“Yugoslav Army was active in Bosnia”

So what? The BBC still refuses to call what happened to the Armenians in 1915 'genocide'.

BTW, many of the 'Bosniaks' in Srebrenica were soldiers of the ArBiH*, though the media loves to cover this up with the phrase 'men and boys'

The ICTY did not establish an exact figure, only a guesstimate, especially ion light of the Dutch Institute for War Documentations report (NIOD) that many of these soldiers (ArBiH 28th division) retreating through the forests to Tuzla were armed and were engaged in combat.

*as confirmed by Mirsad Tockasa head of the bosnian missing person commission
when asked in an interview in Dani by bosnian journalist Emir Suljagic.

Of course, there's absolutely no difference between women and children and listed, armed combatants in law or during a civil war. They're just one and the same. Why bother with the small details or the opinions of the dissenting judges? The Krstic ruling goes to show how far the politicized judges at the ICTY redefined 'genocide' to fit the result they wanted on very narrow, sloppy and poor legal grounds.

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/yhrdlj/PDF/Vol%208/southwick.pdf

I repeat and I gave the source, that many of those 'men and boys' were officially soldiers within the ArBiH - they were not added 'afterwards' so your 'information' is totally irrelevant or is it now legally accepted to call yourself a soldier if you are a civilian and a civilian if you are a soldier.

You can only have one status, not both.

That most prestigious court, the ICTY, is such a stunning success that the new permanent criminal court at the UN, the International Criminal Court (ICC) bares almost no resemblance - clearly the powers that be would not want to be judged by the same low standards as applied in the policizied and 'interestingly' funded ICTY who's remit expressly excludes actors from outside of the former yugoslavia - you know, those countries who were providing weapons and other forms of support. How convenient again.

As for the ICJ, they may well as have ruled that the United States is guilty for not having prevented genocide in Rwanda in 1994 (Clinton studiously avoided the term) when it had the means and power to do so - both the US and UK, at the level of the United Nations Security Council refused to supply airlift capacity to a number of states who wanted to intervene.

And here you are moaning that B92 doesn't say what you want it to say because it doesn't match you opinion. Get used to it. It's no different that the BBC & the armenians.

Aleks, Mirsad Tokaca's research also established 400+ Serb soldiers killed around Srebrenica - a number 10 times lower than Serb sources alleged. Tokaca's research also established over 8,000 Bosniaks died in Srebrenica.

So what if some Srebrenica genocide victims (Bosniaks) were soldiers? They had to defend their families. In a case of Srebrenica genocide, the IDC's established that many genocide survivors requested that their family members be buried as soldiers, for various reasons although they died as civilians or as soldiers away from front lines.

What happened in Srebrenica had been established - by the World's highest courts - to be Genocide, whether you like it or not.

"..where over 7,000 people are believed to have lost their lives."

Wow, B92, "believed" is not the right word - it's a FACT established by UN courts that at least 8,000 Bosniaks lost lives in Srebrenica. Is B92 engaging in Serbian propaganda? It seems like it.

"..where over 7,000 people are believed to have lost their lives."

Wow, B92, "believed" is not the right word - it's a FACT established by UN courts that at least 8,000 Bosniaks lost lives in Srebrenica. Is B92 engaging in Serbian propaganda? It seems like it.

Aleks, Mirsad Tokaca's research also established 400+ Serb soldiers killed around Srebrenica - a number 10 times lower than Serb sources alleged. Tokaca's research also established over 8,000 Bosniaks died in Srebrenica.

So what if some Srebrenica genocide victims (Bosniaks) were soldiers? They had to defend their families. In a case of Srebrenica genocide, the IDC's established that many genocide survivors requested that their family members be buried as soldiers, for various reasons although they died as civilians or as soldiers away from front lines.

What happened in Srebrenica had been established - by the World's highest courts - to be Genocide, whether you like it or not.

Of course, there's absolutely no difference between women and children and listed, armed combatants in law or during a civil war. They're just one and the same. Why bother with the small details or the opinions of the dissenting judges? The Krstic ruling goes to show how far the politicized judges at the ICTY redefined 'genocide' to fit the result they wanted on very narrow, sloppy and poor legal grounds.

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/yhrdlj/PDF/Vol%208/southwick.pdf

I repeat and I gave the source, that many of those 'men and boys' were officially soldiers within the ArBiH - they were not added 'afterwards' so your 'information' is totally irrelevant or is it now legally accepted to call yourself a soldier if you are a civilian and a civilian if you are a soldier.

You can only have one status, not both.

That most prestigious court, the ICTY, is such a stunning success that the new permanent criminal court at the UN, the International Criminal Court (ICC) bares almost no resemblance - clearly the powers that be would not want to be judged by the same low standards as applied in the policizied and 'interestingly' funded ICTY who's remit expressly excludes actors from outside of the former yugoslavia - you know, those countries who were providing weapons and other forms of support. How convenient again.

As for the ICJ, they may well as have ruled that the United States is guilty for not having prevented genocide in Rwanda in 1994 (Clinton studiously avoided the term) when it had the means and power to do so - both the US and UK, at the level of the United Nations Security Council refused to supply airlift capacity to a number of states who wanted to intervene.

And here you are moaning that B92 doesn't say what you want it to say because it doesn't match you opinion. Get used to it. It's no different that the BBC & the armenians.

So what? The BBC still refuses to call what happened to the Armenians in 1915 'genocide'.

BTW, many of the 'Bosniaks' in Srebrenica were soldiers of the ArBiH*, though the media loves to cover this up with the phrase 'men and boys'

The ICTY did not establish an exact figure, only a guesstimate, especially ion light of the Dutch Institute for War Documentations report (NIOD) that many of these soldiers (ArBiH 28th division) retreating through the forests to Tuzla were armed and were engaged in combat.

*as confirmed by Mirsad Tockasa head of the bosnian missing person commission
when asked in an interview in Dani by bosnian journalist Emir Suljagic.