Muslim associations call for Hague judge exemption

There is no evidence that 8,000 Moslems were killed in and around Srebrenica.

Fewer than 3,000 bodies have been found over the past 16 years despite hundreds of millions of Euros being spent on the search for “victims.”

The identities of 95% of the bodies recovered have not been found despite advances in DNA testing. It is not difficult to take DNA from human remains and to match them with living relatives; this is routine in police forces around the world. This has not been done for the “victims” of Srebrenica. Why not? I suspect that many of the 3,000 remains found are those of Serbians murdered by Austrians during WW1 or by Nazis during WW2 or by Moslems between 1992-95.

It is known that about 15,000 armed Moslems soldiers marched out of Srebrenica and broke through Serbian defensive positions on their way to the Moslem stronghold of Tuzla. During this Moslems breakout over 600 Serbian soldiers were killed. They were out-numbered and over-run by a much larger force of Moslem soldiers.

Serbian forces lucky enough to avoid this Moslem military column head-on attacked it from the sides and rear. Serbian heavy guns hit the column many times along its route to Tuzla. Perhaps as many as 2,000 Moslems were killed in this exchange. These were armed Moslem soldiers involved in a military conflict; their deaths were part of normal warfare and can not be considered a war crime. Most of the Moslems killed in the column will have been hit by artillery which will mean that it is unlikely that their remains will ever be found.

There are stories about a mysterious Serbian military unit called the 10th Sabotage Unit. This was a mercentary unit that was composed entirely of Moslems, Croats and Slovenes – the only Serbs involved in this Unit were some drivers and cooks.

The 10th Sabotage Unit were also all ex-French Foregin Legion and held French passports.

It has been argued by the Prosecutor at The Hague that the 10th Sabotage Unit murdered 1,200 Moslem prisoners following the Moslem abandonement of Srebrenica. The confession of the Croat, Drazen Erdemovic, that he and other members of the 10th Sabotage Unit murdered Moslem prisoners is the only “evidence” of any war crime in and around Srebrenica.

Once we understand the true role and allegiences of the 10th Sabotage Units we will be much closer to understand what happened in Srebrenica.

Reports said that "in a statement for the German daily Spiegel, Flugge said that only the Holocaust can be referred to as genocide and that the term should be replaced in all other cases by the phrase 'mass murder'."
--
It was a massacre, not genocide. If we are going to water down the term then soon I expect pest-control workers to be committing genocide on a daily basis.

Tell me, what plan of genocide offers women and children safe passage? The Croatian offensives in Krajina didn't distinguish between men, women and children as all were massacred so why isn't that Genocide? In fact, it is closer to genocide than what occurred in Srebenica.

Diana Johnstone nicely describes how genocide became used to describe the massacre in Srebrenica here -> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1107
--
In August 2001 the Tribunal found Bosnian Serb General Radislav Krstic guilty of "complicity in genocide". Although he neither ordered, participated in or was even aware of any executions, the judges ruled that he took part in what the ICTY calls a "joint criminal enterprise" simply by capturing Srebrenica, since he must have been aware that genocide was "a natural and foreseeable consequence". This is the ruling that established "genocide" as the official description of events at Srebrenica.

Why such relentless determination to establish Srebrenica as "genocide"? A December 27, 2003, Associated Press dispatch provided an explanation by U.S. jurist Michael Scharf, one of the designers of the ICTY who has also coached the judges for the trial of Saddam Hussein: On a practical level, if the court determines Srebrenica does not fit the legal definition of genocide, it would be very difficult to make the charge stick against Milosevic, said Michael Scharf, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

"And it is crucial that he be convicted of genocide," Scharf said. If Milosevic can't be convicted, "then who can you convict of genocide in the modern age?" he asked.
--
Jews, Serbians, Romas, Armenians and other people who suffered true genocide should be offended by this redefined term to fit political objectives.

You can decide yourself it if fits. Srebrenica surely was a mass killing of members of an ethnical(or religous?) group. The only question can be if there was the 'intent'. But where's the difference if Mladic commited genocide or 'only' mass murder in about 8000 cases? Doesn't make it any better.
(Top, 31 May 2011 12:14)
Very true, I would have to go with the phrase of mass murder due to fact that in order to prove genocide you would need several cases of mass murder to prove intent to wipe out a population. ie. a campaign of going village to village and creating mass murder would show the intent of genocide.
Also I do not think the judge has illustrated that he believes mass murder is a lesser crime on a difference in terminology.

To those deniers who keep saying "only" 3000 bodies have been recovered, I am speechless that anyone could use that response as a defense.

To forestall allegations by either side of judicial partiality, the judges should all come from outside Europe, North America and Moslem countries. Maybe the 3 judges appointed can hail from Black Africa, the Orient and Latin American. Just a suggestion.

..."if there was the intent"....what a world we live in if we need to go to trial to prove that.

on a seperate but very related note i just wish to express my opinion here. we all know what's going to happen with mladic, the defence will use every trick in the book to extend the trial as long as possible, just like karadzic, seselj etc.. and let's face it, with all this talk that mladic is already "half dead" he will eventually die or be poisoned at the hague before a verdict can be reached. mladic will long live in the memory of fascists as a hero whilst the mothers of srebrenica will continue to suffer, this will close the book on the war, will simply put a lid on the boiling kettle. the cycle of war in balkan will continue.
shame.

"By saying that the use of the term 'genocide' in defining the Srebrenica crime is unnecessary and that the term 'mass murder' should be used instead, judge Flugge demonstrated that he is prone to prejudice," the Bosniak associations said in the letter addressed to Robinson

All a matter of definition. The UN definition is: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

You can decide yourself it if fits. Srebrenica surely was a mass killing of members of an ethnical(or religous?) group. The only question can be if there was the 'intent'. But where's the difference if Mladic commited genocide or 'only' mass murder in about 8000 cases? Doesn't make it any better.

"I guess we need to bring those lost tribes in the Amazon out in public to conduct a trial.
(too funny, 31 May 2011 18:48)"

Well, as far as the criterion of impartiality is concerned, I will more readily trust "those lost tribes" anytime than, say, those so-called sophisticated Yankees and their stooges.

To forestall allegations by either side of judicial partiality, the judges should all come from outside Europe, North America and Moslem countries. Maybe the 3 judges appointed can hail from Black Africa, the Orient and Latin American. Just a suggestion.
(lowe, 31 May 2011 16:09)
Very good idea, all judges should not come from countries that have aligned with Europe, US, Russia, Serbia, They cannot be Muslim, or Christian, especially not Orthodox.

I guess we need to bring those lost tribes in the Amazon out in public to conduct a trial.

"Very true, I would have to go with the phrase of mass murder due to fact that in order to prove genocide you would need several cases of mass murder to prove intent to wipe out a population. ie. a campaign of going village to village and creating mass murder would show the intent of genocide. "
(pss, 31 May 2011 14:23)

I agree, too. Though, in case of Bosnia, Srebrenica was not a singular case. You could name other examples of 'ethnic cleansing' of villages and towns that happened before. Furthermore, the UN definition explicitly says 'whole or in parts'. Some idiot could argue that the holocaust wasn't a genocide because the majority of Jews (around the world) survived.

There is no evidence that 8,000 Moslems were killed in and around Srebrenica.

Fewer than 3,000 bodies have been found over the past 16 years despite hundreds of millions of Euros being spent on the search for “victims.”

The identities of 95% of the bodies recovered have not been found despite advances in DNA testing. It is not difficult to take DNA from human remains and to match them with living relatives; this is routine in police forces around the world. This has not been done for the “victims” of Srebrenica. Why not? I suspect that many of the 3,000 remains found are those of Serbians murdered by Austrians during WW1 or by Nazis during WW2 or by Moslems between 1992-95.

It is known that about 15,000 armed Moslems soldiers marched out of Srebrenica and broke through Serbian defensive positions on their way to the Moslem stronghold of Tuzla. During this Moslems breakout over 600 Serbian soldiers were killed. They were out-numbered and over-run by a much larger force of Moslem soldiers.

Serbian forces lucky enough to avoid this Moslem military column head-on attacked it from the sides and rear. Serbian heavy guns hit the column many times along its route to Tuzla. Perhaps as many as 2,000 Moslems were killed in this exchange. These were armed Moslem soldiers involved in a military conflict; their deaths were part of normal warfare and can not be considered a war crime. Most of the Moslems killed in the column will have been hit by artillery which will mean that it is unlikely that their remains will ever be found.

There are stories about a mysterious Serbian military unit called the 10th Sabotage Unit. This was a mercentary unit that was composed entirely of Moslems, Croats and Slovenes – the only Serbs involved in this Unit were some drivers and cooks.

The 10th Sabotage Unit were also all ex-French Foregin Legion and held French passports.

It has been argued by the Prosecutor at The Hague that the 10th Sabotage Unit murdered 1,200 Moslem prisoners following the Moslem abandonement of Srebrenica. The confession of the Croat, Drazen Erdemovic, that he and other members of the 10th Sabotage Unit murdered Moslem prisoners is the only “evidence” of any war crime in and around Srebrenica.

Once we understand the true role and allegiences of the 10th Sabotage Units we will be much closer to understand what happened in Srebrenica.

You can decide yourself it if fits. Srebrenica surely was a mass killing of members of an ethnical(or religous?) group. The only question can be if there was the 'intent'. But where's the difference if Mladic commited genocide or 'only' mass murder in about 8000 cases? Doesn't make it any better.
(Top, 31 May 2011 12:14)
Very true, I would have to go with the phrase of mass murder due to fact that in order to prove genocide you would need several cases of mass murder to prove intent to wipe out a population. ie. a campaign of going village to village and creating mass murder would show the intent of genocide.
Also I do not think the judge has illustrated that he believes mass murder is a lesser crime on a difference in terminology.

To those deniers who keep saying "only" 3000 bodies have been recovered, I am speechless that anyone could use that response as a defense.

"By saying that the use of the term 'genocide' in defining the Srebrenica crime is unnecessary and that the term 'mass murder' should be used instead, judge Flugge demonstrated that he is prone to prejudice," the Bosniak associations said in the letter addressed to Robinson

All a matter of definition. The UN definition is: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

You can decide yourself it if fits. Srebrenica surely was a mass killing of members of an ethnical(or religous?) group. The only question can be if there was the 'intent'. But where's the difference if Mladic commited genocide or 'only' mass murder in about 8000 cases? Doesn't make it any better.

Reports said that "in a statement for the German daily Spiegel, Flugge said that only the Holocaust can be referred to as genocide and that the term should be replaced in all other cases by the phrase 'mass murder'."
--
It was a massacre, not genocide. If we are going to water down the term then soon I expect pest-control workers to be committing genocide on a daily basis.

Tell me, what plan of genocide offers women and children safe passage? The Croatian offensives in Krajina didn't distinguish between men, women and children as all were massacred so why isn't that Genocide? In fact, it is closer to genocide than what occurred in Srebenica.

Diana Johnstone nicely describes how genocide became used to describe the massacre in Srebrenica here -> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1107
--
In August 2001 the Tribunal found Bosnian Serb General Radislav Krstic guilty of "complicity in genocide". Although he neither ordered, participated in or was even aware of any executions, the judges ruled that he took part in what the ICTY calls a "joint criminal enterprise" simply by capturing Srebrenica, since he must have been aware that genocide was "a natural and foreseeable consequence". This is the ruling that established "genocide" as the official description of events at Srebrenica.

Why such relentless determination to establish Srebrenica as "genocide"? A December 27, 2003, Associated Press dispatch provided an explanation by U.S. jurist Michael Scharf, one of the designers of the ICTY who has also coached the judges for the trial of Saddam Hussein: On a practical level, if the court determines Srebrenica does not fit the legal definition of genocide, it would be very difficult to make the charge stick against Milosevic, said Michael Scharf, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

"And it is crucial that he be convicted of genocide," Scharf said. If Milosevic can't be convicted, "then who can you convict of genocide in the modern age?" he asked.
--
Jews, Serbians, Romas, Armenians and other people who suffered true genocide should be offended by this redefined term to fit political objectives.

..."if there was the intent"....what a world we live in if we need to go to trial to prove that.

on a seperate but very related note i just wish to express my opinion here. we all know what's going to happen with mladic, the defence will use every trick in the book to extend the trial as long as possible, just like karadzic, seselj etc.. and let's face it, with all this talk that mladic is already "half dead" he will eventually die or be poisoned at the hague before a verdict can be reached. mladic will long live in the memory of fascists as a hero whilst the mothers of srebrenica will continue to suffer, this will close the book on the war, will simply put a lid on the boiling kettle. the cycle of war in balkan will continue.
shame.

To forestall allegations by either side of judicial partiality, the judges should all come from outside Europe, North America and Moslem countries. Maybe the 3 judges appointed can hail from Black Africa, the Orient and Latin American. Just a suggestion.

"Very true, I would have to go with the phrase of mass murder due to fact that in order to prove genocide you would need several cases of mass murder to prove intent to wipe out a population. ie. a campaign of going village to village and creating mass murder would show the intent of genocide. "
(pss, 31 May 2011 14:23)

I agree, too. Though, in case of Bosnia, Srebrenica was not a singular case. You could name other examples of 'ethnic cleansing' of villages and towns that happened before. Furthermore, the UN definition explicitly says 'whole or in parts'. Some idiot could argue that the holocaust wasn't a genocide because the majority of Jews (around the world) survived.

"I guess we need to bring those lost tribes in the Amazon out in public to conduct a trial.
(too funny, 31 May 2011 18:48)"

Well, as far as the criterion of impartiality is concerned, I will more readily trust "those lost tribes" anytime than, say, those so-called sophisticated Yankees and their stooges.

To forestall allegations by either side of judicial partiality, the judges should all come from outside Europe, North America and Moslem countries. Maybe the 3 judges appointed can hail from Black Africa, the Orient and Latin American. Just a suggestion.
(lowe, 31 May 2011 16:09)
Very good idea, all judges should not come from countries that have aligned with Europe, US, Russia, Serbia, They cannot be Muslim, or Christian, especially not Orthodox.

I guess we need to bring those lost tribes in the Amazon out in public to conduct a trial.