"Not many helpers involved in hiding Mladić"

I have one question to ask. General Mladic is accused of several things one of which is the massacre at Srebrenica where the body count was 8,000 or at least that is what the indictment states. Where are the 8,000 bodies? To the best of my knowledge less than 3,000 bodies were discovered and that includes all combatants but not those assassinated by Nasir Oric's gangs who were operating in the area up to July 1995. I may be wrong but can one be indicted for a crime involviong 8,000 dead when all sources indicate the figure is wrong? Please inform me.

To NATO it doesn't matter if General Mladic live to survive the first days of their Stalinist show trial or not, as long as their Serbian puppet regime deliver their war trophy. He´s already convicted in €USSR corporate media and they will probably "suicide" him long before they can turn off his microphone like they did Milosevic.

Agim, the world saw practically nothing. There was only one video recovered of executions, and these soldiers were members of the 'Skorpioni' (scorpions), but all these men have been tried and locked up in Serbia. But also they had nothing to do with Mladic as they were not a part of the Bosnian Serb Army but rather a splinter group, so he cannot be held responsible for them. As for genocide, well, I agree with Basil about the figures which remain to be very suspicious. Many of the supposed "missing" people have been found to be living in Tuzla, which is where many Muslim soldiers fled to. But there are other questions that need answering, surely if such a massacre took place the UN would have known about it, there is no way that it could have been hidden from the Dutch troops, the Dutch commander later reported it to have been an excellently carried out military operation, while not reporting any crimes, now there is no reason why they would try and cover up a 'massacre'. Funny how nobody ever cares to mention of the terror that the Serbs endured under Naser Oric in the years before hand, ah well, I guess thats the Western media picking and choosing what to report to serve their own government's actions.

I have one question to ask. General Mladic is accused of several things one of which is the massacre at Srebrenica where the body count was 8,000 or at least that is what the indictment states. Where are the 8,000 bodies? To the best of my knowledge less than 3,000 bodies were discovered and that includes all combatants but not those assassinated by Nasir Oric's gangs who were operating in the area up to July 1995. I may be wrong but can one be indicted for a crime involviong 8,000 dead when all sources indicate the figure is wrong? Please inform me.
(Basil Henry, 30 May 2011 17:25)

If you are to blind to see the truth, it is very hard for you to digest any info as you are asking.The figure may be wrong + or - few inocent people, but the figure is still the same. Where were you when the whole world was watching when 8000 innocent people of all ages just vanished???

Not many knew, only Position and Opposition

"Who benefitted by Milosevic dying without a conviction and who will benefit by Mladic never being convicted. Only Serbia and his group of nationalist followers.
Without a conviction of high ranking in the Milosevic regime, it will be difficult for anyone to collect claims against the state of Serbia. So should Mladic die and in the case of Milosevic, I would look to Serbian loyalists who visit first."
(a New Day, 30 May 2011 18:50)

Again this misconception: The ICTY is not prosecuting a state or a nation, it tries to convince individuals who commited war crimes - nothing more, nothing less. So the Serbian state won't gain anything. But I agree, for the Serbian nationalists who like to choose criminals as their 'heroes' (obviously a typical pattern in the Balkans (Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia) would be the best if Mladic dies after 5 years in The Hague (with the usual delaying tactics used by the accuses): They can claim that he was innocent, a hero, and was killed by the NATO court and similar nonsense.

Mr. Lie-lich, how do you explain Mr. Mladic attending public events?
How come you didn't nab him there? Or, were you not looking?
Perhaps, he didn't need helpers since he wasn't hiding after all.

To NATO it doesn't matter if General Mladic live to survive the first days of their Stalinist show trial or not, as long as their Serbian puppet regime deliver their war trophy. He´s already convicted in €USSR corporate media and they will probably "suicide" him long before they can turn off his microphone like they did Milosevic.
(wtf, 30 May 2011 17:54)
Who benefitted by Milosevic dying without a conviction and who will benefit by Mladic never being convicted. Only Serbia and his group of nationalist followers.
Without a conviction of high ranking in the Milosevic regime, it will be difficult for anyone to collect claims against the state of Serbia. So should Mladic die and in the case of Milosevic, I would look to Serbian loyalists who visit first.
A conviction of either is a plus for NATO and the west, so I doubt their deaths except on demanding speedier trials and insist that the delay tactics of the Serbian teams not be allowed

Entire Serbian Vlada, including you Ljajic ere sheltering and protecting a war criminal.Stop the B.S.

SJ - There you go again, telling me where I get my information. Like you'd have any idea.

More importantly, can you tell us which Serbs have corroborated your version of events at trial -- or anywhere else, for that matter? I've just done a search and turned up nothing, but maybe one needs to spend some time on that.

Just interesting that I don't ever recall hearing anyone like Milosevic, Karadzic, Krajisnik or Krstic make this claim about Muslim prisoners being evacuated to Belgrade to be flown off to Western countries. Maybe you direct the defense of Serbs on trial to the Australian media in an effort to vindicate the many who've taken the fall for this elaborate hoax you claim.

"More importantly, can you tell us which Serbs have corroborated your version of events at trial -- or anywhere else, for that matter? I've just done a search and turned up nothing, but maybe one needs to spend some time on that. "
(Nenad, 31 May 2011 12:23)

Follow some links provided by Zoran. The GlobalResearch centre in Canada is a good example (it has many articles about the HAARP project (another conspiracy theory), too). But I don't see any reason why someone should believe 'their version' more than the general version. It's like with all conspiracy theories: You collect fact that support this theory, and you ignore all other facts that could prove your theory wrong. Some people even nowadays believe that the moon landing was a hoax. So everyone has it's own truth. But as I said: If you drive on a highway lane and there are 100s of cars coming from the other direction, you should start to wonder if it's you who is on the wrong lane or all the others.

I (Basil Henry, 30 May 2011 17:25)

I watched those events very closely and at first it was actually 5000; the exact number of Bosnian regular troops stationed in the region. However, these troops were allowed an escape route over the Drina River and into Serbia where they surrendered their weapons and taken by bus to Belgrade airport and moved by western transport to the US, UK, Canada, EU countries and even as far as Adelaide, Brisbane and Hobart in Australia. I watched those men interviewed on Australian TV and their answers were never translated correctly but ignored with the usual ranting about Serbs being evil aired on the news programs. The Bosnians told the truth about what happened to them and that was much to their credit.

Then when the western powers realised that 5000 was the wrong number it went up to 10000 with the final figure being 8000. The facts are simple; about 3000 of the names in Potocari are people still alive; the others were combatants that fell in battles around Tusla and the last Sarajevo offensive where the Bosnians lost about 3000. There are also names on that monument that were killed during the Bosnian and Croat lovers tiff.

Even the Bosnian police chief from Srebrenica during the war has disclaimed the so called massacre, but hey why ruin a good story.



If you are to blind to see the truth, it is very hard for you to digest any info as you are asking.The figure may be wrong + or - few inocent people, but the figure is still the same. Where were you when the whole world was watching when 8000 innocent people of all ages just vanished???
(Agim Kelmendi, 30 May 2011 18:22)

Yes just like the 10,000 Albanians killed in Kosovo by NATO bombing and the Albanians blamed Milosevic. Little wonder that the west thinks your people are expendable.

Baz,

You are right.

No 8,000. There are still thousands missing so the ICTY 'extrapolated' the numbers and mixed them all up.

The media, uses 'men and boys' to avoid saying 'soldiers', 'civilians', 'women' and 'children'. The vast majority of those 'killed', executed, ambushed etc. were listed as soldiers of the Army of Bosna i Herzegovina even though this has actually been reported in serbo-croat media.

Also the ICTY's actual words on Srebrenica is an "act of genocide", but as you may have noticed, this has become "genocide" by the illiterati. What's the difference in a few words? An "act of genocide" is the politically correct term for, 'the bar for genocide in international law according to definition and precedence is far too high so the ICTY created a new term and definition so that it does not have to drop charges of 'genocide' in all of its indictments due to to ridiculous nature of the charge'.

Any proper internet search on the subject of genocide vis-a-vis srebrenica that is not via jaundiced blogs or blogs and NGO's sponsored by Sorros will tell you that international lawyers are 'divided' over whether it is. If it is, it is quite easy to argue that 'genocide' has happened very often and by just about anyone who has been involved in conflict.

But I suspect you already had an inkling of the above. Too much has been invested in black propaganda against the serbs over the years for the loudest and most partial proponents to admit it is bs, so they instead keep quiet. ICTY transcripts and the rulings are black and white evidence that the charge is politically motivated bs and will go down in history as such.

You know what makes me laugh? Moslems are so desperate to have their own 'genocide' that they will go for anything because they think they will get the same benefits as the jews. Chalk and cheese, mate, chalk and cheese.

(Nenad, 31 May 2011 02:33)

I was waiting for someone like you to rear his head above the trenches - perfect example of a converted westerner; deluded to the max. It’s always the ones that are never at “the broken end of the bottle” that can deliver home spun philosophy of “admitting their past policy failures and working toward a better future”.
Raping women eh? Well your western buddies tried that recently with Gadaffi – perhaps you recall that woman bursting in at a media session with the Libyan spokesperson and foreign press. Yes mate, she was paid to do just that – I thought it was 1994 all over again. My favorite story from 1994 on this subject comes at about June of that year. The Bosniaks were going to announce a young woman was about to deliver a baby in the Swiss capital conceived as a result of rape by Serb soldiers. Yes, she gave birth but the child was BLACK.
Stick to writing policy documents for western governments; you’re bad at pointing out other people’s shortcomings especially as you have learnt your past from CNN et al.

"the best of my knowledge less than 3,000 bodies were discovered"

The best of your knowledge is wrong.

ICMP has, for the last decade, exhumed and identified ~6100 bodied and exhumed and identified as an individual body, but not attached a name, an additional 2000

(1) "To the best of my knowledge less than 3,000 bodies were discovered and that includes all combatants but not those assassinated by Nasir Oric's gangs who were operating in the area up to July 1995. I may be wrong but can one be indicted for a crime involviong 8,000 dead when all sources indicate the figure is wrong? Please inform me."
(Basil Henry, 30 May 2011 17:25)

(2) "Funny how nobody ever cares to mention of the terror that the Serbs endured under Naser Oric in the years before hand, ah well, I guess thats the Western media picking and choosing what to report to serve their own government's actions."
(..., 30 May 2011 18:48)


Two examples of Serbian (or pro-Serbian) nationalist views commonly aired on B92 that will probably never die entirely, but perhaps are on the wane. And while I don't subscribe to them at all, I suppose I can imagine how they exist.

For how long have the flames of nationalism burned in the Balkans? How many generations of Serbs, Croats, Muslims, Albanians, etc been taught to hate their ancient enemies?

And how often have they been permitted to listen to opposing views in the local media? How possible has it been for them to check the facts in the stories they've heard? And what has happened to some of the unfortunate souls who've challenged the official story?

Turning to the comments cited above, let us first take the case of Naser Oric. Horrible Muslim warlord of eastern BiH in the early 90s? Perhaps. But to what atrocities might he have been responding? If we were to analyze events from April to October 1992 across BiH and tally up crimes against civilians, which side would come out on top, do you think?

I can assure you that Muslims, Croats and Serbs would have trouble finding much agreement on this question, but taking into consideration towns beyond Srebrenica -- Bijeljina, Vlasenica, Foca, Rogatica, Zvornik, Bratunac, Jajce, Mostar, Brcko, Sarajevo -- who was doing what in those areas? How many Muslim victims? How many Croat? How many Serb?

If so many Serbs were victims at the hands of Oric, then how was it that Serbs took over 65-70% of BiH in the first few months of the war? And why just mention Oric? What about all the Serb paramilitaries?

The other comment quoted above suggests that less than 3,000 bodies have been discovered in the aftermath of the 1995 Serb massacre of Srebrenica, but I'm quite certain that at last check, Western sources such as the BBC put the number at over 6,000 and counting. Exhumation takes time as most/all corpses were moved to secondary mass graves and to cover up the crime, and removal of bodies without destroying evidence is a delicate process.

Serb nationalists and their sympathizers would naturally seek to minimize the number of victims and claim that the story of Srebrenica is largely a fiction, an attempt to demonize Serbs, but why should they be believed?

Serbs nationalists would answer that there existed a Western campaign to destroy them, on the one hand through a biased, Western-controlled UN tribunal at the Hague, on the other through unlawful military intervention on the part of NATO and other Western forces in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo.

OK, there's that view -- and by the way, I've yet to hear a plausible reason as to why such a campaign might exist -- but what about the possibility that Milosevic actually did seek to build a Greater Serbia and simply miscalculated the Western response?

Consider the tone set -- and later maintained -- by Milosevic-backed Serbian forces in Croatia and Bosnia early on in the 90s conflicts. How many Croats were booted from the Slavonijas and Krajina? Look at the Croatian towns pulverized by the JNA. Look at the Serbian siege of Sarajevo and other towns (Bihac, Srebrenica, Zepa, etc), and at the horrific crimes committed against non-Serbs across BiH.

True, horrific crimes were committed against Serbs, and Muslims and Croats went on to commit crimes against each other, but look at those first six months of the war in BiH, when Serbs made huge territorial gains and Muslims and Croats were still in a shaky alliance.

And then the crimes just kept happening. Sarajevo remainded under siege for the duration, and Srebrenica was massacred by Mladic just a few months before the war ended in 1995.

So yes, war in the Balkans spiraled out of control and became one atrocious free-for-all, but look at the big picture. Look what happened early on, look at the side that possessed an overwhelming military advantage at the start, and look at the battlefield gains resulting from that advantage. Don't just look at the Mladic v. Oric debate in Srebrenica, or at Operations Flash and Storm in Croatia.

I'm not saying the Western response was just, but clearly, very little in the world ever is. And people in the Balkans can complain about Western involvement in their wars but large streams of refugees to Western countries and images of war crimes on European soil not seen since WWII put enormous pressure on the governments of the US, UK, France, Germany and so on.

Attempts by Western governments to mediate peace negotiations repeatedly failed and pressure for military intervention slowly mounted over time. One politican in particular (Clinton) needed a foreign policy victory in the mid 90s and so military options were ultimately exercised. The object was to end the fighting and to create a long-term military balance in the region. For that balance to be achieved, Croatian and Muslim forces would need to be beefed up while Serbian forces in BiH and Croatia to some extent neutralized. We all know the results, and however imperfect they might have been, recall who chose war at that start.

Kosovo was, admittedly, a somewhat different case but there appeared to be parallels. I certainly think that fewer crimes were committed there by Serbian forces than in BiH, but there can be little doubt that crimes were committed. And while Albanians no doubt committed crimes of their own, it isn't so hard to see which side would be branded the villain in the conflict. Milosevic had stripped away the Albanians' autonomy nearly a decade before and stories of Serbian oppression followed. Serbs had already come to be considered belligerent aggressors in their earlier wars in Croatia and BiH and done nothing to shake off that yoke -- even after Milosevic's role at Dayton. Military intervention had, at least in the eyes of the West, proved useful in bringing those conflicts to an end and was therefore deemed a reasonable solution for Kosovo.

All of this, of course, ended rather badly for nationalist Serbs, but rather than admitting their past policy failures and working toward a better future, they choose to dwell on what went wrong and blame others. They regularly omit very important elements of 90s Balkan historical record and twist those parts of the story they choose to address. This isn't to say that NATO, the ICTY, Clinton, Blair, etc aren't above criticism, but they didn't start these wars. Their soldiers wern't the ones raping Muslim women at Grbavica. Their soldiers weren't mowing down 7-8,000 unarmed Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica. They weren't the ones directing the moves of Radovan Karadzic and Milan Babic.

When Balkan people stop this "an eye for an eye" mentality, only then will there be peace and prosperity in the land of the former Yugoslavia.

Well, SJ, I did some additional digging and there is at least one site out there which, to some degree, supports your claims about what really happened at Srebrenica:

http://srpska-mreza.com/Bosnia/Srebrenica/hiding-survivors.html

This and a couple other sites I reviewed were rather interesting, so in all honesty, you do have a point. However, just as you would presumably view information from a Western source with considerable suspicion, I would handle the assertions made on this site with a good deal of caution. Perhaps there is more work to be done on the investigative front.

Your challenge to the official version of events at Srebrenica doesn't go far enough to force me to rethink the overall character of the 90s conflicts, though. The truth is, whatever impression I may give in my comments, I've never viewed the wars in terms of black and white, and I've never been entirely trusting of Western media. I suspect that a lot of sensationalism and distortion have taken place, and that a number of heinous crimes against Serbs have been minimized/overlooked.

However, when viewing everything on the whole, I still think that many Serb politicians and military officers belong behind bars and that Mladic is one of them. Maybe they got things wrong at Srebrenica but what about Sarajevo?

And I think a lot of Croats, Muslims and Albanians belong behind bars, too, and it's a shame that only a few of them have gotten there.

Finally, I don't know about most Westerners, but there are plenty of Americans who don't get their news from CNN and Fox. These are but two outlets here and both get plent of derision. I, for one, am no big fan of either.

(Nenad, 31 May 2011 12:23)


The big difference with me is that I was not born in Serbia nor have I lived there nor have I lived in the US or Europe. I was never interested in the Balkans until the wars of the 1990s and with the type of work that I do I had an opportunity to meet some very interesting people who were well versed in the tactics used by the west – in fact two were Americans and they were still employed in the trade at that stage.

The first man to be placed on trial at the Hague was naturally a Serb charged with crimes against humanity. During the trail the defence attorney discovered that the main witness for the prosecution, who claimed to have seen all the crimes committed, was never even at the so called concentration camp in question. Under rigorous cross examination this guy admitted that he was actually PAID by the Bosniaks to testify against the Serb – let me repeat it again; he was PAID to testify.

There were two other witnesses; both ladies never saw the Serb “commit crimes”, but they heard about it 3rd and 4th hand. The main witness was released without penalty and the Serb got 15 years. Tell me what would have happened if this was sent to trial in the local court in the US or UK? I have two lawyers in my house and they laugh when I mention the Hague.

Then about 6 years ago another Serb was placed on trial in Sarajevo for “murdering two Bosniak brothers”. Once again half way through the trail the two brothers came back from Sweden (where they were accepted as refugees during the war) and saw the circus in the papers and being decent people went to the authorities and the accused was released – I bet you never read about that in your newspapers either. A “free press” is a wonderful thing in theory.

I could write a book on the many other examples – do you recall that famous picture behind “barbered wires” that resembled a concentration camp prisoner – this man was part of a group waiting to be transported out and he is still alive today. Has your media corrected this mistake? No it has not. Even the journalist who filmed that piece tried to correct the stories being published – no success; what a surprise.

Why do you think the US is attacking Libya? According to your papers “its to liberate a freedom loving peoples that want to through off the shackles of oppression and bring democracy to Libya”. Not true, the US wants to free up the Libyan oil fields. Just like it tried in Iraq.

If you still don’t get it; read up on the show trials of the late 1920s and 30s held by Stalin in the Soviet Union and then you might just get the picture why no self respecting person takes the Hague Court seriously except for what it is – a show trial.

The Serbs committed the worst crime and that was making the US look like the fools they really are. For several years the US (only superpower left in the world) look impotent as the wars in the Balkans raged.

Perhaps you might also ask for the imprisonment of Blair and Bush for their involvement in killing 200 000 Iraqis during the second invasion – or maybe they killed for democracy and freedom.

.

(Nenad, 1 June 2011 16:44)

The Tribunal is nothing but a show trial because evidence in your Courts demand that they pass a certain level rigor – hear say and rumor are inadmissible, but they are admissible in the Tribunal. The evidence gathered against Mladic would have been thrown out of your Courts, that’s the difference. Here is something new, how about introducing similar standards to the Tribunal as you have in the US.
The Tribunal was set up by a highly respected Australian jurist, Sir Ninian Stephen, who spent about 12 months on the job until he discovered that it was a show trial process and he abruptly left. To this day this man will not even admit he was involved in the Tribunal. The judiciary on the Tribunal are international rejects, who have no chance of progressing past their existing position. It’s a free for all; everything is accepted.
Back to Srebrenica, at the Potocari monument of the so called 8000 killed there are about 3000 names on it, but these people are still alive today. Then there are names of combatants that were killed in operations well away from Srebrenica. Yes there were people executed and from what I have heard it ranges from 300 to 400, but these were members of Oric’s paramilitary units that did some horrible things against the Serbs around Srebrenica, but maybe this does not count to freedom loving Americans.
Why did Mladic put all the Srebrenica women and children on buses and they all arrived safe in Sarajevo? If he was this monster why not kill them all????? I have children that are lawyers and one actually lectures in law and she and her colleagues at the University consider the Tribunal a joke.
“It's off-topic, but many Americans don't support our military actions in Libya, many were never for the Iraq war, many hate George W. Bush, and many feel that the war in Afghanistan has been grossly mismanaged”
Yes it’s all there but you have to look for it and that is the problem with Americans like you; you cannot openly say “we are WRONG” because it’s the great work of the US “free press” brainwashing to ensure that the people do not criticize the actions of its government”.
If Mladic is guilty, then how about your generals that killed 200 000 Iraqis being arrested and put before a Tribunal? When I hear these words from your mouth then I’ll take you more seriously.

Again this misconception: The ICTY is not prosecuting a state or a nation, it tries to convince individuals who commited war crimes - nothing more, nothing less. So the Serbian state won't gain anything. But I agree, for the Serbian nationalists who like to choose criminals as their 'heroes' (obviously a typical pattern in the Balkans (Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia) would be the best if Mladic dies after 5 years in The Hague (with the usual delaying tactics used by the accuses): They can claim that he was innocent, a hero, and was killed by the NATO court and similar nonsense.
(Top, 30 May 2011 22:01)
Did not mean a literal conviction of the state but with convictions of lower ranking individuals then Serbia can claim the actions were those of rogue personnel not state actions. But the convictions of high ranking officials and especially "the leader" as in Milosevic would mean it was state sanctioned and it would be easier for other courts to assign blame to Serbia and order restitution.
Remember Mladic is not charged with the actual crimes, but in giving the orders for his soldiers to commit the crimes in the name of Serbia. He may not have ever shot an individual personally.
But you are true in that technically the ICTY does not charge the state or nation. But the conviction of Mladic or a conviction of Milosevic would have been perceived as a conviction of Serbia.

SJ,

I have remarked very blatantly on many occasions that I consider a number of individuals from the Bush years to be war criminals and would like nothing more than to see them go to jail for the rest of their miserable lives. And like Milosevic stole from many Serbs, Bush essentially stole from most Americans by enacting huge tax cuts and then spending trillions on wars and other things that were never funded. I don't get into these matters with you because they aren't relevant to the original story.

I have no idea what gives you the impression that I am brainwashed by American media. Believe me, there are plenty of journalists/commentators in this country who make a living hitting hard against our government and they have large audiences. Like I said yesterday, the politicians don't want to listen to the complaints of the American people -- they're much more interested in catering to the lobbyists. Half of them don't even appear to be educated people, speaking openly of their rejection of the theory of evolution, global warming, or the idea that increasing taxes on corporations and individuals is necessary in the effort to resolve our huge fiscal problems.

I will finish by urging you to ask someone among your legal connections to alert the Chinese, Russians -- any ally of Serbia with international prestige and influence -- to your concerns over both the tally at Srebrenica and the injustices of the ICTY. It certainly seems as though no one is really disputing the former these days -- the Serbian government itself recently issued an apology to Bosnia for the crimes committed there.

SJ,

As a matter of fact, the ICTY flaws you mention did make the news here, and incidentally, I was just reviewing the Dusan Tadic case yesterday.

Did CNN or Fox mention these stories? Perhaps not, but there are actually American new organizations (National Public Radio comes to mind) that have covered these events and others you mention, such as the NATO bombing in Libya.

It's off-topic, but many Americans don't support our military actions in Libya, many were never for the Iraq war, many hate George W. Bush, and many feel that the war in Afghanistan has been grossly mismanaged.

As a fairly liberal registered Democrat, I never voted for Bush and was outraged at his election. I never believed that we belonged in Iraq and when Bush led us there I immediately lost what little confidence I had in his ability to succeed against Al Quaeda and their allies in Afghanistan or anywhere else. A lot of people in America felt the same way but the average voter has such limited influence over the way politicians legislate that you'd probably need an all-out revolution here to fix all the problems. Corporations rule, and for a variety of reasons, Americans have yet to take to the streets (unless you count the Tea Party, who seem to be rallying for all the wrong reasons).

But back to the revelant story, where would you propose Mladic and others be tried? Are you familiar with the legal systems in places like Serbia and Bosnia? Ask your lawyer friends about those.

And do you seriously expect the ICTY to be perfect? Look at any legal system anywhere in the world and I guarantee you'll find glaring flaws. Lack of oversight, lack of funding, conflict of interest, cultural bias...these problems exist everywhere. Also, bear in mind that the ICTY only opened in 1993 and has always been faced with time and budget constraints.

Anyway, I've spent way too much time on this. I've noted your point about the numbers at Srebrenica...and very little else.

I have one question to ask. General Mladic is accused of several things one of which is the massacre at Srebrenica where the body count was 8,000 or at least that is what the indictment states. Where are the 8,000 bodies? To the best of my knowledge less than 3,000 bodies were discovered and that includes all combatants but not those assassinated by Nasir Oric's gangs who were operating in the area up to July 1995. I may be wrong but can one be indicted for a crime involviong 8,000 dead when all sources indicate the figure is wrong? Please inform me.

To NATO it doesn't matter if General Mladic live to survive the first days of their Stalinist show trial or not, as long as their Serbian puppet regime deliver their war trophy. He´s already convicted in €USSR corporate media and they will probably "suicide" him long before they can turn off his microphone like they did Milosevic.

I have one question to ask. General Mladic is accused of several things one of which is the massacre at Srebrenica where the body count was 8,000 or at least that is what the indictment states. Where are the 8,000 bodies? To the best of my knowledge less than 3,000 bodies were discovered and that includes all combatants but not those assassinated by Nasir Oric's gangs who were operating in the area up to July 1995. I may be wrong but can one be indicted for a crime involviong 8,000 dead when all sources indicate the figure is wrong? Please inform me.
(Basil Henry, 30 May 2011 17:25)

If you are to blind to see the truth, it is very hard for you to digest any info as you are asking.The figure may be wrong + or - few inocent people, but the figure is still the same. Where were you when the whole world was watching when 8000 innocent people of all ages just vanished???

Entire Serbian Vlada, including you Ljajic ere sheltering and protecting a war criminal.Stop the B.S.

Agim, the world saw practically nothing. There was only one video recovered of executions, and these soldiers were members of the 'Skorpioni' (scorpions), but all these men have been tried and locked up in Serbia. But also they had nothing to do with Mladic as they were not a part of the Bosnian Serb Army but rather a splinter group, so he cannot be held responsible for them. As for genocide, well, I agree with Basil about the figures which remain to be very suspicious. Many of the supposed "missing" people have been found to be living in Tuzla, which is where many Muslim soldiers fled to. But there are other questions that need answering, surely if such a massacre took place the UN would have known about it, there is no way that it could have been hidden from the Dutch troops, the Dutch commander later reported it to have been an excellently carried out military operation, while not reporting any crimes, now there is no reason why they would try and cover up a 'massacre'. Funny how nobody ever cares to mention of the terror that the Serbs endured under Naser Oric in the years before hand, ah well, I guess thats the Western media picking and choosing what to report to serve their own government's actions.

Mr. Lie-lich, how do you explain Mr. Mladic attending public events?
How come you didn't nab him there? Or, were you not looking?
Perhaps, he didn't need helpers since he wasn't hiding after all.

To NATO it doesn't matter if General Mladic live to survive the first days of their Stalinist show trial or not, as long as their Serbian puppet regime deliver their war trophy. He´s already convicted in €USSR corporate media and they will probably "suicide" him long before they can turn off his microphone like they did Milosevic.
(wtf, 30 May 2011 17:54)
Who benefitted by Milosevic dying without a conviction and who will benefit by Mladic never being convicted. Only Serbia and his group of nationalist followers.
Without a conviction of high ranking in the Milosevic regime, it will be difficult for anyone to collect claims against the state of Serbia. So should Mladic die and in the case of Milosevic, I would look to Serbian loyalists who visit first.
A conviction of either is a plus for NATO and the west, so I doubt their deaths except on demanding speedier trials and insist that the delay tactics of the Serbian teams not be allowed

Not many knew, only Position and Opposition

"Who benefitted by Milosevic dying without a conviction and who will benefit by Mladic never being convicted. Only Serbia and his group of nationalist followers.
Without a conviction of high ranking in the Milosevic regime, it will be difficult for anyone to collect claims against the state of Serbia. So should Mladic die and in the case of Milosevic, I would look to Serbian loyalists who visit first."
(a New Day, 30 May 2011 18:50)

Again this misconception: The ICTY is not prosecuting a state or a nation, it tries to convince individuals who commited war crimes - nothing more, nothing less. So the Serbian state won't gain anything. But I agree, for the Serbian nationalists who like to choose criminals as their 'heroes' (obviously a typical pattern in the Balkans (Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia) would be the best if Mladic dies after 5 years in The Hague (with the usual delaying tactics used by the accuses): They can claim that he was innocent, a hero, and was killed by the NATO court and similar nonsense.

I (Basil Henry, 30 May 2011 17:25)

I watched those events very closely and at first it was actually 5000; the exact number of Bosnian regular troops stationed in the region. However, these troops were allowed an escape route over the Drina River and into Serbia where they surrendered their weapons and taken by bus to Belgrade airport and moved by western transport to the US, UK, Canada, EU countries and even as far as Adelaide, Brisbane and Hobart in Australia. I watched those men interviewed on Australian TV and their answers were never translated correctly but ignored with the usual ranting about Serbs being evil aired on the news programs. The Bosnians told the truth about what happened to them and that was much to their credit.

Then when the western powers realised that 5000 was the wrong number it went up to 10000 with the final figure being 8000. The facts are simple; about 3000 of the names in Potocari are people still alive; the others were combatants that fell in battles around Tusla and the last Sarajevo offensive where the Bosnians lost about 3000. There are also names on that monument that were killed during the Bosnian and Croat lovers tiff.

Even the Bosnian police chief from Srebrenica during the war has disclaimed the so called massacre, but hey why ruin a good story.



If you are to blind to see the truth, it is very hard for you to digest any info as you are asking.The figure may be wrong + or - few inocent people, but the figure is still the same. Where were you when the whole world was watching when 8000 innocent people of all ages just vanished???
(Agim Kelmendi, 30 May 2011 18:22)

Yes just like the 10,000 Albanians killed in Kosovo by NATO bombing and the Albanians blamed Milosevic. Little wonder that the west thinks your people are expendable.

(1) "To the best of my knowledge less than 3,000 bodies were discovered and that includes all combatants but not those assassinated by Nasir Oric's gangs who were operating in the area up to July 1995. I may be wrong but can one be indicted for a crime involviong 8,000 dead when all sources indicate the figure is wrong? Please inform me."
(Basil Henry, 30 May 2011 17:25)

(2) "Funny how nobody ever cares to mention of the terror that the Serbs endured under Naser Oric in the years before hand, ah well, I guess thats the Western media picking and choosing what to report to serve their own government's actions."
(..., 30 May 2011 18:48)


Two examples of Serbian (or pro-Serbian) nationalist views commonly aired on B92 that will probably never die entirely, but perhaps are on the wane. And while I don't subscribe to them at all, I suppose I can imagine how they exist.

For how long have the flames of nationalism burned in the Balkans? How many generations of Serbs, Croats, Muslims, Albanians, etc been taught to hate their ancient enemies?

And how often have they been permitted to listen to opposing views in the local media? How possible has it been for them to check the facts in the stories they've heard? And what has happened to some of the unfortunate souls who've challenged the official story?

Turning to the comments cited above, let us first take the case of Naser Oric. Horrible Muslim warlord of eastern BiH in the early 90s? Perhaps. But to what atrocities might he have been responding? If we were to analyze events from April to October 1992 across BiH and tally up crimes against civilians, which side would come out on top, do you think?

I can assure you that Muslims, Croats and Serbs would have trouble finding much agreement on this question, but taking into consideration towns beyond Srebrenica -- Bijeljina, Vlasenica, Foca, Rogatica, Zvornik, Bratunac, Jajce, Mostar, Brcko, Sarajevo -- who was doing what in those areas? How many Muslim victims? How many Croat? How many Serb?

If so many Serbs were victims at the hands of Oric, then how was it that Serbs took over 65-70% of BiH in the first few months of the war? And why just mention Oric? What about all the Serb paramilitaries?

The other comment quoted above suggests that less than 3,000 bodies have been discovered in the aftermath of the 1995 Serb massacre of Srebrenica, but I'm quite certain that at last check, Western sources such as the BBC put the number at over 6,000 and counting. Exhumation takes time as most/all corpses were moved to secondary mass graves and to cover up the crime, and removal of bodies without destroying evidence is a delicate process.

Serb nationalists and their sympathizers would naturally seek to minimize the number of victims and claim that the story of Srebrenica is largely a fiction, an attempt to demonize Serbs, but why should they be believed?

Serbs nationalists would answer that there existed a Western campaign to destroy them, on the one hand through a biased, Western-controlled UN tribunal at the Hague, on the other through unlawful military intervention on the part of NATO and other Western forces in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo.

OK, there's that view -- and by the way, I've yet to hear a plausible reason as to why such a campaign might exist -- but what about the possibility that Milosevic actually did seek to build a Greater Serbia and simply miscalculated the Western response?

Consider the tone set -- and later maintained -- by Milosevic-backed Serbian forces in Croatia and Bosnia early on in the 90s conflicts. How many Croats were booted from the Slavonijas and Krajina? Look at the Croatian towns pulverized by the JNA. Look at the Serbian siege of Sarajevo and other towns (Bihac, Srebrenica, Zepa, etc), and at the horrific crimes committed against non-Serbs across BiH.

True, horrific crimes were committed against Serbs, and Muslims and Croats went on to commit crimes against each other, but look at those first six months of the war in BiH, when Serbs made huge territorial gains and Muslims and Croats were still in a shaky alliance.

And then the crimes just kept happening. Sarajevo remainded under siege for the duration, and Srebrenica was massacred by Mladic just a few months before the war ended in 1995.

So yes, war in the Balkans spiraled out of control and became one atrocious free-for-all, but look at the big picture. Look what happened early on, look at the side that possessed an overwhelming military advantage at the start, and look at the battlefield gains resulting from that advantage. Don't just look at the Mladic v. Oric debate in Srebrenica, or at Operations Flash and Storm in Croatia.

I'm not saying the Western response was just, but clearly, very little in the world ever is. And people in the Balkans can complain about Western involvement in their wars but large streams of refugees to Western countries and images of war crimes on European soil not seen since WWII put enormous pressure on the governments of the US, UK, France, Germany and so on.

Attempts by Western governments to mediate peace negotiations repeatedly failed and pressure for military intervention slowly mounted over time. One politican in particular (Clinton) needed a foreign policy victory in the mid 90s and so military options were ultimately exercised. The object was to end the fighting and to create a long-term military balance in the region. For that balance to be achieved, Croatian and Muslim forces would need to be beefed up while Serbian forces in BiH and Croatia to some extent neutralized. We all know the results, and however imperfect they might have been, recall who chose war at that start.

Kosovo was, admittedly, a somewhat different case but there appeared to be parallels. I certainly think that fewer crimes were committed there by Serbian forces than in BiH, but there can be little doubt that crimes were committed. And while Albanians no doubt committed crimes of their own, it isn't so hard to see which side would be branded the villain in the conflict. Milosevic had stripped away the Albanians' autonomy nearly a decade before and stories of Serbian oppression followed. Serbs had already come to be considered belligerent aggressors in their earlier wars in Croatia and BiH and done nothing to shake off that yoke -- even after Milosevic's role at Dayton. Military intervention had, at least in the eyes of the West, proved useful in bringing those conflicts to an end and was therefore deemed a reasonable solution for Kosovo.

All of this, of course, ended rather badly for nationalist Serbs, but rather than admitting their past policy failures and working toward a better future, they choose to dwell on what went wrong and blame others. They regularly omit very important elements of 90s Balkan historical record and twist those parts of the story they choose to address. This isn't to say that NATO, the ICTY, Clinton, Blair, etc aren't above criticism, but they didn't start these wars. Their soldiers wern't the ones raping Muslim women at Grbavica. Their soldiers weren't mowing down 7-8,000 unarmed Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica. They weren't the ones directing the moves of Radovan Karadzic and Milan Babic.

(Nenad, 31 May 2011 02:33)

I was waiting for someone like you to rear his head above the trenches - perfect example of a converted westerner; deluded to the max. It’s always the ones that are never at “the broken end of the bottle” that can deliver home spun philosophy of “admitting their past policy failures and working toward a better future”.
Raping women eh? Well your western buddies tried that recently with Gadaffi – perhaps you recall that woman bursting in at a media session with the Libyan spokesperson and foreign press. Yes mate, she was paid to do just that – I thought it was 1994 all over again. My favorite story from 1994 on this subject comes at about June of that year. The Bosniaks were going to announce a young woman was about to deliver a baby in the Swiss capital conceived as a result of rape by Serb soldiers. Yes, she gave birth but the child was BLACK.
Stick to writing policy documents for western governments; you’re bad at pointing out other people’s shortcomings especially as you have learnt your past from CNN et al.

SJ - There you go again, telling me where I get my information. Like you'd have any idea.

More importantly, can you tell us which Serbs have corroborated your version of events at trial -- or anywhere else, for that matter? I've just done a search and turned up nothing, but maybe one needs to spend some time on that.

Just interesting that I don't ever recall hearing anyone like Milosevic, Karadzic, Krajisnik or Krstic make this claim about Muslim prisoners being evacuated to Belgrade to be flown off to Western countries. Maybe you direct the defense of Serbs on trial to the Australian media in an effort to vindicate the many who've taken the fall for this elaborate hoax you claim.

Well, SJ, I did some additional digging and there is at least one site out there which, to some degree, supports your claims about what really happened at Srebrenica:

http://srpska-mreza.com/Bosnia/Srebrenica/hiding-survivors.html

This and a couple other sites I reviewed were rather interesting, so in all honesty, you do have a point. However, just as you would presumably view information from a Western source with considerable suspicion, I would handle the assertions made on this site with a good deal of caution. Perhaps there is more work to be done on the investigative front.

Your challenge to the official version of events at Srebrenica doesn't go far enough to force me to rethink the overall character of the 90s conflicts, though. The truth is, whatever impression I may give in my comments, I've never viewed the wars in terms of black and white, and I've never been entirely trusting of Western media. I suspect that a lot of sensationalism and distortion have taken place, and that a number of heinous crimes against Serbs have been minimized/overlooked.

However, when viewing everything on the whole, I still think that many Serb politicians and military officers belong behind bars and that Mladic is one of them. Maybe they got things wrong at Srebrenica but what about Sarajevo?

And I think a lot of Croats, Muslims and Albanians belong behind bars, too, and it's a shame that only a few of them have gotten there.

Finally, I don't know about most Westerners, but there are plenty of Americans who don't get their news from CNN and Fox. These are but two outlets here and both get plent of derision. I, for one, am no big fan of either.

Again this misconception: The ICTY is not prosecuting a state or a nation, it tries to convince individuals who commited war crimes - nothing more, nothing less. So the Serbian state won't gain anything. But I agree, for the Serbian nationalists who like to choose criminals as their 'heroes' (obviously a typical pattern in the Balkans (Serbia, Kosovo, Croatia) would be the best if Mladic dies after 5 years in The Hague (with the usual delaying tactics used by the accuses): They can claim that he was innocent, a hero, and was killed by the NATO court and similar nonsense.
(Top, 30 May 2011 22:01)
Did not mean a literal conviction of the state but with convictions of lower ranking individuals then Serbia can claim the actions were those of rogue personnel not state actions. But the convictions of high ranking officials and especially "the leader" as in Milosevic would mean it was state sanctioned and it would be easier for other courts to assign blame to Serbia and order restitution.
Remember Mladic is not charged with the actual crimes, but in giving the orders for his soldiers to commit the crimes in the name of Serbia. He may not have ever shot an individual personally.
But you are true in that technically the ICTY does not charge the state or nation. But the conviction of Mladic or a conviction of Milosevic would have been perceived as a conviction of Serbia.

Baz,

You are right.

No 8,000. There are still thousands missing so the ICTY 'extrapolated' the numbers and mixed them all up.

The media, uses 'men and boys' to avoid saying 'soldiers', 'civilians', 'women' and 'children'. The vast majority of those 'killed', executed, ambushed etc. were listed as soldiers of the Army of Bosna i Herzegovina even though this has actually been reported in serbo-croat media.

Also the ICTY's actual words on Srebrenica is an "act of genocide", but as you may have noticed, this has become "genocide" by the illiterati. What's the difference in a few words? An "act of genocide" is the politically correct term for, 'the bar for genocide in international law according to definition and precedence is far too high so the ICTY created a new term and definition so that it does not have to drop charges of 'genocide' in all of its indictments due to to ridiculous nature of the charge'.

Any proper internet search on the subject of genocide vis-a-vis srebrenica that is not via jaundiced blogs or blogs and NGO's sponsored by Sorros will tell you that international lawyers are 'divided' over whether it is. If it is, it is quite easy to argue that 'genocide' has happened very often and by just about anyone who has been involved in conflict.

But I suspect you already had an inkling of the above. Too much has been invested in black propaganda against the serbs over the years for the loudest and most partial proponents to admit it is bs, so they instead keep quiet. ICTY transcripts and the rulings are black and white evidence that the charge is politically motivated bs and will go down in history as such.

You know what makes me laugh? Moslems are so desperate to have their own 'genocide' that they will go for anything because they think they will get the same benefits as the jews. Chalk and cheese, mate, chalk and cheese.

"More importantly, can you tell us which Serbs have corroborated your version of events at trial -- or anywhere else, for that matter? I've just done a search and turned up nothing, but maybe one needs to spend some time on that. "
(Nenad, 31 May 2011 12:23)

Follow some links provided by Zoran. The GlobalResearch centre in Canada is a good example (it has many articles about the HAARP project (another conspiracy theory), too). But I don't see any reason why someone should believe 'their version' more than the general version. It's like with all conspiracy theories: You collect fact that support this theory, and you ignore all other facts that could prove your theory wrong. Some people even nowadays believe that the moon landing was a hoax. So everyone has it's own truth. But as I said: If you drive on a highway lane and there are 100s of cars coming from the other direction, you should start to wonder if it's you who is on the wrong lane or all the others.

(Nenad, 1 June 2011 16:44)

The Tribunal is nothing but a show trial because evidence in your Courts demand that they pass a certain level rigor – hear say and rumor are inadmissible, but they are admissible in the Tribunal. The evidence gathered against Mladic would have been thrown out of your Courts, that’s the difference. Here is something new, how about introducing similar standards to the Tribunal as you have in the US.
The Tribunal was set up by a highly respected Australian jurist, Sir Ninian Stephen, who spent about 12 months on the job until he discovered that it was a show trial process and he abruptly left. To this day this man will not even admit he was involved in the Tribunal. The judiciary on the Tribunal are international rejects, who have no chance of progressing past their existing position. It’s a free for all; everything is accepted.
Back to Srebrenica, at the Potocari monument of the so called 8000 killed there are about 3000 names on it, but these people are still alive today. Then there are names of combatants that were killed in operations well away from Srebrenica. Yes there were people executed and from what I have heard it ranges from 300 to 400, but these were members of Oric’s paramilitary units that did some horrible things against the Serbs around Srebrenica, but maybe this does not count to freedom loving Americans.
Why did Mladic put all the Srebrenica women and children on buses and they all arrived safe in Sarajevo? If he was this monster why not kill them all????? I have children that are lawyers and one actually lectures in law and she and her colleagues at the University consider the Tribunal a joke.
“It's off-topic, but many Americans don't support our military actions in Libya, many were never for the Iraq war, many hate George W. Bush, and many feel that the war in Afghanistan has been grossly mismanaged”
Yes it’s all there but you have to look for it and that is the problem with Americans like you; you cannot openly say “we are WRONG” because it’s the great work of the US “free press” brainwashing to ensure that the people do not criticize the actions of its government”.
If Mladic is guilty, then how about your generals that killed 200 000 Iraqis being arrested and put before a Tribunal? When I hear these words from your mouth then I’ll take you more seriously.

(Nenad, 31 May 2011 12:23)


The big difference with me is that I was not born in Serbia nor have I lived there nor have I lived in the US or Europe. I was never interested in the Balkans until the wars of the 1990s and with the type of work that I do I had an opportunity to meet some very interesting people who were well versed in the tactics used by the west – in fact two were Americans and they were still employed in the trade at that stage.

The first man to be placed on trial at the Hague was naturally a Serb charged with crimes against humanity. During the trail the defence attorney discovered that the main witness for the prosecution, who claimed to have seen all the crimes committed, was never even at the so called concentration camp in question. Under rigorous cross examination this guy admitted that he was actually PAID by the Bosniaks to testify against the Serb – let me repeat it again; he was PAID to testify.

There were two other witnesses; both ladies never saw the Serb “commit crimes”, but they heard about it 3rd and 4th hand. The main witness was released without penalty and the Serb got 15 years. Tell me what would have happened if this was sent to trial in the local court in the US or UK? I have two lawyers in my house and they laugh when I mention the Hague.

Then about 6 years ago another Serb was placed on trial in Sarajevo for “murdering two Bosniak brothers”. Once again half way through the trail the two brothers came back from Sweden (where they were accepted as refugees during the war) and saw the circus in the papers and being decent people went to the authorities and the accused was released – I bet you never read about that in your newspapers either. A “free press” is a wonderful thing in theory.

I could write a book on the many other examples – do you recall that famous picture behind “barbered wires” that resembled a concentration camp prisoner – this man was part of a group waiting to be transported out and he is still alive today. Has your media corrected this mistake? No it has not. Even the journalist who filmed that piece tried to correct the stories being published – no success; what a surprise.

Why do you think the US is attacking Libya? According to your papers “its to liberate a freedom loving peoples that want to through off the shackles of oppression and bring democracy to Libya”. Not true, the US wants to free up the Libyan oil fields. Just like it tried in Iraq.

If you still don’t get it; read up on the show trials of the late 1920s and 30s held by Stalin in the Soviet Union and then you might just get the picture why no self respecting person takes the Hague Court seriously except for what it is – a show trial.

The Serbs committed the worst crime and that was making the US look like the fools they really are. For several years the US (only superpower left in the world) look impotent as the wars in the Balkans raged.

Perhaps you might also ask for the imprisonment of Blair and Bush for their involvement in killing 200 000 Iraqis during the second invasion – or maybe they killed for democracy and freedom.

.

SJ,

I have remarked very blatantly on many occasions that I consider a number of individuals from the Bush years to be war criminals and would like nothing more than to see them go to jail for the rest of their miserable lives. And like Milosevic stole from many Serbs, Bush essentially stole from most Americans by enacting huge tax cuts and then spending trillions on wars and other things that were never funded. I don't get into these matters with you because they aren't relevant to the original story.

I have no idea what gives you the impression that I am brainwashed by American media. Believe me, there are plenty of journalists/commentators in this country who make a living hitting hard against our government and they have large audiences. Like I said yesterday, the politicians don't want to listen to the complaints of the American people -- they're much more interested in catering to the lobbyists. Half of them don't even appear to be educated people, speaking openly of their rejection of the theory of evolution, global warming, or the idea that increasing taxes on corporations and individuals is necessary in the effort to resolve our huge fiscal problems.

I will finish by urging you to ask someone among your legal connections to alert the Chinese, Russians -- any ally of Serbia with international prestige and influence -- to your concerns over both the tally at Srebrenica and the injustices of the ICTY. It certainly seems as though no one is really disputing the former these days -- the Serbian government itself recently issued an apology to Bosnia for the crimes committed there.

"the best of my knowledge less than 3,000 bodies were discovered"

The best of your knowledge is wrong.

ICMP has, for the last decade, exhumed and identified ~6100 bodied and exhumed and identified as an individual body, but not attached a name, an additional 2000

SJ,

As a matter of fact, the ICTY flaws you mention did make the news here, and incidentally, I was just reviewing the Dusan Tadic case yesterday.

Did CNN or Fox mention these stories? Perhaps not, but there are actually American new organizations (National Public Radio comes to mind) that have covered these events and others you mention, such as the NATO bombing in Libya.

It's off-topic, but many Americans don't support our military actions in Libya, many were never for the Iraq war, many hate George W. Bush, and many feel that the war in Afghanistan has been grossly mismanaged.

As a fairly liberal registered Democrat, I never voted for Bush and was outraged at his election. I never believed that we belonged in Iraq and when Bush led us there I immediately lost what little confidence I had in his ability to succeed against Al Quaeda and their allies in Afghanistan or anywhere else. A lot of people in America felt the same way but the average voter has such limited influence over the way politicians legislate that you'd probably need an all-out revolution here to fix all the problems. Corporations rule, and for a variety of reasons, Americans have yet to take to the streets (unless you count the Tea Party, who seem to be rallying for all the wrong reasons).

But back to the revelant story, where would you propose Mladic and others be tried? Are you familiar with the legal systems in places like Serbia and Bosnia? Ask your lawyer friends about those.

And do you seriously expect the ICTY to be perfect? Look at any legal system anywhere in the world and I guarantee you'll find glaring flaws. Lack of oversight, lack of funding, conflict of interest, cultural bias...these problems exist everywhere. Also, bear in mind that the ICTY only opened in 1993 and has always been faced with time and budget constraints.

Anyway, I've spent way too much time on this. I've noted your point about the numbers at Srebrenica...and very little else.

When Balkan people stop this "an eye for an eye" mentality, only then will there be peace and prosperity in the land of the former Yugoslavia.