Bosnian Serbs refuse collective responsibility

Individual cowards on all 3 sides are the ones who committed war crimes.

Srebenica was in 1992. Srpska was only formed in 1995 by treaty signed by everyone including the Bosnian Muslims. So Srpska cannot be held responsible for something that occured before its birth. Moreover the ICJ ruling in no way questioned the legality of the Dayton Accords. That's the legal viewpoint.

Here is an interesting note about the Oxford Dictionary's definition of the word 'Genocide.

In my 1964 edition (reprinted 1973) it defines genocide as 'the extermination of a race'.

In my 1995 edition (reprinted 2003) the definition changes to the 'mass extermination of human beings, esp. of a particular race or nation'.

These two definitions may seem close enough, but from my point-of-view they make very different statements.

The first is clearly saying that genocide is an attempt to destroy everyone belonging to a particular race or nation. The second, however, simply states that it is an attempt to destroy a large number of people belonging to a particular race or nation.

Both are, of course, evil acts that must not go unpunished or be forgotten, but the second definition is not, in any real sense, genocide. It would be better described as mass murder. Hitler's Holocaust belongs to the 1964 definition, but Srebrenica, et al, does not. Nor does the mass killings of Muslim women and children by Croat forces in Ahmici which everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten all about.

The ICJ ruling quotes the ICTY in saying that the Bosnian Serbs "systematically targeted the 40,000 inhabitants of Srebrenica for extermination." Yet, the same court acknowledges that women and children were not targeted. Their other comment that the punishment should be as a deterrent to such acts is equally vacuous and shows that their decisions were emotionally led rather than legally lead. After all, has the death sentence in the US lead to no murders being committed?

It seems that it is the 'expert judges' who have a problem with dictionary definitions and have a somewhat flexible interpretation, in this case 'extermination'.

If anything, it shows how emotionally attached they are and as such, have become blinded and incapable of carrying out their professional duties properly (much like the western media who happily took sides)...

Individual cowards on all 3 sides are the ones who committed war crimes.

Srebenica was in 1992. Srpska was only formed in 1995 by treaty signed by everyone including the Bosnian Muslims. So Srpska cannot be held responsible for something that occured before its birth. Moreover the ICJ ruling in no way questioned the legality of the Dayton Accords. That's the legal viewpoint.

Here is an interesting note about the Oxford Dictionary's definition of the word 'Genocide.

In my 1964 edition (reprinted 1973) it defines genocide as 'the extermination of a race'.

In my 1995 edition (reprinted 2003) the definition changes to the 'mass extermination of human beings, esp. of a particular race or nation'.

These two definitions may seem close enough, but from my point-of-view they make very different statements.

The first is clearly saying that genocide is an attempt to destroy everyone belonging to a particular race or nation. The second, however, simply states that it is an attempt to destroy a large number of people belonging to a particular race or nation.

Both are, of course, evil acts that must not go unpunished or be forgotten, but the second definition is not, in any real sense, genocide. It would be better described as mass murder. Hitler's Holocaust belongs to the 1964 definition, but Srebrenica, et al, does not. Nor does the mass killings of Muslim women and children by Croat forces in Ahmici which everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten all about.

The ICJ ruling quotes the ICTY in saying that the Bosnian Serbs "systematically targeted the 40,000 inhabitants of Srebrenica for extermination." Yet, the same court acknowledges that women and children were not targeted. Their other comment that the punishment should be as a deterrent to such acts is equally vacuous and shows that their decisions were emotionally led rather than legally lead. After all, has the death sentence in the US lead to no murders being committed?

It seems that it is the 'expert judges' who have a problem with dictionary definitions and have a somewhat flexible interpretation, in this case 'extermination'.

If anything, it shows how emotionally attached they are and as such, have become blinded and incapable of carrying out their professional duties properly (much like the western media who happily took sides)...