Mladić calls on public to refrain from unrest

Mladic will not face "justice" at the Hague. Let's have a moratorium on the use of such idiotic terms when describing a biased and farcical institution.The Hague's refusal to indict Clinton and Albright for undeniable war crimes in 1999 ended this debate a long time ago.

I think that Mladic has understood that he has to face justice, and unrest among the population and riots in the streets won't change his verdict.

Bravo Leo, my sentiments exactly.
As for our friend Boris J. here, I think he needs to educate himself about the truth and stop believing all the anti-Serb hate propoganda that we see in western media. It is all based on blatant lies, half-truths, and exaggerations.
Relax Boris, the Serbs are the good guys, as they always have been in history, and always will be in the future. All our neighbours are quite the opposite, and that's a fact.
Cheers!

Leo

I am all for the Hague and I am all for your hero being there.

A fairer trial than any he gave to his victims.

So - good that the Hague upsets you. That is why it is there.

...Meanwhile hundreds of Serbians take to the streets to protest his arrest....

And then I woke up, frankly nobody really cares.

He should have asked himself long time ago to refrain from killing/massacring people including young ones. I think too it's not worth it to go on the street for a mass murderer.

The Hague's refusal to indict Clinton and Albright for undeniable war crimes in 1999 ended this debate a long time ago.
(Leo, 28 May 2011 17:44)

Clinton and Albright committed war crimes ? I think you need to explain a few things before going to the conclusion:

1. Which article(s) of the international humanitarian law were violated; and

2. Which is/are the act(s) that were prohibited by those articles; and

3. Were those acts committed as a matter of fact; and

4. Was it Clinton and/or Albright who committed the act(s).

After you answer the 4 points above and also bringing the related evidence, we can go to the conclusion of whether or not Clinton and Albright committed war crimes.

I am all for the Hague and I am all for your hero being there.

A fairer trial than any he gave to his victims.

So - good that the Hague upsets you. That is why it is there.
(Bob, 28 May 2011 22:49)

Wrong again Bob. The Hague is not there for this reason, but to whitewash/justify the war crimes of NATO, turn the good guys into bad guys and vice versa, and to set an example to small countries all over the world who dare to challenge the imperial powers. If the Hague were really there for justice, than why would they let free a war criminal like Nasir Oric, who bragged about his war crimes against Serb civilians in Srebrenica?
http://de-construct.net/?p=1374
http://www.srebrenica-report.com/Oric2.htm
Why would they not prosecute Albright, Wesley Clark and Clinton, who ordered the bombing of the RTS building, a blatant war crime, and murdured janitors and make-up women?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13348
What about dropping cluster bombs in civilian markets in Nis?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/may/08/balkans
The Hague is nothing but a political show trial which Stalin would be proud of. I realize the brainwashed masses don't realize this, but we Serbs do.

That's a lie! Shame on the media!

I think that Mladic has understood that he has to face justice, and unrest among the population and riots in the streets won't change his verdict.
(Boris J, 28 May 2011 16:34)
--------------------------

So you and the west have already pronounced him guilty and you claim he will get a fair trial in Hauge.
Get a grip Boris, if he has already been tried by the likes of you and found guilty then why send him to Hague? Just have Hague pronounce hi sentence now and be done with it. Or, is Hague trying to put out the illusion of fairness?

Dragan, I'm a cool guy but intelligent enough to understand that most of the Serbs are good people, just as Australians, but there are also some who are not. In all nations, there are good and bad people. Travel a bit and you'll understand what I mean.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/28/ratko-mladic-serbs-share-guilt

Interesting leading article in the Guardian. Wonder why this hasn't been reported at B92 yet...

The Hague's refusal to indict Clinton and Albright for undeniable war crimes in 1999 ended this debate a long time ago.
(Leo, 28 May 2011 17:44)

Clinton and Albright committed war crimes ? I think you need to explain a few things before going to the conclusion:

1. Which article(s) of the international humanitarian law were violated; and

2. Which is/are the act(s) that were prohibited by those articles; and

3. Were those acts committed as a matter of fact; and

4. Was it Clinton and/or Albright who committed the act(s).

After you answer the 4 points above and also bringing the related evidence, we can go to the conclusion of whether or not Clinton and Albright committed war crimes.
(icj1, 28 May 2011 20:26)

Well I could go into detail but I wont. Clinton and Albright both launched agressive war against a sovereign UN recognised state, there were no border disputes. This constitutes a crime against peace, and is therefore a war crime, and a grave breach of the geneva conventions.

They also held command responsibility for the killings of thousands of civilians and the use of depleted uranium and cluster munitions.

"Relax Boris, the Serbs are the good guys, as they always have been in history, and always will be in the future. All our neighbours are quite the opposite, and that's a fact.
Cheers!
Dragan"

- The good guys kill civilians including the elderly, women and children then dump them in mass graves. Then, they haul their remains deep inside of their country in hopes of hiding their crimes from the world.

The good guys systematically gang rape women they keep as prisoners.
These are just a few of the horrific crimes some Serbs committed.

I wonder what you think of guys like S. Hussein, brother Ghadafi, Stalin, Charles Tayler, et al.

Cheers!

Bob

Quite frankly I dont think you have got a damn clue about what went on the wars, apart from the lies the western media feeds you, and which you so naively believe.

- The good guys kill civilians including the elderly, women and children then dump them in mass graves. Then, they haul their remains deep inside of their country in hopes of hiding their crimes from the world.

The good guys systematically gang rape women they keep as prisoners.
These are just a few of the horrific crimes some Serbs committed.

I wonder what you think of guys like S. Hussein, brother Ghadafi, Stalin, Charles Tayler, et al.

Cheers!
(metrod, 29 May 2011 06:21)

None of the crimes committed by any of the above top systematically killing prisoners for their organs.

Interesting leading article in the Guardian. Wonder why this hasn't been reported at B92 yet...
(bganon, 29 May 2011 01:00)

Thanks, bganon, for this link. But he's wrong, there's no 'collective guilt'. Well, sure, there is, everyone who voted for Milosevic and his nationalistic politics must face the truth that he helped to break up YU. But that's not what his trial will be about. It's about personal guilt, which includes not only killing people in person by a gun (he inists not to be a killer), but ordering the killing, too. Bad luck for him that there's enough footage whowing him supervising the deportation of all the male persons in Srebrenica.


The Hague is nothing but a political show trial which Stalin would be proud of. I realize the brainwashed masses don't realize this, but we Serbs do.
(Dragan, 29 May 2011 01:25)
I wonder who is brainwashed. Probably by watching too much RTS progaganda TV in the 90s? Well, there was a nice article published here on B92 some days ago where RTS officials apologized for spreading hate, propaganada and lies on TV during that time.

Bob....I believe you are all for selective prosecution. Again....when I see NATO's leaders at any international tribunal for their past and ongoing war crimes I'll take the idea of "international" justice seriously. Until then' the subject is risible.

Dragan, I'm a cool guy but intelligent enough to understand that most of the Serbs are good people, just as Australians, but there are also some who are not. In all nations, there are good and bad people. Travel a bit and you'll understand what I mean.
(Boris J, 28 May 2011 23:49)

Boris,

A little hint for you - cool guys don't say 'I'm a cool guy', that's very uncool. Also, I've traveled the world and have seen lots. I recommend you do the same. In fact, please visit your beloved Croatia and Albania and tell them you're a Serb (if in fact you are one, which is very doubtful), and see how well you are treated.
Cheers!

You do the same thing you accuse others of. If the report or article supports what you want to hear it is based on facts.
(a New Day, 29 May 2011 14:26)
========================

Seems like nothing will satisfy the Albanians. They ask for sources and when they are provided they dismiss them as pro Serbian rubbish.
Obviously there is nothing that will satisfy them unless it is geared to make them look good.

We should all just ignore their requests for anything since it gets belittled anyway.

http://countercurrents.org/lendman280511C.htm

Interesting article by Stephen Lendman. Wonder why this hasn't been reported at B92 yet...

Who else wants to know the other side of the story, Srebrenica and more?

Here is the Diana Johnstone article referred to by Stephen Lendman -> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1107

It provides a very detailed analysis of Srebrenica for anyone wanting more facts than CNN and BBC report.

Here is the Diana Johnstone article referred to by Stephen Lendman -> [link]

It provides a very detailed analysis of Srebrenica for anyone wanting more facts than CNN and BBC report.
(Zoran, 29 May 2011 12:35)
And why should someone choose to believe her report to be facts vs CNN and BBC, I would say it is more of a proSerbian version and distortion in the opposite direction of the west. It has its audience among the Srebenica deniers and we know who most of those are.

You do the same thing you accuse others of. If the report or article supports what you want to hear it is based on facts.

You do the same thing you accuse others of. If the report or article supports what you want to hear it is based on facts.
(a New Day, 29 May 2011 14:26)
--
Now I make a claim and I provide a source to back it up. The articles I have provided, make a claim and provide a source. This is either an official source (UN, NATO, ICTY) or someone's research. You can check for yourself.

You know, if someone is lying to me I would prefer to know the truth instead of remaining in denial. No-one should be scared of the truth except for those with something to hide.

These articles don't deny a massacre took place in Srebrenica, they just explain the background and question the numbers. When put this into context you can see that no side is innocent. Everyone committed horrendous crimes and getting to the truth is in everyone's interest (well, maybe not NATOs).

As Ghandi said, an eye for and eye and the whole world goes blind. We can remain divided and argue our side forever (NATO wins) or we can learn the truth and reconcile (the people win).

«They ask for sources ...» Peggy, dont mix please opinions with facts. Lot of people, including yourself, have their own opinion about what happened in Srebrenica after the fall of the city, and they make various hypothesis about the facts, the number of victims, etc. Only Mladic knows the facts and we have to wait.

Reading or listening to revengeful,bloodthirsty, indiscriminate hatred fed remarks/comments, makes it easier to understand mechanisms behind any of horrible crimes happening on the battle grounds. From words to a satisfaction of actual trigger pulling or knife using it's a short distance for some "humans". Especially for those who envelope themselves in a banner of the word "justice".

Dear reader, who are "we" in this case?

Clearly, the «we» is the United nations. They always wait too long before acting. Ruanda is the perfect example. Srebrenica is another one.

@ zoran

They found the bones.
They've attached names to the bones using DNA analysis.
The number of dead is 8100


This is "debate" is over for all except those who have an agenda to deny the truth.

This is "debate" is over for all except those who have an agenda to deny the truth.
(Danilo, 29 May 2011 15:04)
--
I at least provided a link with sources whereas you provided nothing. Are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Here is another excellent analysis into Srebrenica. This one references many sources. Check -> http://www.srebrenica-report.com/politics.htm

I would prefer to call that a 'personal opinion', and not an 'excellent analysis' (just like your other link, written by a person with a similar point of view).

Funny, sometimes this here reminds me of the joke about the man who is driving on the wrong lane on a highway and is wondering why there are so many cars coming from the opposite direction ;-)
(Top, 29 May 2011 19:20)
--
I see, so an analysis with 76 references (UN, NATO included) conducted by a research group is just a "personal opinion"?

Funny, sometimes this reminds me of the herd mentality. Just follow the sheep and all will be fine. Careful of the barking dog to make sure you don't get out of line. It's vicious ;-)

None of the crimes committed by any of the above top systematically killing prisoners for their organs.
(New Zealander, 29 May 2011 11:34)
# Comment link

While the crimes would be similar in comparison. You place more weight on the organ claims because it is against Serbs which is a huge multiplier in your opinion.
The difference is that to date there has not been any actual proof to the organ harvesting claims, the crimes have to be actually proven to be fact and not fiction before an accurate comparison can be made.

Here is another excellent analysis into Srebrenica. This one references many sources. Check -> [link]
(Zoran, 29 May 2011 17:18)

I would prefer to call that a 'personal opinion', and not an 'excellent analysis' (just like your other link, written by a person with a similar point of view).

Funny, sometimes this here reminds me of the joke about the man who is driving on the wrong lane on a highway and is wondering why there are so many cars coming from the opposite direction ;-)

Here is another excellent analysis into Srebrenica. This one references many sources. Check -> [link]
(Zoran, 29 May 2011 17:18)

I would prefer to call that a 'personal opinion', and not an 'excellent analysis' (just like your other link, written by a person with a similar point of view).

Funny, sometimes this here reminds me of the joke about the man who is driving on the wrong lane on a highway and is wondering why there are so many cars coming from the opposite direction ;-)

(icj1, 28 May 2011 20:26)

Putting aside for a moment the Serbia incident, Clinton has in his years in office:

-Bombed a medical factory in Sudan. Noone really knows why, since it has been established that Clinton and the administration knew no WMDs were made there and the Sudanese factory was legit.

- In 1993, bombed Baghdad in retaliation for an alleged but unproven Iraq plot to assassinate former President George Bush. Eight Iraqi civilians were killed in the raid and 12 more were wounded. This kind of unilateral action in response to an unproven charge is a violation of international law.

- Signed and enforced a law forbidding the import of food to Cuba from America and curtailed access to water treatment chemicals and medicines to Cubans. Let us pontificate the result of that policy....

- Clinton's infamous sanctions in Iraq and routine bombings that resulted in numbers upon numbers of Iraqi death. In 1999 it was reported by UNICEF that thanks to Clinton's policy in Iraq, 4000-5000 children were dying per month from malnutrition and disease. His vicious sanction system caused the death of over 1 million Iraqis.

-Clinton ''appologized'' for his hard work to prevent any international intervention in the Rawanda genocide and claimed his intervention and bombing of Serbia and Kosovo was supposed to make up for that - humanitarian intervention.

Need I really continue?

While hostage taking is viewed as a form of terrorism, treating the entire populations of Iraq and Serbia as hostages, and imposing mass suffering and death on them, is acceptable in the West, I see.

Mladic, Milosevic and Karadzic would have to cause mass death, destruction and suffering to the entire Balkan population in less than 8 years to begin competing with Mr Clinton.

The ICTY is a circus and a distraction. There is NO JUSTICE regardless of who gets convicted or sentenced. It is good that Mladic is going to the ICTY because he deserves it, but does it really matter? Does it change the facts on the ground? Does it compensate the victims? No it does not.

Serbs achieved most of their strategic goals; they created a Serb republic where one never before existed; and with a strategic position to be able to link-up to Serbia in a generation, or sooner if Serbia and eventually BiH join the EU. So, Mladic and other Serbs murders go to prison. Big deal. They, in the greater scheme, become martyrs/heroes having achieved Serbian historic goals. Here’s the equation “a few people go to jail = Greater Serbia cause achieved”.

So, until facts on the ground are changed / reversed there will be NO JUSTICE. The ICTY is the West’s poor attempt at resolving their own moral conflict and collective conscious. Makes them look like they actually did something good. But what did they do...they allowed a blatant land grab and mass murder

"Funny, sometimes this reminds me of the herd mentality. Just follow the sheep and all will be fine. Careful of the barking dog to make sure you don't get out of line. It's vicious ;-)"
(Zoran, 29 May 2011 23:40)

Maybe I should post a link with some 'facts' about the moon landing? Hmm, not needed, you probably know all of these. Though I was a bit surprised not to find them on the GlobalResearch website ;-)

Well I could go into detail but I wont. Clinton and Albright both launched agressive war against a sovereign UN recognised state, there were no border disputes. This constitutes a crime against peace, and is therefore a war crime, and a grave breach of the geneva conventions.
(New Zealander, 28 May 2011 23:42)

Well, you can't go into deatail because the detail does not exist. "Crime against peace" is not a war crime and is not a grave (or light) breach of the geneva conventions. Otherwise, tell me the article of the Geneva conventions that mentions the "crime against peace"...

-Bombed a medical factory in Sudan. Noone really knows why, since it has been established that Clinton and the administration knew no WMDs were made there and the Sudanese factory was legit.
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

OK (assuming, for now, the facts are as you say), (i) please cite the article of the law that makes the act above a crime, (ii) what is the evidence that Clinton did it, (iii) who established that Clinton knew no WMDs were made



- In 1993, bombed Baghdad in retaliation for an alleged but unproven Iraq plot to assassinate former President George Bush. Eight Iraqi civilians were killed in the raid and 12 more were wounded. This kind of unilateral action in response to an unproven charge is a violation of international law.
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

OK (assuming, for now, the fact are as you say), it is a violation of international law, but not a crime. Not any violation of international law is a crime.



- Signed and enforced a law forbidding the import of food to Cuba from America and curtailed access to water treatment chemicals and medicines to Cubans. Let us pontificate the result of that policy....
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

OK (assuming, for now, the fact are as you say), please cite the article of the law that makes the act above a crime



- Clinton's infamous sanctions in Iraq and routine bombings that resulted in numbers upon numbers of Iraqi death. In 1999 it was reported by UNICEF that thanks to Clinton's policy in Iraq, 4000-5000 children were dying per month from malnutrition and disease. His vicious sanction system caused the death of over 1 million Iraqis.
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

OK (assuming, for now, the fact are as you say), please cite the article of the law that makes sanctions or bombings a crime



-Clinton ''appologized'' for his hard work to prevent any international intervention in the Rawanda genocide and claimed his intervention and bombing of Serbia and Kosovo was supposed to make up for that - humanitarian intervention.
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

OK (assuming, for now, the fact are as you say), please cite the article of the law that makes “apologizing” a crime



Need I really continue?
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

Yes, please, because so far you did not show any crime as defined in international criminal law



While hostage taking is viewed as a form of terrorism, treating the entire populations of Iraq and Serbia as hostages, and imposing mass suffering and death on them, is acceptable in the West, I see.
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

Nobody said that the facts above (assuming they are as you say) is acceptable in the West or anywhere. But we were discussing about crimes, and crimes are defined in articles of law which you have to reference to.



Mladic, Milosevic and Karadzic would have to cause mass death, destruction and suffering to the entire Balkan population in less than 8 years to begin competing with Mr Clinton.
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

No, the large quantity is not a necessary element of a war crime. Even killing a single person may be a war crime

Leo

I am all for the Hague and I am all for your hero being there.

A fairer trial than any he gave to his victims.

So - good that the Hague upsets you. That is why it is there.

Mladic will not face "justice" at the Hague. Let's have a moratorium on the use of such idiotic terms when describing a biased and farcical institution.The Hague's refusal to indict Clinton and Albright for undeniable war crimes in 1999 ended this debate a long time ago.

That's a lie! Shame on the media!

I think that Mladic has understood that he has to face justice, and unrest among the population and riots in the streets won't change his verdict.

...Meanwhile hundreds of Serbians take to the streets to protest his arrest....

And then I woke up, frankly nobody really cares.

The Hague's refusal to indict Clinton and Albright for undeniable war crimes in 1999 ended this debate a long time ago.
(Leo, 28 May 2011 17:44)

Clinton and Albright committed war crimes ? I think you need to explain a few things before going to the conclusion:

1. Which article(s) of the international humanitarian law were violated; and

2. Which is/are the act(s) that were prohibited by those articles; and

3. Were those acts committed as a matter of fact; and

4. Was it Clinton and/or Albright who committed the act(s).

After you answer the 4 points above and also bringing the related evidence, we can go to the conclusion of whether or not Clinton and Albright committed war crimes.

Bravo Leo, my sentiments exactly.
As for our friend Boris J. here, I think he needs to educate himself about the truth and stop believing all the anti-Serb hate propoganda that we see in western media. It is all based on blatant lies, half-truths, and exaggerations.
Relax Boris, the Serbs are the good guys, as they always have been in history, and always will be in the future. All our neighbours are quite the opposite, and that's a fact.
Cheers!

He should have asked himself long time ago to refrain from killing/massacring people including young ones. I think too it's not worth it to go on the street for a mass murderer.

"Relax Boris, the Serbs are the good guys, as they always have been in history, and always will be in the future. All our neighbours are quite the opposite, and that's a fact.
Cheers!
Dragan"

- The good guys kill civilians including the elderly, women and children then dump them in mass graves. Then, they haul their remains deep inside of their country in hopes of hiding their crimes from the world.

The good guys systematically gang rape women they keep as prisoners.
These are just a few of the horrific crimes some Serbs committed.

I wonder what you think of guys like S. Hussein, brother Ghadafi, Stalin, Charles Tayler, et al.

Cheers!

Interesting leading article in the Guardian. Wonder why this hasn't been reported at B92 yet...
(bganon, 29 May 2011 01:00)

Thanks, bganon, for this link. But he's wrong, there's no 'collective guilt'. Well, sure, there is, everyone who voted for Milosevic and his nationalistic politics must face the truth that he helped to break up YU. But that's not what his trial will be about. It's about personal guilt, which includes not only killing people in person by a gun (he inists not to be a killer), but ordering the killing, too. Bad luck for him that there's enough footage whowing him supervising the deportation of all the male persons in Srebrenica.


The Hague is nothing but a political show trial which Stalin would be proud of. I realize the brainwashed masses don't realize this, but we Serbs do.
(Dragan, 29 May 2011 01:25)
I wonder who is brainwashed. Probably by watching too much RTS progaganda TV in the 90s? Well, there was a nice article published here on B92 some days ago where RTS officials apologized for spreading hate, propaganada and lies on TV during that time.

I am all for the Hague and I am all for your hero being there.

A fairer trial than any he gave to his victims.

So - good that the Hague upsets you. That is why it is there.
(Bob, 28 May 2011 22:49)

Wrong again Bob. The Hague is not there for this reason, but to whitewash/justify the war crimes of NATO, turn the good guys into bad guys and vice versa, and to set an example to small countries all over the world who dare to challenge the imperial powers. If the Hague were really there for justice, than why would they let free a war criminal like Nasir Oric, who bragged about his war crimes against Serb civilians in Srebrenica?
http://de-construct.net/?p=1374
http://www.srebrenica-report.com/Oric2.htm
Why would they not prosecute Albright, Wesley Clark and Clinton, who ordered the bombing of the RTS building, a blatant war crime, and murdured janitors and make-up women?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13348
What about dropping cluster bombs in civilian markets in Nis?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/may/08/balkans
The Hague is nothing but a political show trial which Stalin would be proud of. I realize the brainwashed masses don't realize this, but we Serbs do.

I think that Mladic has understood that he has to face justice, and unrest among the population and riots in the streets won't change his verdict.
(Boris J, 28 May 2011 16:34)
--------------------------

So you and the west have already pronounced him guilty and you claim he will get a fair trial in Hauge.
Get a grip Boris, if he has already been tried by the likes of you and found guilty then why send him to Hague? Just have Hague pronounce hi sentence now and be done with it. Or, is Hague trying to put out the illusion of fairness?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/28/ratko-mladic-serbs-share-guilt

Interesting leading article in the Guardian. Wonder why this hasn't been reported at B92 yet...

- The good guys kill civilians including the elderly, women and children then dump them in mass graves. Then, they haul their remains deep inside of their country in hopes of hiding their crimes from the world.

The good guys systematically gang rape women they keep as prisoners.
These are just a few of the horrific crimes some Serbs committed.

I wonder what you think of guys like S. Hussein, brother Ghadafi, Stalin, Charles Tayler, et al.

Cheers!
(metrod, 29 May 2011 06:21)

None of the crimes committed by any of the above top systematically killing prisoners for their organs.

Dragan, I'm a cool guy but intelligent enough to understand that most of the Serbs are good people, just as Australians, but there are also some who are not. In all nations, there are good and bad people. Travel a bit and you'll understand what I mean.

Bob

Quite frankly I dont think you have got a damn clue about what went on the wars, apart from the lies the western media feeds you, and which you so naively believe.

The ICTY is a circus and a distraction. There is NO JUSTICE regardless of who gets convicted or sentenced. It is good that Mladic is going to the ICTY because he deserves it, but does it really matter? Does it change the facts on the ground? Does it compensate the victims? No it does not.

Serbs achieved most of their strategic goals; they created a Serb republic where one never before existed; and with a strategic position to be able to link-up to Serbia in a generation, or sooner if Serbia and eventually BiH join the EU. So, Mladic and other Serbs murders go to prison. Big deal. They, in the greater scheme, become martyrs/heroes having achieved Serbian historic goals. Here’s the equation “a few people go to jail = Greater Serbia cause achieved”.

So, until facts on the ground are changed / reversed there will be NO JUSTICE. The ICTY is the West’s poor attempt at resolving their own moral conflict and collective conscious. Makes them look like they actually did something good. But what did they do...they allowed a blatant land grab and mass murder

Here is the Diana Johnstone article referred to by Stephen Lendman -> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1107

It provides a very detailed analysis of Srebrenica for anyone wanting more facts than CNN and BBC report.

Here is the Diana Johnstone article referred to by Stephen Lendman -> [link]

It provides a very detailed analysis of Srebrenica for anyone wanting more facts than CNN and BBC report.
(Zoran, 29 May 2011 12:35)
And why should someone choose to believe her report to be facts vs CNN and BBC, I would say it is more of a proSerbian version and distortion in the opposite direction of the west. It has its audience among the Srebenica deniers and we know who most of those are.

You do the same thing you accuse others of. If the report or article supports what you want to hear it is based on facts.

«They ask for sources ...» Peggy, dont mix please opinions with facts. Lot of people, including yourself, have their own opinion about what happened in Srebrenica after the fall of the city, and they make various hypothesis about the facts, the number of victims, etc. Only Mladic knows the facts and we have to wait.

http://countercurrents.org/lendman280511C.htm

Interesting article by Stephen Lendman. Wonder why this hasn't been reported at B92 yet...

Who else wants to know the other side of the story, Srebrenica and more?

Dear reader, who are "we" in this case?

Clearly, the «we» is the United nations. They always wait too long before acting. Ruanda is the perfect example. Srebrenica is another one.

@ zoran

They found the bones.
They've attached names to the bones using DNA analysis.
The number of dead is 8100


This is "debate" is over for all except those who have an agenda to deny the truth.

The Hague's refusal to indict Clinton and Albright for undeniable war crimes in 1999 ended this debate a long time ago.
(Leo, 28 May 2011 17:44)

Clinton and Albright committed war crimes ? I think you need to explain a few things before going to the conclusion:

1. Which article(s) of the international humanitarian law were violated; and

2. Which is/are the act(s) that were prohibited by those articles; and

3. Were those acts committed as a matter of fact; and

4. Was it Clinton and/or Albright who committed the act(s).

After you answer the 4 points above and also bringing the related evidence, we can go to the conclusion of whether or not Clinton and Albright committed war crimes.
(icj1, 28 May 2011 20:26)

Well I could go into detail but I wont. Clinton and Albright both launched agressive war against a sovereign UN recognised state, there were no border disputes. This constitutes a crime against peace, and is therefore a war crime, and a grave breach of the geneva conventions.

They also held command responsibility for the killings of thousands of civilians and the use of depleted uranium and cluster munitions.

Bob....I believe you are all for selective prosecution. Again....when I see NATO's leaders at any international tribunal for their past and ongoing war crimes I'll take the idea of "international" justice seriously. Until then' the subject is risible.

None of the crimes committed by any of the above top systematically killing prisoners for their organs.
(New Zealander, 29 May 2011 11:34)
# Comment link

While the crimes would be similar in comparison. You place more weight on the organ claims because it is against Serbs which is a huge multiplier in your opinion.
The difference is that to date there has not been any actual proof to the organ harvesting claims, the crimes have to be actually proven to be fact and not fiction before an accurate comparison can be made.

Reading or listening to revengeful,bloodthirsty, indiscriminate hatred fed remarks/comments, makes it easier to understand mechanisms behind any of horrible crimes happening on the battle grounds. From words to a satisfaction of actual trigger pulling or knife using it's a short distance for some "humans". Especially for those who envelope themselves in a banner of the word "justice".

Here is another excellent analysis into Srebrenica. This one references many sources. Check -> [link]
(Zoran, 29 May 2011 17:18)

I would prefer to call that a 'personal opinion', and not an 'excellent analysis' (just like your other link, written by a person with a similar point of view).

Funny, sometimes this here reminds me of the joke about the man who is driving on the wrong lane on a highway and is wondering why there are so many cars coming from the opposite direction ;-)

Here is another excellent analysis into Srebrenica. This one references many sources. Check -> [link]
(Zoran, 29 May 2011 17:18)

I would prefer to call that a 'personal opinion', and not an 'excellent analysis' (just like your other link, written by a person with a similar point of view).

Funny, sometimes this here reminds me of the joke about the man who is driving on the wrong lane on a highway and is wondering why there are so many cars coming from the opposite direction ;-)

"Funny, sometimes this reminds me of the herd mentality. Just follow the sheep and all will be fine. Careful of the barking dog to make sure you don't get out of line. It's vicious ;-)"
(Zoran, 29 May 2011 23:40)

Maybe I should post a link with some 'facts' about the moon landing? Hmm, not needed, you probably know all of these. Though I was a bit surprised not to find them on the GlobalResearch website ;-)

I would prefer to call that a 'personal opinion', and not an 'excellent analysis' (just like your other link, written by a person with a similar point of view).

Funny, sometimes this here reminds me of the joke about the man who is driving on the wrong lane on a highway and is wondering why there are so many cars coming from the opposite direction ;-)
(Top, 29 May 2011 19:20)
--
I see, so an analysis with 76 references (UN, NATO included) conducted by a research group is just a "personal opinion"?

Funny, sometimes this reminds me of the herd mentality. Just follow the sheep and all will be fine. Careful of the barking dog to make sure you don't get out of line. It's vicious ;-)

You do the same thing you accuse others of. If the report or article supports what you want to hear it is based on facts.
(a New Day, 29 May 2011 14:26)
========================

Seems like nothing will satisfy the Albanians. They ask for sources and when they are provided they dismiss them as pro Serbian rubbish.
Obviously there is nothing that will satisfy them unless it is geared to make them look good.

We should all just ignore their requests for anything since it gets belittled anyway.

This is "debate" is over for all except those who have an agenda to deny the truth.
(Danilo, 29 May 2011 15:04)
--
I at least provided a link with sources whereas you provided nothing. Are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Here is another excellent analysis into Srebrenica. This one references many sources. Check -> http://www.srebrenica-report.com/politics.htm

Dragan, I'm a cool guy but intelligent enough to understand that most of the Serbs are good people, just as Australians, but there are also some who are not. In all nations, there are good and bad people. Travel a bit and you'll understand what I mean.
(Boris J, 28 May 2011 23:49)

Boris,

A little hint for you - cool guys don't say 'I'm a cool guy', that's very uncool. Also, I've traveled the world and have seen lots. I recommend you do the same. In fact, please visit your beloved Croatia and Albania and tell them you're a Serb (if in fact you are one, which is very doubtful), and see how well you are treated.
Cheers!

You do the same thing you accuse others of. If the report or article supports what you want to hear it is based on facts.
(a New Day, 29 May 2011 14:26)
--
Now I make a claim and I provide a source to back it up. The articles I have provided, make a claim and provide a source. This is either an official source (UN, NATO, ICTY) or someone's research. You can check for yourself.

You know, if someone is lying to me I would prefer to know the truth instead of remaining in denial. No-one should be scared of the truth except for those with something to hide.

These articles don't deny a massacre took place in Srebrenica, they just explain the background and question the numbers. When put this into context you can see that no side is innocent. Everyone committed horrendous crimes and getting to the truth is in everyone's interest (well, maybe not NATOs).

As Ghandi said, an eye for and eye and the whole world goes blind. We can remain divided and argue our side forever (NATO wins) or we can learn the truth and reconcile (the people win).

(icj1, 28 May 2011 20:26)

Putting aside for a moment the Serbia incident, Clinton has in his years in office:

-Bombed a medical factory in Sudan. Noone really knows why, since it has been established that Clinton and the administration knew no WMDs were made there and the Sudanese factory was legit.

- In 1993, bombed Baghdad in retaliation for an alleged but unproven Iraq plot to assassinate former President George Bush. Eight Iraqi civilians were killed in the raid and 12 more were wounded. This kind of unilateral action in response to an unproven charge is a violation of international law.

- Signed and enforced a law forbidding the import of food to Cuba from America and curtailed access to water treatment chemicals and medicines to Cubans. Let us pontificate the result of that policy....

- Clinton's infamous sanctions in Iraq and routine bombings that resulted in numbers upon numbers of Iraqi death. In 1999 it was reported by UNICEF that thanks to Clinton's policy in Iraq, 4000-5000 children were dying per month from malnutrition and disease. His vicious sanction system caused the death of over 1 million Iraqis.

-Clinton ''appologized'' for his hard work to prevent any international intervention in the Rawanda genocide and claimed his intervention and bombing of Serbia and Kosovo was supposed to make up for that - humanitarian intervention.

Need I really continue?

While hostage taking is viewed as a form of terrorism, treating the entire populations of Iraq and Serbia as hostages, and imposing mass suffering and death on them, is acceptable in the West, I see.

Mladic, Milosevic and Karadzic would have to cause mass death, destruction and suffering to the entire Balkan population in less than 8 years to begin competing with Mr Clinton.

Well I could go into detail but I wont. Clinton and Albright both launched agressive war against a sovereign UN recognised state, there were no border disputes. This constitutes a crime against peace, and is therefore a war crime, and a grave breach of the geneva conventions.
(New Zealander, 28 May 2011 23:42)

Well, you can't go into deatail because the detail does not exist. "Crime against peace" is not a war crime and is not a grave (or light) breach of the geneva conventions. Otherwise, tell me the article of the Geneva conventions that mentions the "crime against peace"...

-Bombed a medical factory in Sudan. Noone really knows why, since it has been established that Clinton and the administration knew no WMDs were made there and the Sudanese factory was legit.
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

OK (assuming, for now, the facts are as you say), (i) please cite the article of the law that makes the act above a crime, (ii) what is the evidence that Clinton did it, (iii) who established that Clinton knew no WMDs were made



- In 1993, bombed Baghdad in retaliation for an alleged but unproven Iraq plot to assassinate former President George Bush. Eight Iraqi civilians were killed in the raid and 12 more were wounded. This kind of unilateral action in response to an unproven charge is a violation of international law.
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

OK (assuming, for now, the fact are as you say), it is a violation of international law, but not a crime. Not any violation of international law is a crime.



- Signed and enforced a law forbidding the import of food to Cuba from America and curtailed access to water treatment chemicals and medicines to Cubans. Let us pontificate the result of that policy....
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

OK (assuming, for now, the fact are as you say), please cite the article of the law that makes the act above a crime



- Clinton's infamous sanctions in Iraq and routine bombings that resulted in numbers upon numbers of Iraqi death. In 1999 it was reported by UNICEF that thanks to Clinton's policy in Iraq, 4000-5000 children were dying per month from malnutrition and disease. His vicious sanction system caused the death of over 1 million Iraqis.
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

OK (assuming, for now, the fact are as you say), please cite the article of the law that makes sanctions or bombings a crime



-Clinton ''appologized'' for his hard work to prevent any international intervention in the Rawanda genocide and claimed his intervention and bombing of Serbia and Kosovo was supposed to make up for that - humanitarian intervention.
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

OK (assuming, for now, the fact are as you say), please cite the article of the law that makes “apologizing” a crime



Need I really continue?
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

Yes, please, because so far you did not show any crime as defined in international criminal law



While hostage taking is viewed as a form of terrorism, treating the entire populations of Iraq and Serbia as hostages, and imposing mass suffering and death on them, is acceptable in the West, I see.
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

Nobody said that the facts above (assuming they are as you say) is acceptable in the West or anywhere. But we were discussing about crimes, and crimes are defined in articles of law which you have to reference to.



Mladic, Milosevic and Karadzic would have to cause mass death, destruction and suffering to the entire Balkan population in less than 8 years to begin competing with Mr Clinton.
(Laowai, Chengdu, China, 30 May 2011 22:43)

No, the large quantity is not a necessary element of a war crime. Even killing a single person may be a war crime