to all those comments citing the UN Report could you please provide the link or reference. I am not asking for opinions of the media or military but the actual UN Report
L: Serbs like to blame the West for stirring up conflict in the Balkans but there's a lot of literature out there to the contrary. In fact, most of what I've seen asserts that Milosevic was just fine with Yugoslavia breaking up, and the fact that he and Jovic refused to back a larger JNA invasion of Slovenia proposed by Adzic and (eventually) Kadijevic certainly lends plausibility to that theory.
SJ - I'm not here to argue Israeli or US military tactics. I understand that Israel has drawn condemnation for its handling of Gaza, Lebanon, West Bank and Golan, and I view the Iraq war as wholly unlawful. I'm not a fan of the Afghanistan campaign either. However, I wish to remind you that many Americans were against Iraq from the beginning (I am certainly one) and I'm sure there were quite a few who questioned where things might lead in Afghanistan (I know I did).
Anyway, Markale wasn't attacked by Israelis or Americans, so let's leave the military of those countries out of this.
Mia: Read "Fighting for Peace" by General Sir Michael Rose. He was the UNPPROFOR Commander in Bosnia at the time, and in case you weren't aware, was widely criticized by the British Ministry of Defense for appearing pro-Serb during the conflict. He backed the UN report blaming the Serbs, even though he would frequently accuse the Muslims of either provoking mortar fire or firing on their own people during his year-long tenure.
Lazar: The Muslims were no doubt arming themselves well before the conflict began, but so were Serbs. You've heard the intercepts of the conversations between Milosevic, Karadzic and Stanisic from 1991, right?
Milosevic would have liked to mobilize more troops to Bosnia, I'm sure, but knew that he couldn't. He wasn't fooling anyone over JNA involvement in Croatia and sanctions or the threat thereof no doubt compelled him to withdraw the JNA from Bosnia in May 1992.
The Muslim infantry definitely had many more men but they were both poorly trained and poorly armed. General Rose wrote plenty in his book about just how awful their generals were in terms of strategy, and how much that hurt them in their many ill-advised offensives to break out of Sarajevo, take over Bihac, etc.
Nenad, the Muslims started arming themselves well before the war began. You know how they claim that they were without anything? They had divisions upon divisions of their so called "green berets"... so naturally what else can one do? The bosnian serb army did not have the troops for a close combat battle. Milosevic would not mobilize serbia's population to run down bosnia in a matter of days. It was a prolonged stale mate sort of thing, where the bosniaks occasionally hit their own people to try to get the West to bomb Serbs.
Technically, the UN blamed the Serbs, but the real UN investigation and report were buried by the US as it did not go with the flow of propaganda of the day and recreated a fresh report. The original report indicated that the mortar shells fired did not come from the Serbian side as the crater(s) and marks on the concrete pavement did not support that theory.
You see the UN staff that did the original investigation are still around and are happy to tell anyone what they found, but somehow the western purveyors of a free press and free speech aren’t interested in interviewing them – funny isn’t it?
On the Sarajevo issue, ask the Israelis why they have surrounded Gaza; or even better ask the US why their marines surrounded Fallujah in Iraq and ask them what their snipers were doing – oh they weren’t there to shoot at the enemy combatants. Same tactics as used by the Serbs.
You will probably find that West Point cadets have study Serbian tactics during the war in Bosnia as part of their academic training.
@Nenad-I am sad for any victim regardless of who they are. If war was so simple to explain and reason for war was only one side, it would be easy. However, war in Balkan started because of some in western countries needed it, but some in Balkan took advantage for their own interest. It could not have been Serbs because they had most to lose and nothing to gain by war. All they wanted is to preserve Yugo so that all live in peace as they have before war. Others were prepared to pull Yugo apart but conveniently put all blame on Serbs. Serbs were forced to fight the war, they were not cutting peoples throats like some.
The two sides may never agree on who fired on the marketplace. I believe the UN concluded that it was the Serbs, but that conclusion has hardly eased the controversy.
What I don't find controversial is the horror in the decision to bring the fight to Sarajevo in the first place. I'm not a military man, but it just seems wrong to me that the city would be encircled by heavy weaponry aimed at a civilian population from nearby hilltops.
Maybe an expert in "lawful" warfighting strategy could set me straight, but such a configuration of forces strikes me as one big war crime waiting to happen.
The two sides may never agree on who fired on the marketplace. I believe the UN concluded that it was the Serbs, but that conclusion has hardly eased the controversy.
What I don't find controversial is the horror in the decision to bring the fight to Sarajevo in the first place. I'm not a military man, but it just seems wrong to me that the city would be encircled by heavy weaponry aimed at a civilian population from nearby hilltops.
Maybe an expert in "lawful" warfighting strategy could set me straight, but such a configuration of forces strikes me as one big war crime waiting to happen.
@Nenad-I am sad for any victim regardless of who they are. If war was so simple to explain and reason for war was only one side, it would be easy. However, war in Balkan started because of some in western countries needed it, but some in Balkan took advantage for their own interest. It could not have been Serbs because they had most to lose and nothing to gain by war. All they wanted is to preserve Yugo so that all live in peace as they have before war. Others were prepared to pull Yugo apart but conveniently put all blame on Serbs. Serbs were forced to fight the war, they were not cutting peoples throats like some.
Technically, the UN blamed the Serbs, but the real UN investigation and report were buried by the US as it did not go with the flow of propaganda of the day and recreated a fresh report. The original report indicated that the mortar shells fired did not come from the Serbian side as the crater(s) and marks on the concrete pavement did not support that theory.
You see the UN staff that did the original investigation are still around and are happy to tell anyone what they found, but somehow the western purveyors of a free press and free speech aren’t interested in interviewing them – funny isn’t it?
On the Sarajevo issue, ask the Israelis why they have surrounded Gaza; or even better ask the US why their marines surrounded Fallujah in Iraq and ask them what their snipers were doing – oh they weren’t there to shoot at the enemy combatants. Same tactics as used by the Serbs.
You will probably find that West Point cadets have study Serbian tactics during the war in Bosnia as part of their academic training.
Nenad, the Muslims started arming themselves well before the war began. You know how they claim that they were without anything? They had divisions upon divisions of their so called "green berets"... so naturally what else can one do? The bosnian serb army did not have the troops for a close combat battle. Milosevic would not mobilize serbia's population to run down bosnia in a matter of days. It was a prolonged stale mate sort of thing, where the bosniaks occasionally hit their own people to try to get the West to bomb Serbs.
L: Serbs like to blame the West for stirring up conflict in the Balkans but there's a lot of literature out there to the contrary. In fact, most of what I've seen asserts that Milosevic was just fine with Yugoslavia breaking up, and the fact that he and Jovic refused to back a larger JNA invasion of Slovenia proposed by Adzic and (eventually) Kadijevic certainly lends plausibility to that theory.
SJ - I'm not here to argue Israeli or US military tactics. I understand that Israel has drawn condemnation for its handling of Gaza, Lebanon, West Bank and Golan, and I view the Iraq war as wholly unlawful. I'm not a fan of the Afghanistan campaign either. However, I wish to remind you that many Americans were against Iraq from the beginning (I am certainly one) and I'm sure there were quite a few who questioned where things might lead in Afghanistan (I know I did).
Anyway, Markale wasn't attacked by Israelis or Americans, so let's leave the military of those countries out of this.
Mia: Read "Fighting for Peace" by General Sir Michael Rose. He was the UNPPROFOR Commander in Bosnia at the time, and in case you weren't aware, was widely criticized by the British Ministry of Defense for appearing pro-Serb during the conflict. He backed the UN report blaming the Serbs, even though he would frequently accuse the Muslims of either provoking mortar fire or firing on their own people during his year-long tenure.
Lazar: The Muslims were no doubt arming themselves well before the conflict began, but so were Serbs. You've heard the intercepts of the conversations between Milosevic, Karadzic and Stanisic from 1991, right?
Milosevic would have liked to mobilize more troops to Bosnia, I'm sure, but knew that he couldn't. He wasn't fooling anyone over JNA involvement in Croatia and sanctions or the threat thereof no doubt compelled him to withdraw the JNA from Bosnia in May 1992.
The Muslim infantry definitely had many more men but they were both poorly trained and poorly armed. General Rose wrote plenty in his book about just how awful their generals were in terms of strategy, and how much that hurt them in their many ill-advised offensives to break out of Sarajevo, take over Bihac, etc.
to all those comments citing the UN Report could you please provide the link or reference. I am not asking for opinions of the media or military but the actual UN Report
Technically, the UN blamed the Serbs, but the real UN investigation and report were buried by the US as it did not go with the flow of propaganda of the day and recreated a fresh report. The original report indicated that the mortar shells fired did not come from the Serbian side as the crater(s) and marks on the concrete pavement did not support that theory.
You see the UN staff that did the original investigation are still around and are happy to tell anyone what they found, but somehow the western purveyors of a free press and free speech aren’t interested in interviewing them – funny isn’t it?
On the Sarajevo issue, ask the Israelis why they have surrounded Gaza; or even better ask the US why their marines surrounded Fallujah in Iraq and ask them what their snipers were doing – oh they weren’t there to shoot at the enemy combatants. Same tactics as used by the Serbs.
You will probably find that West Point cadets have study Serbian tactics during the war in Bosnia as part of their academic training.
The two sides may never agree on who fired on the marketplace. I believe the UN concluded that it was the Serbs, but that conclusion has hardly eased the controversy.
What I don't find controversial is the horror in the decision to bring the fight to Sarajevo in the first place. I'm not a military man, but it just seems wrong to me that the city would be encircled by heavy weaponry aimed at a civilian population from nearby hilltops.
Maybe an expert in "lawful" warfighting strategy could set me straight, but such a configuration of forces strikes me as one big war crime waiting to happen.
@Nenad-I am sad for any victim regardless of who they are. If war was so simple to explain and reason for war was only one side, it would be easy. However, war in Balkan started because of some in western countries needed it, but some in Balkan took advantage for their own interest. It could not have been Serbs because they had most to lose and nothing to gain by war. All they wanted is to preserve Yugo so that all live in peace as they have before war. Others were prepared to pull Yugo apart but conveniently put all blame on Serbs. Serbs were forced to fight the war, they were not cutting peoples throats like some.
Nenad, the Muslims started arming themselves well before the war began. You know how they claim that they were without anything? They had divisions upon divisions of their so called "green berets"... so naturally what else can one do? The bosnian serb army did not have the troops for a close combat battle. Milosevic would not mobilize serbia's population to run down bosnia in a matter of days. It was a prolonged stale mate sort of thing, where the bosniaks occasionally hit their own people to try to get the West to bomb Serbs.
L: Serbs like to blame the West for stirring up conflict in the Balkans but there's a lot of literature out there to the contrary. In fact, most of what I've seen asserts that Milosevic was just fine with Yugoslavia breaking up, and the fact that he and Jovic refused to back a larger JNA invasion of Slovenia proposed by Adzic and (eventually) Kadijevic certainly lends plausibility to that theory.
SJ - I'm not here to argue Israeli or US military tactics. I understand that Israel has drawn condemnation for its handling of Gaza, Lebanon, West Bank and Golan, and I view the Iraq war as wholly unlawful. I'm not a fan of the Afghanistan campaign either. However, I wish to remind you that many Americans were against Iraq from the beginning (I am certainly one) and I'm sure there were quite a few who questioned where things might lead in Afghanistan (I know I did).
Anyway, Markale wasn't attacked by Israelis or Americans, so let's leave the military of those countries out of this.
Mia: Read "Fighting for Peace" by General Sir Michael Rose. He was the UNPPROFOR Commander in Bosnia at the time, and in case you weren't aware, was widely criticized by the British Ministry of Defense for appearing pro-Serb during the conflict. He backed the UN report blaming the Serbs, even though he would frequently accuse the Muslims of either provoking mortar fire or firing on their own people during his year-long tenure.
Lazar: The Muslims were no doubt arming themselves well before the conflict began, but so were Serbs. You've heard the intercepts of the conversations between Milosevic, Karadzic and Stanisic from 1991, right?
Milosevic would have liked to mobilize more troops to Bosnia, I'm sure, but knew that he couldn't. He wasn't fooling anyone over JNA involvement in Croatia and sanctions or the threat thereof no doubt compelled him to withdraw the JNA from Bosnia in May 1992.
The Muslim infantry definitely had many more men but they were both poorly trained and poorly armed. General Rose wrote plenty in his book about just how awful their generals were in terms of strategy, and how much that hurt them in their many ill-advised offensives to break out of Sarajevo, take over Bihac, etc.
to all those comments citing the UN Report could you please provide the link or reference. I am not asking for opinions of the media or military but the actual UN Report
IMAGE SOURCE
9 Komentari
Sortiraj po: