret Abdic) as Bernard Henry Levy did, but you couldn’t say something like a slight doubts about Serbian guilt…

[Sarmatian]

Found something, not really what I was looking for but definitely better. link (http://www.novinar.de/2007/03/20/odgovor-i-glasa-javnosti-citaocima-i-ostaloj-gospodi.html) (in serbian, I'll translate the important part.

Survey conducted between 13th and 16th March 2007 by telephone, 722 persons older than 18 from every bigger city in Serbia (Belgrade, Novi Sad, Nis, Kragujevac, Vranje, Leskovac, Pancevo, Zrenjanin, Subotica, Loznica, Valjevo, Smederevo, Negotin, Jagodina etc...)

The part concerning Srebrenica -> 38,37% thinks that the genocide story is fabricated. Now, this is important, they're not denying the crime, they're denying that it was genocide. 36,98% thinks that neither side has been objective when it comes to Srebrenica.
The survey was made when there was a big discussion in the Serbian Skupstina (Parliament) should there be a special declaration about Srebrenica so survey dealt with the issue of the declaration more than Srebrenica itself.

The other question where whether now (2007) is the right time to deal with what happened in Srebrenica 48,61% thinks that it is always the right time for the truth, whatever it may be and 32,55% thinks that history should give the final judgement on Srebrenica, in a sense there should be no special declaration now.

That is more in line with what I've been encountering. Virtually no one has denied that Srebrenica is a war crime (except far right and neonazi organizations) but most will deny that it was a genocide and I think a decent chunk will say that Srebrenica has been abused to present the entire conflict in a black and white manner. That's why I asked how was the question (or questions) phrased, that's the most important part.

I'll try to find something better but as I suspected, the info from that article you linked to is pretty much useless.

EDIT: Just to strengthen my point, this is a statement by Vojislav Seselj (for those who don't know about him, he is currently in Hague on trial for war crimes, leader of the nationalist Serbian Radical Party, the most vocal proponent of Greater Serbia. Basically, Serbian Jörg Haider, but on steroids) ---->

Streljanje muslimanskih zarobljenika u Srebrenici je najveća sramota za srpski narod

Translation: The shooting of the Muslim POWs in Srebrenica is the biggest disgrace of the Serbian people

[Louis VI the Fat]

post aboveThose are too many questions and points for me to adress in any meaningful way within the constraints of a forum post. I'll pick out a few points:


Firstly, yes, the Croats were in the grip of national-fascism. Yes, there were althogether too many Islamofascists in Bosnia. Yes, Kosovo is run by thugs.


B:You could be openly pro Croats (as Filkenkraut did), pro Bosnian (Izetbegovic, of course, not Fikret Abdic) as Bernard Henry Levy did
- Whether Finkelkraut has a natural sympathy for Croatian nazi Ustasas, and BHL for Islamicists is a matter of debate. Me, I'd say that his and BHL's concern was grounded more in Jewish thought being a bit sensitive to thousands of unarmed civilians being dragged into an East European forest to be shot in a mass grave they had to dig.


B:it didn’t bring a “South African” type of reconciliation but a claim for compensation… So I can understand why they won’t admit any wrongdoing.
- The Bosnian victims do not want a Serbian admittance only because of financial compensation. As usual, truth is a more important consideration for genocide victims than a few thousand euros in exchange for a dead son.


B:When Serbia, arms (both) twisted by the so-called International Community “admitted" the 7000 victims in Sebrenica (victims we still don’t have the bodies, graves or names,
[...]
And Louis, figures are important.
- Here is the game Serbia / Bosnian Serbs plays: Hide the bodies. Dig 'em up and rebury them. Dig 'em up again and burn and scatter the remains. Hide evidence. Do not co-operate. Falsify reports. Shelter perpetrators.
Then cry 'anti-Serbianism!!' at everybody who has the nerve to assume that the body count is probably higher than the number of victims that costly UN forensics have so far managed to exhume.

But we'll get there, Brenus. Slowly, one body part at a time, we are getting there. Truth is being exhumed. We'll get the murderers their 'bodies, graves, and names'. :yes:


DNA Results of the International Commission on Missing Persons Reveal the Identity of 6,186 Srebrenica Victims
Article posted on July 9, 2009

Through the use of DNA identity testing, the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) has revealed the identity of 6,186 persons missing from the July 1995 fall of Srebrenica, by analyzing DNA profiles extracted from bone samples of exhumed mortal remains and matching them to the DNA profiles obtained from blood samples donated by relatives of the missing. The overall high matching rate between DNA extracted from these bone and blood samples leads ICMP to support an estimate of close to 8,100 individuals missing from the fall of Srebrenica.

The ICMP has made to date a total of 12,520 accurate, DNA-led identifications of individuals from all of Bosnia-Herzegovina since ICMP’s DNA system went online in 2001. In the case of BiH, ICMP has DNA profiles from more than 69,051 blood samples collected from relatives and 25,033 bone samples from human remains on its database. The number of subsequent identifications made is much lower than this figure as more than one family member’s blood sample is needed for a positive match, and often several bone samples from a victim’s remains are needed for a positive DNA match.

Yet despite ICMP’s world-class forensic system, and despite having built the forensic facilities at Lukavac and at the Podrinje Identification Project in Tuzla specifically for the identification of victims of Srebrenica, their identification remains an extremely difficult, complex and time-consuming process. To expedite this process, more information is needed on the locations of burial and mass grave sites.

“The fact that ICMP has made nearly 6,200 identifications of Srebrenica victims is a remarkable success, and something that many people had said from the beginning would be impossible to accomplish,” said ICMP’s Director-General Ms. Kathryne Bomberger.

“However, it is a success of science that has sprung out of immense human tragedy: more than 520 bodies are being buried at Potocari this week, in addition to the 3,127 already buried here. Many families of Srebrenica victims are still waiting for information on their missing relatives. Many families who have identified their relatives are waiting for more remains to be exhumed from secondary mass grave sites before they bury their loved ones. So what we desperately need is for individuals with more information about the location of grave and burial sites to come forward.”

In many cases the perpetrators of Srebrenica removed mortal remains from one ‘primary’ mass grave and hid them in multiple sites in an attempt to conceal evidence of war crimes, thus leaving a trail of disarticulated skeletal remains, whereby body-parts of the same person can be found in different sites. In one case, ICMP identified a man missing from the fall of Srebrenica whose remains were found in four different mass graves two of which were 20 km from the other two locations.

The introduction of DNA by the ICMP as the basis for identifying large numbers of missing persons from the 1990’s conflicts in the Western Balkans enabled accurate identifications of persons that would never otherwise have been identified. The first DNA match, for a 15 year-old boy from Srebrenica, was made on November 16, 2001. See? You can murder a man. Rape teenage girls with your mates. Laughing.

And hide the crimes, go in hiding, and tell the world everybody is a bunch of liars.

Maybe the world will even believe you.

But some won't. And they have a long memory too. And patience, plentiful funds, excellent forensic experts, 21st century satellite images, ever more refined DNA instruments. :yes:

[Louis VI the Fat]

The part concerning Srebrenica -> 38,37% thinks that the genocide story is fabricated. Now, this is important, they're not denying the crime, they're denying that it was genocide.Ah. I see.

As I neither speak Serbian, nor care much for debates about semantics and the exact line between genocide and mass murder, I must rest the subject.

Thank you for your translation effort!
One more remark struck me: that 'Srebrenica has been abused to present the entire conflict in a black and white manner'.
There is truth in that. Although I would not say abused. Nor 'black and white presentation of the conflict'.
I would say 'featured prominently in Western public opinion'. If you seek to understand the NATO bombings of 1999, I think here you have one major element. Srebrenica was a disgrace, and a public relations disaster for Serbia. 'No more Srebrenica's', more than any particular sympathy for the Kosovar crooks, or geo-political goals, was the reason behind the NATO bombings.

One more link! The Srebrenica genocide:

The Malicious Massacre of Men



The executions that followed on July 13-16, 1995, took place in various locations and had various numbers of victims, including men from both the group that was separated from the women and children and the refugees from the column who had been captured (Wikipedia, 2006). A few " men from each site managed to survive and provide details of the horrific events they bore witness to (Haverford, 2006). Their accounts, as well as accounts from some of the soldiers who carried out the horrific acts, provide a glimpse into the events of this tragedy.

In what was a well-planned succession of events, the victims were transported from building to building and held for long periods of time without food or water before they were finally executed. The VRS troops, out of what can only be understood as boredom and brutality, would often barbarically torture individuals items such as crowbars, knives, and axes before killing them during trips from one holding site to another or during the nights (Danner, 1998b). Those not physically tormented were nonetheless emotionally tortured as they heard the agonizing wails of others and desperately prayed that their own deaths would be quick and painless.

Throughout the entire elaborate plan "cleansing" the Muslims, the VRS did they could to keep their prisoners in the dark about what was really happening, repeatedly promising the Muslims . that they were working out negotiations with the UN and that they would all soon be free. The Bosnia Serbs wanted to keep Muslim hopes up m keep them from revolting, something that would have put a damper on their plan (Danner, 1998b). However, the of many of the VRS troops the horrific events the Muslims witnessed while in the hands of the VRS left many of them with little hope.

Some men were killed indiVidually or in small groups, but the majority of the murders took place in mass numbers. The soldiers performed executions by taking the men into fields, lining them up, and shooting them to death. Most of the time the victims were blindfolded and had their hands bound in order to minimize their attempts to resist. Often the soldiers gave the victims a slow and painful death, dragging out their misery for as long as possible before finally taking their lives.

In one of the mass murders, between 1,000 and 1,500 men were crammed into a pitch-black warehouse. Soldiers began throwing grenades into the warehouse and shooting their machine guns into the building. Any men who tried to escape from the building were immediately gunned down by the soldiers (Wikepedia, 2006).

Other gruesome killing sprees took place at schools. On one occasion, the Muslim men were packed into a school gym so tightly that they could not even sit down without being on top of each other. After sustaining these miserable conditions for 2 nights without any food or water, soldiers began taking smaller groups of men out to a farm and shooting them in their backs, often beating and torturing them before finally executing them (Wikipedia, 2006).

What many consider to be the worst of the massacre took place at a soccer field near Nova Kasaba. While at some sites there was grave digging machinery, at the soccer field selected men were forced to dig graves and watch others be shot into those Eventually, these men and were shot into their own graves. When a bulldozer finally did arrive, around 400 men were thrown into a grave and buried alive (Danner, 1998b; GW, 2002).

After all was said and done, between the days of July 11-16, 1995, over 8,000 Muslim men were killed in Bosnia.
The Serbian cover-up:

Following the massacre, a handful of survivors from various massacre sites came forward and offered their testimonies, describing the brutal and horrific murders they witnessed.

After hearing their stories, and based on satellite photos taken of a Serb-held area of Bosnia, on August 10, 1995, the United States made public charges against BosnianSerb forces. One set Of photos displayed a soccer field crowded with prisoners; a second photo taken days later displayed an empty field with disturbed earth (Rohde, 1995).

The Bosnian Serbs maintained that the graves were filled with Muslim soldiers killed during combat and denied the accusations that a massacre took place. However, on October 29, 1995, reporters from the Christian Science Monitor, during an unauthorized visit, discovered a heap of clothing, shoes, and eyeglasses next to what appeared to be a freshly dug grave in the city of Sahanici. There were no signs that a battle took place, and a few canes as well as a crutch were also discovered--evidence that countered the Bosnian Serbs' that the graves contained Muslim combat casualties (Rohde, 1995).

For as long as they could manage, Milosevic, YNA, and Bosnian-Serb forces would not allow war crime investigators access to any of the mass graves. Without being able to freely investigate the land, U.S. spy planes were able to identify additional possible mass grave sites near Srebrenica. Amongst these sites, reporters from the Christian Science Monitor discovered "human remains, documents from Srebrenica, Muslim identity cards, personal photos with Muslim names on them, [and] civilian clothing" (Rohde, 1995).

Finally, almost a year after the massacre, in July of 1996, forensic experts performed exhumations of some of the mass grave sites without the permission of Serb authorities (CNN, 1996a, 1996b). Over the next few months, more graves, and consequently human remains, were discovered in areas surrounding Srebrenica. However, much to the surprise of UN investigators, by November of 1996, they had found less than 10% of the Muslim men who were missing. Each grave contained far fewer bodies than expected. With Milosevic successfully denying access to the grave sites for almost a year, it was suspected that the Bosnian Serbs had taken the necessary actions to cover up the massacre (Swain, 1996).

As time drew on, more grave sites were discovered and extamed, and and more bodies were accounted for, Investigators found many bodies in smaller graves in areas farther from Srebrenica. The Bosnian Serb's cover-up was slowly being revealed one grave at a time. The bodies were easily linked to Srebrenica, as several licenses and photographs of Muslims who had been in Srebrenica were found in the graves (Haverford, 2006). The Bosnian-Serb war criminals were suspected of trying to hide the massacre by digging up the primary burial sites and relocating the bodies in many smaller graves to make it seem as though the graves contained only the victims of small battles (Wood, 2004).

Their findings led investigators to suspect that three types of graves existed: undisturbed primary sites, disturbed primary sites, and secondary sites. The theory was the primary grave sites were sites where Muslim victims had been buried immediately following their executions in July 1995. Some of these graves had been undisturbed while others displayed signs that bodies had been removed and relocated. The secondary sites were suspected as the burial sites containing bodies that were moved from the disturbed primary grave sites in the fall of 1995 (Haverford, 2006).

Even in the large graves with fewer bodies, forensic investigations found significant evidence suggesting that most of the victims were not killed during combat. Hundreds of blindfolds and ligatures were found in the graves and many of the remains displayed evidence of execution-style deaths.

Also, prosthetic limbs, canes, and crutches found in the graves suggested that many of the victims were severely handicapped and would not have been able to fight in combat (Haverford, 2006).

Although it seemed as though there was plenty of proof that the Bosnian Serbs were responsible for the atrocious massacre, investigators still needed forensic evidence to the primary grave sites to the secondary sites. Such evidence would prove that the primary grave sites were originally mass graves resulting from a massacre and reveal the organized efforts the Bosnian Serbs took to conceal the evidence.

Exhuming the Evidence: Proof Grounded in Soil and Pollen

A team from the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia used pollen and soil to help bring justice to the victims of the Srebrenica massacre and their families. From 1997 through 2000, as part of what is believed to be the first war crimes investigation using environmental profiling techniques, the forensic team performed exhumations of primary and secondary mass grave sites to collect and analyze pollen and soil sediments. By analyzing samples from each grave site, investigators were hoping to find conclusive evidence that would link secondary grave sites to primary grave sites.

Over 24 different sites were examined with over 240 samples collected and analyzed (Brown, in press).

Each of the five primary grave sites examined contained distinctive soil, vegetation, and minerals. The investigations were aimed to find traces of soil, pollen, and minerals at each of the 19 secondary grave sites that matched the primary grave sites, proving that soil and pollen sediments were transferred to the secondary grave sites with the bodies (Brown, 2006). If the BosnianSerbs were telling the truth, all of the geological substances found within a secondary grave would have come from the area around... [article continues in link]

[Adrian II]

There is truth in that.You rang, sir?

Whilst you are valiantly defending the truth, I am valiantly consuming your courgettes and drinking your rosé. Yes, I am on my yearly European pilgrimage; Germany will be honoured in late August, the UK in the fall. For the time being I am slumbering in the "douceur Angévine". Allow me to recommend the Chateau Brissac, produced at the chateau of the once mighty Duc de Brissé, great Leaguist and marshall of France. Six euro a bottle for such goodness - l`Anjou vaut bien une messe. I have also bought a shipload of new history books: biographies of LaFayette, Louis XIV, Robespierre, Richelieu..

So, um, keep it up and à la prochaine.

[Sarmatian]

Ah. I see.

As I neither speak Serbian, nor care much for debates about semantics and the exact line between genocide and mass murder, I must rest the subject.

The point is exactly that it is not a matter of semantics. The words "war crime" and "genocide" are not interchangeable. War crime is something that happens often in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in every war that has been fought to this day. Genocide is systematic and organized killing of a nation (or ethnic or religious group) with the point of eradicating it. The word genocide is used too casually nowadays, and not just when it comes to Yugoslavia conflict.

Utter the word genocide and the first thing that comes to mind is the holocaust. Before Srebrenica, there was a concentration camp picture. PR companies were aware of that and were pursuing that direction to make it look like the WW2 and to present Serbs as the nazis.



Thank you for your translation effort!
One more remark struck me: that 'Srebrenica has been abused to present the entire conflict in a black and white manner'.
There is truth in that. Although I would not say abused. Nor 'black and white presentation of the conflict'.
I would say 'featured prominently in Western public opinion'.

This is more like semantics. I'm willing to accept that your phrase is more appropriate. My English is decent, but not quite the level of yours.



If you seek to understand the NATO bombings of 1999, I think here you have one major element. Srebrenica was a disgrace, and a public relations disaster for Serbia. 'No more Srebrenica's', more than any particular sympathy for the Kosovar crooks, or geo-political goals, was the reason behind the NATO bombings.

This is very, very true. In fact, the entire war in Bosnia in Croatia is one huge PR disaster for Serbia. Not only there was not any active propaganda, there was intense dislike for any journalists. They often weren't allowed access to crimes committed against the Serbs. Media and PR as tools were totally ignored. We learned our lesson by 1999, fortunately. I'd dare say that one of the most important reason that 1999 bombing and what happened afterward in Kosovo is seen differently than Bosnia and Croatia in the West is because of that.

Of course, it is a bit worrying, because it appears that most important things in war today isn't who's right but who has better PR. The first thing that Russia did in the conflict with Georgia is to hire a PR firm in the US. There's Georgian military in South Ossetia? Ok, first hire a PR firm in America and then give the orders to the army to respond.




One more link! The Srebrenica genocide:

The Malicious Massacre of Men

The executions that followed on July 13-16, 1995, took place in various locations and had various numbers of victims, including men from both the group that was separated from the women and children and the refugees from the column who had been captured (Wikipedia, 2006). A few " men from each site managed to survive and provide details of the horrific events they bore witness to (Haverford, 2006). Their accounts, as well as accounts from some of the soldiers who carried out the horrific acts, provide a glimpse into the events of this tragedy.

In what was a well-planned succession of events, the victims were transported from building to building and held for long periods of time without food or water before they were finally executed. The VRS troops, out of what can only be understood as boredom and brutality, would often barbarically torture individuals items such as crowbars, knives, and axes before killing them during trips from one holding site to another or during the nights (Danner, 1998b). Those not physically tormented were nonetheless emotionally tortured as they heard the agonizing wails of others and desperately prayed that their own deaths would be quick and painless.

Throughout the entire elaborate plan "cleansing" the Muslims, the VRS did they could to keep their prisoners in the dark about what was really happening, repeatedly promising the Muslims . that they were working out negotiations with the UN and that they would all soon be free. The Bosnia Serbs wanted to keep Muslim hopes up m keep them from revolting, something that would have put a damper on their plan (Danner, 1998b). However, the of many of the VRS troops the horrific events the Muslims witnessed while in the hands of the VRS left many of them with little hope.

Some men were killed indiVidually or in small groups, but the majority of the murders took place in mass numbers. The soldiers performed executions by taking the men into fields, lining them up, and shooting them to death. Most of the time the victims were blindfolded and had their hands bound in order to minimize their attempts to resist. Often the soldiers gave the victims a slow and painful death, dragging out their misery for as long as possible before finally taking their lives.

In one of the mass murders, between 1,000 and 1,500 men were crammed into a pitch-black warehouse. Soldiers began throwing grenades into the warehouse and shooting their machine guns into the building. Any men who tried to escape from the building were immediately gunned down by the soldiers (Wikepedia, 2006).

Other gruesome killing sprees took place at schools. On one occasion, the Muslim men were packed into a school gym so tightly that they could not even sit down without being on top of each other. After sustaining these miserable conditions for 2 nights without any food or water, soldiers began taking smaller groups of men out to a farm and shooting them in their backs, often beating and torturing them before finally executing them (Wikipedia, 2006).

What many consider to be the worst of the massacre took place at a soccer field near Nova Kasaba. While at some sites there was grave digging machinery, at the soccer field selected men were forced to dig graves and watch others be shot into those Eventually, these men and were shot into their own graves. When a bulldozer finally did arrive, around 400 men were thrown into a grave and buried alive (Danner, 1998b; GW, 2002).

After all was said and done, between the days of July 11-16, 1995, over 8,000 Muslim men were killed in Bosnia.
The Serbian cover-up:

Following the massacre, a handful of survivors from various massacre sites came forward and offered their testimonies, describing the brutal and horrific murders they witnessed.

After hearing their stories, and based on satellite photos taken of a Serb-held area of Bosnia, on August 10, 1995, the United States made public charges against BosnianSerb forces. One set Of photos displayed a soccer field crowded with prisoners; a second photo taken days later displayed an empty field with disturbed earth (Rohde, 1995).

The Bosnian Serbs maintained that the graves were filled with Muslim soldiers killed during combat and denied the accusations that a massacre took place. However, on October 29, 1995, reporters from the Christian Science Monitor, during an unauthorized visit, discovered a heap of clothing, shoes, and eyeglasses next to what appeared to be a freshly dug grave in the city of Sahanici. There were no signs that a battle took place, and a few canes as well as a crutch were also discovered--evidence that countered the Bosnian Serbs' that the graves contained Muslim combat casualties (Rohde, 1995).

For as long as they could manage, Milosevic, YNA, and Bosnian-Serb forces would not allow war crime investigators access to any of the mass graves. Without being able to freely investigate the land, U.S. spy planes were able to identify additional possible mass grave sites near Srebrenica. Amongst these sites, reporters from the Christian Science Monitor discovered "human remains, documents from Srebrenica, Muslim identity cards, personal photos with Muslim names on them, [and] civilian clothing" (Rohde, 1995).

Finally, almost a year after the massacre, in July of 1996, forensic experts performed exhumations of some of the mass grave sites without the permission of Serb authorities (CNN, 1996a, 1996b). Over the next few months, more graves, and consequently human remains, were discovered in areas surrounding Srebrenica. However, much to the surprise of UN investigators, by November of 1996, they had found less than 10% of the Muslim men who were missing. Each grave contained far fewer bodies than expected. With Milosevic successfully denying access to the grave sites for almost a year, it was suspected that the Bosnian Serbs had taken the necessary actions to cover up the massacre (Swain, 1996).

As time drew on, more grave sites were discovered and extamed, and and more bodies were accounted for, Investigators found many bodies in smaller graves in areas farther from Srebrenica. The Bosnian Serb's cover-up was slowly being revealed one grave at a time. The bodies were easily linked to Srebrenica, as several licenses and photographs of Muslims who had been in Srebrenica were found in the graves (Haverford, 2006). The Bosnian-Serb war criminals were suspected of trying to hide the massacre by digging up the primary burial sites and relocating the bodies in many smaller graves to make it seem as though the graves contained only the victims of small battles (Wood, 2004).

Their findings led investigators to suspect that three types of graves existed: undisturbed primary sites, disturbed primary sites, and secondary sites. The theory was the primary grave sites were sites where Muslim victims had been buried immediately following their executions in July 1995. Some of these graves had been undisturbed while others displayed signs that bodies had been removed and relocated. The secondary sites were suspected as the burial sites containing bodies that were moved from the disturbed primary grave sites in the fall of 1995 (Haverford, 2006).

Even in the large graves with fewer bodies, forensic investigations found significant evidence suggesting that most of the victims were not killed during combat. Hundreds of blindfolds and ligatures were found in the graves and many of the remains displayed evidence of execution-style deaths.

Also, prosthetic limbs, canes, and crutches found in the graves suggested that many of the victims were severely handicapped and would not have been able to fight in combat (Haverford, 2006).

Although it seemed as though there was plenty of proof that the Bosnian Serbs were responsible for the atrocious massacre, investigators still needed forensic evidence to the primary grave sites to the secondary sites. Such evidence would prove that the primary grave sites were originally mass graves resulting from a massacre and reveal the organized efforts the Bosnian Serbs took to conceal the evidence.

Exhuming the Evidence: Proof Grounded in Soil and Pollen

A team from the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia used pollen and soil to help bring justice to the victims of the Srebrenica massacre and their families. From 1997 through 2000, as part of what is believed to be the first war crimes investigation using environmental profiling techniques, the forensic team performed exhumations of primary and secondary mass grave sites to collect and analyze pollen and soil sediments. By analyzing samples from each grave site, investigators were hoping to find conclusive evidence that would link secondary grave sites to primary grave sites.

Over 24 different sites were examined with over 240 samples collected and analyzed (Brown, in press).

Each of the five primary grave sites examined contained distinctive soil, vegetation, and minerals. The investigations were aimed to find traces of soil, pollen, and minerals at each of the 19 secondary grave sites that matched the primary grave sites, proving that soil and pollen sediments were transferred to the secondary grave sites with the bodies (Brown, 2006). If the BosnianSerbs were telling the truth, all of the geological substances found within a secondary grave would have come from the area around... [article continues in link]

Oh yeah, we're up to our ears in witnesses. The lack of witnesses for what happened in Yugoslavia was never a problem. The lack of credible witnesses was. Take a look at this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_bU_y3fjsQ). You don't have to look the entire video, just look the part between 6:01 and 6:10. You'll see a guy talking about crimes committed by Serbs, one of 5 or 6 guys. They are all presented in a slideshow style, with saying only a few sentences each, to give the viewer the impression there are countless witnesses. Now, take a look at this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP8SjBXoFEQ&feature=response_watch), not the whole one again just from 5:15 to 6:54. It shows the exact same guy but it show app. a minute and a half of his testimony instead of just one line.

That's the power of the media. Show just one part and not the whole picture and the person viewing it will get a totally different picture that has little in common with reality.

I think you're beating a dead horse with Srebrenica here. I'm in complete agreement with you about Srebrenica, but you're projecting Srebrenica on everything that has happened from 1991 to 1999, possibly even 2008 (recognition of Kosovo independence).

[Brenus]

“Through the use of DNA identity testing, the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) has revealed the identity of 6,186 persons missing from the July 1995 fall of Srebrenica, by analyzing DNA profiles extracted from bone samples of exhumed mortal remains and matching them to the DNA profiles obtained from blood samples donated by relatives of the missing. The overall high matching rate between DNA extracted from these bone and blood samples leads ICMP to support an estimate of close to 8,100 individuals missing from the fall of Srebrenica.”

Louis, they didn’t.
There was an estimation of 8 100 missing. This was including the few thousands who escape to Serbia then to Tuzla…

I do remember the Satellite pictures. Never shown. Why?
The principle in this case is easy to understand.
There are 8 000 innocent people genocided and if we don’t find the bodies it is because the Serbs are good in hiding the bodies… Right…
In hills and mountains, with forest path, in Bosnia, you are stuck immediately after few lorries.
The logistic included in this scenario (and until know not proved at all) is simply very difficult to maintain, especially under satellite surveillance which are able to count the number of golf balls lost on a field…

“You can murder a man. Rape teenage girls with your mates. Laughing” You can do worst. I could tell you, but I won’t, because just thinking about it, even know, is very hard…

“21st century satellite images”: You mean, the same one that didn’t see the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade? Joking…
:beam:
The problem is the satellite pictures showed nothing… And the forensic didn’t find the bodies.

Louis, the claim that you unburied bodies in secret, without the Serbian Authorities from Pale knowing it is just pure propaganda (I am polite)… When I was there, I was under constant surveillance, by neighbours, agents and kind of people…

“6,200 identifications of Srebrenica victims”: I think that include all the victims for the duration of the war, including the Serbian victims… The ones killed of Naser Oric, the ones who don’t count.

“Truth is being exhumed” Nope. Not before long, because nobody dare to question the myth. Do you know how I know when the exhume bodies are Serbs: Big announce then silence…

“The Serbian cover-up”: Nope. What a journalist wrote…
The Serbian did killed prisoners in a probably planned mass murder. That is without doubts. The doubts are about the numbers and the term genocide employed in this case.

In focusing only on Srebrenica you did a good job because it put me in position to defend something I never defended.
Because even if Srebrenica was never demilitarised, even if the Bosnians decided not to defend the place, even if as Gal Morillon said the Serbs felt in the trap, they did slaughter prisoners… They did it.

You answer to no questions about the rest:
What about the fight in Velika Vladusa?
What about Mostar?
What about the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Croatia?

I am so fed-up about all this. I am telling that the Serbs were not all guilty, I give example (massive desertion) and I end to have to defend Srebrenica…
It is not what I said.

You can refuse to see the Serbian victims. You can refuse to acknowledge the others crimes. I've got the habits of this. Good conscience in one side: Serbs got what they deserved.

Few years ago, I interviewed an old Serbian refugee in Croatia: She fled her village because, well, the liberators were coming. The entire village was on the road… They were stop by the Croatian Army. All the cars, lorries and tractors had to be abandoned and the men and women were put in the nearby bushes and trees. She stayed on the tractor… She was too tired. So a young Croatian soldier arrived and asked:
Hey baba, why are still there?
I am too tired she said, I couldn’t go by my own.
I will help you said the young and nice soldier.
He took her hand, and shot two bullets in her heart.
She survived. The UN forces founded her and the Croatian surgeons in Zagreb saved her life.
And during all the interview she was smiling. But the blue eyes were dead.
I sent this witness account with all details to The Hague. Guess what? We were never interviewed…

The Croatian General Gotovina can rest assured. As the Bosnian commander Naser Oric, like the Kosovar Asim Thaci, he will be free of all charges. Killing Serbs is authorised.

[Sarmatian]

Just something for my friend Louis. Yesterday a video (http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/ci/story/134/%D0%A5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0/75772/%D0%98%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2+%D0%94%D1%83%D0%B4%D 0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%9B%D0%B0.html) was leaked of Bosnian general, commander of the 5th Corps, Atif Dudakovic ordering killing of two prisoners. When he was informed that there are two prisoners, he responds with: "Shoot them on the spot". There's a cut in the video and then two guys return saying they're glad "the swines are dead". Dudakovic then congratulates them and presents them as stars of the film and himself as the director.

Prosecution in BiH refused to comment on the video. Police in the Serb Republic said they've sent so far 30 DVDs worth of material just on Dudakovic and the 5th Corps with evidence of him ordering looting, arson, killing and torturing. Although Dudakovic has been under investigation from time to time, neither he or anyone of his close associates were ever prosecuted, let alone sentenced. Dudakovic is also famous for his actions against other Bosnian Muslims, namely those who didn't support Alija Izetbegovic. It appears that those two prisoners whose killing he ordered were in fact Muslims.

And yet, prosecution in Bosnia isn't interested, international organizations aren't interested, Hague isn't interested, media aren't interested. Still we have the official story how 4100 something Serbian civilians in Sarajevo were killed by Serbian forces and how all Muslim were killed by either Serbs or Croats. Just wondering, when Srebrenica stops being an excuse and justification for all other crimes.... The video's from 1994, btw.

[Don Corleone]

Aye. :bow:

Those who think there is no such thing as an innocent civilian shouldn't complain about 9/11 and the logic behind it.

I suppose eight years of Bushism have taken their toll on some of the better backroom minds.

Few are the days we agree old friend, but this would be one of them.


To the main topic... didn't we bomb the new Chinese embassy in that campaign? While granted, they were none too happy about it, I think they were willing to accept our hapless shrug & explanation that for all our wealth and resources, we can at times be woefully incompetent. Surely the bombing of the Serbian media building was more an indictment of America's ability to parse actionable intelligence than it is evidence of a secret war on Serbian journalism?

Else, old Hu Jintao better get on the stick with some payback...

[Sarmatian]

Yep, with 3 missiles, but that was (at least officially) a mistake. The embassy was mistaken for a building that had something to do with Serbian military. That explanation makes sense, why would NATO want to bomb Chinese embassy, that would serve no purpose except to make Chinese angry. China, although officially opposed to the bombing, was mostly indifferent. Giving them personal reason to be against it would be really an idiotic move. Even with all that, it involved a bit of apologizing and bottom-kissing. The TV station, on the other hand, was targeted deliberately. It was considered a legitimate target. And after that - nothing, no apologizes, no indictments, no compensation, no admitting mistake...

Part of the reason why only Serbia and Serbs are forced to take the blame is because NATO (especially USA) wants to wash its hands. By emphasizing atrocities committed by Serbs and minimizing theirs and those committed by other side, NATO is trying to show how all of that was justified because it was done for "greater good". TV is just one example...