NYT: Genocide ruling on partial archive

A genocide was committed in Bosnia by the Serbs living in Bosnia. The genocide started in 1992 and finished in 1995 withe the Srebrenica massacre. The court can say what it wants, it won't change the Bosnian thought that Milosevic sent soldiers, paramilitaries, mercenaries, to help with this genocide. It's too bad that occidental nations are so afraid of telling the truth!

If anyone actually bothers to read the Krstic judgements, it is very clear that if the ICTY decided that if the 'facts' couldn't fit the claim (genocide), then the claim should be changed to fit the 'facts'.

The ICTY ruling was a political ruling by a political court.

There will be a price to be paid for this by all of us.

Victor wrote:
"it won't change the Bosnian thought that Milosevic sent soldiers,"

As far as the "Occidental nations" are concerned, why did the America entertain the thought of having Milosevic over for dinner when they struck the Dayton accord??

How can you be congratulated for successfully signing peace, and then speared for commiting genocide??

I don't defend Milosevic. Far from that.
But i DO have a problem with understanding your oversimplified logic..

The web was so intertwined in that conflict, it seems that the best way for you to come to an understanding, is to blame the Serbs Victor...

Sort of like Alexander the Great slicing the Gordian knot, rather than unwinding it so that it may be figured out for future generations...

This topic will now be debated by historians forever. The term genocide is a very strong term and even in light of potential high massacre counts still might not be really applicable in describing the role of Serbia in the Bosnian War of 1992-1995.

If Serbia and Milosevic had genocidal itent against the Bosniak nation then each and every member of that group in the Sandjak region would have been systematically executed. Also members of the Mehmet Sokolovic brigade would not have been allowed to fight under the flag of the Republika Srpska, and no alliance would ever have been made with Fikrat Abdic. Milosevic would have never offered Izetbegovic the chance to be his #2 man if Bosnia stayed in Yugoslavia, and the Bosnian Serbs would not have signed a pre-war deal in 1992 (which gave them less territory than they now control) which was in fact pulled out of by Izetbegovic at the last moment under influence from Warren Zimmerman and the U.S.

There are simply too many "shades of grey" to establish that Seria or Milosevic intended a complete genocide of Bosniaks- even if proof of his full control of the Bosnian Serbs was proved- and in fact it has been strongly disproved. Genocide has no "shades of grey", Hitler offered no compromises for the Jews, he simply slaughtered them, as many as he could, even as a higher priority to actual combat operations when the Nazis began to lose the war.

Furthermore, recent research has put the overall victim count at 100,000 for all warring sides, with an estimated 30,000-40,000 Bosniak civilians among this total. This is simply not high enough numbers for a total genocide.

What is however possible is that a premeditated mass murder occurred in Srebrenica of up to 8,000 men of military age by the Bosnian Serb Army as revenge massacres in response to the killings of an estimated 3,250 Serbs by Nasir Oric. One then can philosophize on the term genocide being re-defined in order for this event to be labelled as such- with women and children released to safety. I beleve a strong argument can be made for both the yes and no sides to this argument.

It must also be taken into consideration that this act was committed by a group which had previously been subjected to genocide during World War 2 and also during Ottoman times (forced conversion, removal of children to Turkey as a blood tax,etc.). The phsycological inprint on the collective consciousness of Bosnian Serbs cannot be ignored in the context of the war.

One must conclude that the only future for Bosnia is power-sharing between its ethnic groups. This equality must exist on an abstract level, disconnected from history, or else new armed conflicts will be sure to erupt. The argument of what group killed how many, when, and how is counterproductive and dangerous.

The Srebrenica 'genocide' has never been established by a court using legal process and rigourous examination of the evidence. The ICTY worked on the assumption of a 'genocide' rather than the fact and this assumption was copied by the ICJ.

This type of assumption of a crime would not be admisable evidence in any court of any country that I know of, so why is it admisable in these International courts?

The answer is simple; they are KANGAROO courts established to punish and threaten any country or leaders of any countries which do not Kowtow.

Victor,

Does the Bosnian Muslim fundamentalist BiH state sancationed massacre of Serbs in the outskirts of Srebrenica from the UN safe haven of Srebrenica prior to the Serb retaliation constitute a genocide? Furthermore, why are the Serbs expected to stick with the rules of warfare if their enemies are not required to do so, i.e, launching blood-thirsty attacks on Serbs from a UN safe haven?

re fatalities in the war: the figure of 132,000 is for confirmed deaths- bodies or remains identified - there are still tens of thousands missing individuals, hence the use of a higher number

re the attacks upon Serb populated areas around Srbrenica- continue the research to see any patterns prior to the events to explain the incursions. Research the events of 1992-1993 in Visegrad, Brcko, Foca, Bijeljina, Zvornik, Zepa, Trebinje. Cross reference with the logistic needs for these operations to occur ( transport, communication, weapons disatribution, coordinating the attacks, heavy weapons support ) examine the techniques consistently employed and you will understand the patterns emerging which lead to the end game of Serb expansion, as demonstrated in Srebrencia and the resistance and mistrust by the defenders of Serb assurances of good will. Remember they were still denying on the media any wrong doings in the aforementioned areas in fact quite the opposite, as they continue to do so in the face of overwhelming forensic evidence and witness statements. Census attempts to determine the number of missing in those areas are one of the contentious issues preventing final figures for the fatalities from the war.

re Hitler and the Jews- Hitler in the 1930's preached anti semitism whilst courting the support of the wealthy Jews and assuring them of certain standards and security of German jewry. On a blacker note, the guards prepared the Jews for death by promising showers. That is to say what Milosevic promised and declared may be more Machiavellian in design than sincere in practice.

re genocide - this is not an individual act in one moment of time but a campaign of related actions over an indefinite time frame. It is also not only the physical removal of a people but also their devalued status to non entities. This can be achieved through mass murder but also through cultural and iconic destruction. Research the placement of the surrounding artillery during the siege of Sarjevo and deduce the rationale of such. Research the mass destruction of cultural and iconic references of Bosniaks.
For comparative purposes cross reference the number of such destructive acts upon the other cultural groups in BiH as well as the incidences of armed incursions and pre emptive strikes upon Serb dominated populated areas. Finally, research the origins of the arms embargo, who moved the original motion in the UN and cross reference with the JNA's spending spree prior to the resolution being passed and the disbursement of the armament and a very revealing pattern emerges. One which history will dissect with greater precision than the propaganda of bluster and denial.

A genocide was committed in Bosnia by the Serbs living in Bosnia. The genocide started in 1992 and finished in 1995 withe the Srebrenica massacre. The court can say what it wants, it won't change the Bosnian thought that Milosevic sent soldiers, paramilitaries, mercenaries, to help with this genocide. It's too bad that occidental nations are so afraid of telling the truth!

If anyone actually bothers to read the Krstic judgements, it is very clear that if the ICTY decided that if the 'facts' couldn't fit the claim (genocide), then the claim should be changed to fit the 'facts'.

The ICTY ruling was a political ruling by a political court.

There will be a price to be paid for this by all of us.

Victor wrote:
"it won't change the Bosnian thought that Milosevic sent soldiers,"

As far as the "Occidental nations" are concerned, why did the America entertain the thought of having Milosevic over for dinner when they struck the Dayton accord??

How can you be congratulated for successfully signing peace, and then speared for commiting genocide??

I don't defend Milosevic. Far from that.
But i DO have a problem with understanding your oversimplified logic..

The web was so intertwined in that conflict, it seems that the best way for you to come to an understanding, is to blame the Serbs Victor...

Sort of like Alexander the Great slicing the Gordian knot, rather than unwinding it so that it may be figured out for future generations...

This topic will now be debated by historians forever. The term genocide is a very strong term and even in light of potential high massacre counts still might not be really applicable in describing the role of Serbia in the Bosnian War of 1992-1995.

If Serbia and Milosevic had genocidal itent against the Bosniak nation then each and every member of that group in the Sandjak region would have been systematically executed. Also members of the Mehmet Sokolovic brigade would not have been allowed to fight under the flag of the Republika Srpska, and no alliance would ever have been made with Fikrat Abdic. Milosevic would have never offered Izetbegovic the chance to be his #2 man if Bosnia stayed in Yugoslavia, and the Bosnian Serbs would not have signed a pre-war deal in 1992 (which gave them less territory than they now control) which was in fact pulled out of by Izetbegovic at the last moment under influence from Warren Zimmerman and the U.S.

There are simply too many "shades of grey" to establish that Seria or Milosevic intended a complete genocide of Bosniaks- even if proof of his full control of the Bosnian Serbs was proved- and in fact it has been strongly disproved. Genocide has no "shades of grey", Hitler offered no compromises for the Jews, he simply slaughtered them, as many as he could, even as a higher priority to actual combat operations when the Nazis began to lose the war.

Furthermore, recent research has put the overall victim count at 100,000 for all warring sides, with an estimated 30,000-40,000 Bosniak civilians among this total. This is simply not high enough numbers for a total genocide.

What is however possible is that a premeditated mass murder occurred in Srebrenica of up to 8,000 men of military age by the Bosnian Serb Army as revenge massacres in response to the killings of an estimated 3,250 Serbs by Nasir Oric. One then can philosophize on the term genocide being re-defined in order for this event to be labelled as such- with women and children released to safety. I beleve a strong argument can be made for both the yes and no sides to this argument.

It must also be taken into consideration that this act was committed by a group which had previously been subjected to genocide during World War 2 and also during Ottoman times (forced conversion, removal of children to Turkey as a blood tax,etc.). The phsycological inprint on the collective consciousness of Bosnian Serbs cannot be ignored in the context of the war.

One must conclude that the only future for Bosnia is power-sharing between its ethnic groups. This equality must exist on an abstract level, disconnected from history, or else new armed conflicts will be sure to erupt. The argument of what group killed how many, when, and how is counterproductive and dangerous.

The Srebrenica 'genocide' has never been established by a court using legal process and rigourous examination of the evidence. The ICTY worked on the assumption of a 'genocide' rather than the fact and this assumption was copied by the ICJ.

This type of assumption of a crime would not be admisable evidence in any court of any country that I know of, so why is it admisable in these International courts?

The answer is simple; they are KANGAROO courts established to punish and threaten any country or leaders of any countries which do not Kowtow.

Victor,

Does the Bosnian Muslim fundamentalist BiH state sancationed massacre of Serbs in the outskirts of Srebrenica from the UN safe haven of Srebrenica prior to the Serb retaliation constitute a genocide? Furthermore, why are the Serbs expected to stick with the rules of warfare if their enemies are not required to do so, i.e, launching blood-thirsty attacks on Serbs from a UN safe haven?

re fatalities in the war: the figure of 132,000 is for confirmed deaths- bodies or remains identified - there are still tens of thousands missing individuals, hence the use of a higher number

re the attacks upon Serb populated areas around Srbrenica- continue the research to see any patterns prior to the events to explain the incursions. Research the events of 1992-1993 in Visegrad, Brcko, Foca, Bijeljina, Zvornik, Zepa, Trebinje. Cross reference with the logistic needs for these operations to occur ( transport, communication, weapons disatribution, coordinating the attacks, heavy weapons support ) examine the techniques consistently employed and you will understand the patterns emerging which lead to the end game of Serb expansion, as demonstrated in Srebrencia and the resistance and mistrust by the defenders of Serb assurances of good will. Remember they were still denying on the media any wrong doings in the aforementioned areas in fact quite the opposite, as they continue to do so in the face of overwhelming forensic evidence and witness statements. Census attempts to determine the number of missing in those areas are one of the contentious issues preventing final figures for the fatalities from the war.

re Hitler and the Jews- Hitler in the 1930's preached anti semitism whilst courting the support of the wealthy Jews and assuring them of certain standards and security of German jewry. On a blacker note, the guards prepared the Jews for death by promising showers. That is to say what Milosevic promised and declared may be more Machiavellian in design than sincere in practice.

re genocide - this is not an individual act in one moment of time but a campaign of related actions over an indefinite time frame. It is also not only the physical removal of a people but also their devalued status to non entities. This can be achieved through mass murder but also through cultural and iconic destruction. Research the placement of the surrounding artillery during the siege of Sarjevo and deduce the rationale of such. Research the mass destruction of cultural and iconic references of Bosniaks.
For comparative purposes cross reference the number of such destructive acts upon the other cultural groups in BiH as well as the incidences of armed incursions and pre emptive strikes upon Serb dominated populated areas. Finally, research the origins of the arms embargo, who moved the original motion in the UN and cross reference with the JNA's spending spree prior to the resolution being passed and the disbursement of the armament and a very revealing pattern emerges. One which history will dissect with greater precision than the propaganda of bluster and denial.