Srebrenica genocide marked

first - it was not genocide; it was massacre. keep that in mind, there is huge difference.

second - there are no strong evidences of "8000 killed men". Just two years ago, it was "7000". Two years ahead it'll be 10 k.

What a professional article, pure unbiased information. Bravo!

Unfortunately, no comments by ‘locals’...are so telling..
This tragic event has defined all ‘sides’ forever …
It is to here to stay with us, forever.
A piece of Balkans’ history and the deeds of its peoples….to warn!

M.D.-New York

first - it was not genocide; it was massacre. keep that in mind, there is huge difference.

second - there are no strong evidences of "8000 killed men". Just two years ago, it was "7000". Two years ahead it'll be 10 k.
(tony, 9 July 2009 15:34
--tony
Is this a sensible thing to do?
Think of a HUMAN LIFE

rocky,

i do. my condolences for the families of the killed.

first - it was not genocide; it was massacre. keep that in mind, there is huge difference.

second - there are no strong evidences of "8000 killed men". Just two years ago, it was "7000". Two years ahead it'll be 10 k.

What a professional article, pure unbiased information. Bravo!

Unfortunately, no comments by ‘locals’...are so telling..
This tragic event has defined all ‘sides’ forever …
It is to here to stay with us, forever.
A piece of Balkans’ history and the deeds of its peoples….to warn!

M.D.-New York

first - it was not genocide; it was massacre. keep that in mind, there is huge difference.

second - there are no strong evidences of "8000 killed men". Just two years ago, it was "7000". Two years ahead it'll be 10 k.
(tony, 9 July 2009 15:34
--tony
Is this a sensible thing to do?
Think of a HUMAN LIFE

rocky,

i do. my condolences for the families of the killed.