Congratulations Serbia, use what ever you can to show the leading powers in the world what kind of people were promoted in their created SDA dominated society.
Bob, there is irony in your suggestion that Wikipedia is the link to these scholars you talk of. The irony continues as the article actually is a commentary of the current debate amongst jurists about the 'limitations of expediency' when it comes to setting a definition of genocide. or to put it in plain speak,the agreement on a definitive and legal term is handicapped by political interference. the opening sections of the Wikipedia entry are a reasonable summary of the history of the term and the application of it to the Bosnian horror, it actually supports the application of the term to the events of Srebrenica. Most scholars who followed the events of 1989-1995 see a definite pattern that resulted in the mass murder of a group of people and their historical and cultural legacies that may not meet the current limited definition of genocide but certainly meets the lay person's condemnation of an act against humanity.
I'll bet he was purposely proposed to provoke Serbia. The radical Bosniaks (who do run the Croat-Muslim "Federation") don't want peace - they want to cause trouble for Serbs continually.
# Serbia has been found complicit by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for failing to prevent or punish acts of ruled as genocide by the ICJ and ICTY. The Serbian parliament consistently fails to pass motions condemning the genocide at Srebrenica. Such acts highlight where responsibility for crimes lie, and why Belgrade doth protest too much.
(Ronald, 19 August 2009 18:29)
so fine, there remains no ambassador fr sarajevo to belgrade, c'est la vie. it's not as if i approve of the belgrade regime, or their utterly unacceptable response to the crimes and genocide of the 90s.
"Avdić's war-time history and the fact he was a high-ranking official in Tuzla at the time of the Tuzla Column".
Isn't it cute how 'Vecernje Novine' describes a war criminal, when he isn't a Serb?
Ronald,
Its truely is a single perspective that you have if when the acts of Srebernica have a discrepency amoung international scholars: "The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995,[39] or to ethnic cleansing that took place during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War (an interpretation rejected by a majority of scholars).[40]"
(found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Former_Yugoslavia)
See, I'd prefer listening to scholars, the educated in the subject at hand instead of CNN, or government officials, whom are not likely properly educated in this subject. Infact, when it comes from governemental voices and not from the scholar's voices it stinks of a political initiative more and more.
So, when enough smart people tell me that the world moves around the sun, and my government tells me that the sun revolves around the earth, I'll listen to the brains and not the mouths.
Maybe you should too. There are a great many publications and articles that have been written by the brains group (talking about all sides of the tragic stories within the Balkan), but these enlightening pieces of work are dramatically outnumbered by the work of the mouths. Seek and ye shall find. Close you eyes and you'll remain blind.
Ronald I don't think so. It is matter of practice in diplomacy that appointees should not offend the host country.
The same should be true of Serbian appointments in other countries. And you can be sure that if Belgrade tried to appoint somebody controversial in say Bosnia or Croatia that Sarajevo and Zagreb would make (un)official objections.
I don't see that this is something to get hot under the collar about and is easily remedied - provided petulance does not set in.
Serbia has been found complicit by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for failing to prevent or punish acts of ruled as genocide by the ICJ and ICTY. The Serbian parliament consistently fails to pass motions condemning the genocide at Srebrenica. Such acts highlight where responsibility for crimes lie, and why Belgrade doth protest too much.
"Before him, controversial Boriša Arnaut also failed to pass, because of an affair concerning awarding of Bosnian citizenships to the Mujaheddin," writes the newspaper."
And this is the "Bosniaks'" best diplomats???
Surely someone who has not collaborated with the jihadists is available??? Or are all the secular Bosniaks being sidelined by "Sarajevostan??"
"Before him, controversial Boriša Arnaut also failed to pass, because of an affair concerning awarding of Bosnian citizenships to the Mujaheddin," writes the newspaper."
And this is the "Bosniaks'" best diplomats???
Surely someone who has not collaborated with the jihadists is available??? Or are all the secular Bosniaks being sidelined by "Sarajevostan??"
Ronald,
Its truely is a single perspective that you have if when the acts of Srebernica have a discrepency amoung international scholars: "The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995,[39] or to ethnic cleansing that took place during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War (an interpretation rejected by a majority of scholars).[40]"
(found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Former_Yugoslavia)
See, I'd prefer listening to scholars, the educated in the subject at hand instead of CNN, or government officials, whom are not likely properly educated in this subject. Infact, when it comes from governemental voices and not from the scholar's voices it stinks of a political initiative more and more.
So, when enough smart people tell me that the world moves around the sun, and my government tells me that the sun revolves around the earth, I'll listen to the brains and not the mouths.
Maybe you should too. There are a great many publications and articles that have been written by the brains group (talking about all sides of the tragic stories within the Balkan), but these enlightening pieces of work are dramatically outnumbered by the work of the mouths. Seek and ye shall find. Close you eyes and you'll remain blind.
Ronald I don't think so. It is matter of practice in diplomacy that appointees should not offend the host country.
The same should be true of Serbian appointments in other countries. And you can be sure that if Belgrade tried to appoint somebody controversial in say Bosnia or Croatia that Sarajevo and Zagreb would make (un)official objections.
I don't see that this is something to get hot under the collar about and is easily remedied - provided petulance does not set in.
I'll bet he was purposely proposed to provoke Serbia. The radical Bosniaks (who do run the Croat-Muslim "Federation") don't want peace - they want to cause trouble for Serbs continually.
Serbia has been found complicit by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for failing to prevent or punish acts of ruled as genocide by the ICJ and ICTY. The Serbian parliament consistently fails to pass motions condemning the genocide at Srebrenica. Such acts highlight where responsibility for crimes lie, and why Belgrade doth protest too much.
"Avdić's war-time history and the fact he was a high-ranking official in Tuzla at the time of the Tuzla Column".
Isn't it cute how 'Vecernje Novine' describes a war criminal, when he isn't a Serb?
Congratulations Serbia, use what ever you can to show the leading powers in the world what kind of people were promoted in their created SDA dominated society.
# Serbia has been found complicit by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for failing to prevent or punish acts of ruled as genocide by the ICJ and ICTY. The Serbian parliament consistently fails to pass motions condemning the genocide at Srebrenica. Such acts highlight where responsibility for crimes lie, and why Belgrade doth protest too much.
(Ronald, 19 August 2009 18:29)
so fine, there remains no ambassador fr sarajevo to belgrade, c'est la vie. it's not as if i approve of the belgrade regime, or their utterly unacceptable response to the crimes and genocide of the 90s.
Bob, there is irony in your suggestion that Wikipedia is the link to these scholars you talk of. The irony continues as the article actually is a commentary of the current debate amongst jurists about the 'limitations of expediency' when it comes to setting a definition of genocide. or to put it in plain speak,the agreement on a definitive and legal term is handicapped by political interference. the opening sections of the Wikipedia entry are a reasonable summary of the history of the term and the application of it to the Bosnian horror, it actually supports the application of the term to the events of Srebrenica. Most scholars who followed the events of 1989-1995 see a definite pattern that resulted in the mass murder of a group of people and their historical and cultural legacies that may not meet the current limited definition of genocide but certainly meets the lay person's condemnation of an act against humanity.
Serbia has been found complicit by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for failing to prevent or punish acts of ruled as genocide by the ICJ and ICTY. The Serbian parliament consistently fails to pass motions condemning the genocide at Srebrenica. Such acts highlight where responsibility for crimes lie, and why Belgrade doth protest too much.
"Avdić's war-time history and the fact he was a high-ranking official in Tuzla at the time of the Tuzla Column".
Isn't it cute how 'Vecernje Novine' describes a war criminal, when he isn't a Serb?
"Before him, controversial Boriša Arnaut also failed to pass, because of an affair concerning awarding of Bosnian citizenships to the Mujaheddin," writes the newspaper."
And this is the "Bosniaks'" best diplomats???
Surely someone who has not collaborated with the jihadists is available??? Or are all the secular Bosniaks being sidelined by "Sarajevostan??"
# Serbia has been found complicit by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for failing to prevent or punish acts of ruled as genocide by the ICJ and ICTY. The Serbian parliament consistently fails to pass motions condemning the genocide at Srebrenica. Such acts highlight where responsibility for crimes lie, and why Belgrade doth protest too much.
(Ronald, 19 August 2009 18:29)
so fine, there remains no ambassador fr sarajevo to belgrade, c'est la vie. it's not as if i approve of the belgrade regime, or their utterly unacceptable response to the crimes and genocide of the 90s.
Bob, there is irony in your suggestion that Wikipedia is the link to these scholars you talk of. The irony continues as the article actually is a commentary of the current debate amongst jurists about the 'limitations of expediency' when it comes to setting a definition of genocide. or to put it in plain speak,the agreement on a definitive and legal term is handicapped by political interference. the opening sections of the Wikipedia entry are a reasonable summary of the history of the term and the application of it to the Bosnian horror, it actually supports the application of the term to the events of Srebrenica. Most scholars who followed the events of 1989-1995 see a definite pattern that resulted in the mass murder of a group of people and their historical and cultural legacies that may not meet the current limited definition of genocide but certainly meets the lay person's condemnation of an act against humanity.
Ronald I don't think so. It is matter of practice in diplomacy that appointees should not offend the host country.
The same should be true of Serbian appointments in other countries. And you can be sure that if Belgrade tried to appoint somebody controversial in say Bosnia or Croatia that Sarajevo and Zagreb would make (un)official objections.
I don't see that this is something to get hot under the collar about and is easily remedied - provided petulance does not set in.
Ronald,
Its truely is a single perspective that you have if when the acts of Srebernica have a discrepency amoung international scholars: "The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995,[39] or to ethnic cleansing that took place during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War (an interpretation rejected by a majority of scholars).[40]"
(found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Former_Yugoslavia)
See, I'd prefer listening to scholars, the educated in the subject at hand instead of CNN, or government officials, whom are not likely properly educated in this subject. Infact, when it comes from governemental voices and not from the scholar's voices it stinks of a political initiative more and more.
So, when enough smart people tell me that the world moves around the sun, and my government tells me that the sun revolves around the earth, I'll listen to the brains and not the mouths.
Maybe you should too. There are a great many publications and articles that have been written by the brains group (talking about all sides of the tragic stories within the Balkan), but these enlightening pieces of work are dramatically outnumbered by the work of the mouths. Seek and ye shall find. Close you eyes and you'll remain blind.
I'll bet he was purposely proposed to provoke Serbia. The radical Bosniaks (who do run the Croat-Muslim "Federation") don't want peace - they want to cause trouble for Serbs continually.
Congratulations Serbia, use what ever you can to show the leading powers in the world what kind of people were promoted in their created SDA dominated society.
IMAGE SOURCE
10 Komentari
Sortiraj po: