Ex-RS president: There was no genocide in Bosnia

Was there are war in Bosnia? Yes; was it a civil war and all the horror that entails such a conflict? Yes. The west wants to recreate something like after WW2 in Germany and while the Germans did commit genocide The war was ugly brutal and vicious and many people were killed and some in terrible ways, but there was no genocide because genocide means you leave none alive.
No western run/dominated tribunal can make it so either because you only have to compare what happened during WW2 or Rwanda to see the truth. I have studied history at length on a tertiary level and in all the genocidal wars I have never read one instant where genocide was committed but the old people, women or children were spared like in Srebrenica.
Let me repeat that again – genocide means that you learn none alive.
“The former RS president pointed out that “around 70 percent of Tutsi were killed in Rwanda and around 50 percent of Jews during WWII in Europe”. “ Judge O-Gon Kwon said that the question was not relevant….”.
Naturally it’s irrelevant as it put hole the size of the moon through the prosecution’s case. You can have that pointed out, how else can you claim that Srebrenica was “genocide”. But considering the quality of the people who sit on the judiciary and the fact most take bribes at home or are the scrapings of the bottom of the legal fraternity what else can you expect from the buffoons. They are not even capable of trying to cover up their biased.

..yeh and the sky isn't blue!
(Ian, UK, 3 May 2012 10:53)
----------------------------

OK Ian, can you give us the meaning of genocide?
Then can you tell us who was killed and who was allowed to leave Srebrenica?
Please be sure to answer both questions and don't try to sidetrack.

I believe the "intent" of war is to inflict as much damage to the other side as possible. Ex: Croatian operation storm, US lead wars for the last 3 plus decades.

why was he hiding all this time if he thinks that he committed no crime?

R.I.P all the innocent people that lost their lives in that war, no matter where they were born or were called.
(ilir, 3 May 2012 13:49)

They had nothing on Milosevic but he is dead. Seselj turned himself in, look where he is now. Why would he think he would be treated any different in this kangaroo court? I'm not defending him or saying he is guilty or innocent, just answering your question.

He's right, there was no attempt to exterminate a group of people like there was in Germany or Rwanda. However, there is a forced story line that must be held up and that cannot be challenged. That's weak cognition and in complete contrast to facts. Apparently for the genocide supporters, facts get in the way of reality:-)

NOT GUILTY.

Thankfully, the number of deaths (whatever the real figure) was nowhere near the million plus killed in Rwanda but that does not make the crimes any less abhorent.
(ned taylor, 3 May 2012 12:22)
Whether he said that Serbs should not mix with the Bosniaks for fear of contamination is neither here nor there, but what is factual is the Bosnaiks fired the first shot in that civil war and not the Serbs.

So it's not about the numbers, but the intent.
(Comm. Parrisson, 3 May 2012 12:02)
So the US can cause over 200 000 deaths in Iraq, but that does not matter as it is not classified as either a crime nor genocide, but if the Serbs dare lift a finger then they are guilty. The fact that the Croats murdered and in some instances locked in cellars and burnt alive Muslims in central Bosnia, their crime is not genocide nor is it a crime at all because, as the west said after the war, ‘it was Milosevic’s fault” then they are fine and no problems.
The problem with intent is the person providing the definition of the word. As the say beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

So it's not about the numbers, but the intent.
(Comm. Parrisson, 3 May 2012 12:02)

The intent to destroy means the physical and biological destruction of the people. The Serbs had the ability and opportunity to destroy the whole population in Srebrenica but that intent clearly was not excercised. The intent was clearly targetted at military aged persons who many, before being overun, were committing attrocities against the surrounding Serb population.

Other factors to consider, the "Group" being Muslims were not viewed that way in Bosnia by RS forces, but, were seperated across Bosnia into political categories ie those Muslims with Fikret Abdic were veiwed as allies and were supported and protected by RS forces. Again intent was not targetted against a national, ethnic, racial or religious group but a specific part of a group that was veiwed as committing attrocities.

Those fighting men under the warlord Naser Oric committing atrocities were targetted for liquidation. This by and large was a military operation whose aim was to remove this threat.

It also has to be about the numbers otherwise we can deduce that even a multiple murder to destroy any ethnicity in a village can be open for interpretation as Genocide and thus the Genocide meaning becomes reduced. To quote: "When Raphael Lemkin coined the word genocide in 1944 he cited the 1915 annihilation of Armenians as a seminal example of genocide."

Srebrenica is only interpreted as a act of Genocide by ad hoc judiciaries and not by the International Criminal Court (which would apply a more consistent legal standard and interpretation of the convention).

“As you could read, it's about the intent. I never heard an US president talking about eliminating the Iraqi people and to take over Iraq, except for several singular atrocities, there was no systematic 'cleansing' of whole towns.”
In fact Hitler never issued an official instruction on the Holocaust but still people died. Please no semantics. US Presidents knew what was going on and just kept quiet. Why even Albright said it with a straight face that 500 000 deaths in Iraq due to sanctions was worth it.
What do you think happened recently in Afghbaistan with the so called rogue soldier killing 17 people? That guy was not alone and the President knows that but wants to hush it up because it might make life worse for the rest there. In fact parts of the northern region of Afghanistan were cleansed by NATO troops to stop Taliban raids, but I suppose US Presidents didn’t know about that either or is that OK because it was done by the “good guys”.
Also if I am not mistaken others died during the war in Bosnia not just the Bosniaks.

@new albo troll org

Your comments are continue to lack any sense or knowledge, and again you leave out details about albo killers still on the loose.

America doesn't rule any of the countries they were victorious against? They build bases all over the world..there are thousands of troops in Japan, and they're not they're to just eat sushi and fish. There are US troops in Germany, and they're not there eating schnitzels. Fact is of course they dont run the countries, but they sort of do. They are very influential in political/military decisions all the time. And they are keeping a close eye on everyone. That's why these bases are set up.

and again.. let's leave out Haradanj, ceku, and other albo killers on the loose. Who themselves killed and tortured numerous serbs, along with thaci. fact of the matter is..protected people remain protected. simple as that. the only justice is the one that will come from above, as He will deal with all of them.

and you i suggest start being realistic, a 5 year old has a better sense of the world around him/her

SJ,

Here's Albright (on YouTube):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=O94V6ziw7ZM

Comm. Parrisson,
The ICTY found no evidence of 'intent' as can be read in the transcripts and the ruling. It inferred 'intent' and redefined genocide to get its conviction. They were very convoluted about it.

Using their new definition, applied retrospectively, then genocide has happened thousands of times. That is unacceptable to the same people who demand that the bosnian serbs are guilty. Now who would like that? Well it is already happening as every group is claiming to be victims of genocide because that is what gets the media coverage.

In the last twenty years the relativization of the Holocaust and the crimes against jews goes hand in hand with this reinterpretation. Go to the baltics and ask them about genocide, they won't mention the jews because they equivocate the Holocaust with the Soviet occupation (have fun in the 'genocide museum' in Vilnius why don't you). Europe is undergoing unprecedented anti-semitism these last few year, from verbal to physical abuse even when they keep their heads down (as history has taught them). Authorities tell them to 'distance yourself from Israel'.

The EP is pushing for a single 'genocide day' to be made official that conveniently wraps everything together, nicely and politically correctly. In the UK, neither the armenians nor the serbs are welcome at their official genocide day, but representatives of the bosnian moslems are. Who here is playing with history? The growth of fascist europe.

As to the others, why do those who scream genocide in Bosnia (since 1992, but only found dodgily in an isolated case in 1995) deny that what the Ustasi regime did constitutes genocide? Not fashionable?

...yeh and the sky isn't blue!

Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki considered acts of genocide?
(mms, 3 May 2012 15:59)
--
The US of A is exempt from acts of genocide. Just ask our friend Comm. Parrison.

'Only' 50% of the Jews were killed in Holocaust? That cannot be a genocide, according to Karadzic who thinks genocide is defined by numbers and percentages.

The UN definition of genocide says (from Wikipedia):

Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "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."

So it's not about the numbers, but the intent.

It's an interesting argument to decide genocide purely on numbers.Most wars involve taking over an area. Some involve taking power and some involve taking power and removing a whole group of people.Does genocide mean killing them all or killing some and forcing the rest out?

I have much respect for the Afghan and Iraqi people!
Millions died in the wars from last 30 years in that region, but still they keep their heads up even with US occupation, and they have many children!
And Afghanistan/Iraq will both reach the 100 Million people mark in 2050.

About Karadzic, he will get justice and I hope he will be set free, or that Nato court has to pull a Milosevic poisoning trick...

For example in Iraq died 500.000 CHILDREN as a consequence of the NATO invasion! That's is genocide.

Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki considered acts of genocide?

The argument Karadžić is trying to make is that the relatively low amount of Muslims killed during 3 years of war is evidence that indicates there was no 'intent' to exterminate that populace. Which is actually a valid defense.

So based on your quota, there was still room to fill the quota and should have been done more killing.

It's a shame you don't feel no remorse even for the ones who got killed.

Oh yeah...Karadzic really is innocent. a pathetic man, who dressed like a new age healer to avoid justice. funny, once he's caught, suddenly he wants to reveal the truth! when he was dressed like Rasputin, he did not want to reveal the truth did he? a pathetic human being.

Nikolle- oh dear. Losing it, are we. The lies are unravelling, time is running out. Time for a pogrom or some other provocative action, n'est ce pas?

"Intent to completely or partially destroy an entire ethnic group". This is a definition of genocide and the key word here is 'intent'. The fact that a relatively small percentage of Bosniaks were killed compared to the numbers of the respective groups in Rwanda is irrelevant, the issue is one of intent. Only Radovan and his retinue know what their real intention was but as early as the late 1970s Karadzic was warning Sarajevo Serbs not to mix with their muslim neighbours for fear of 'contamination'.

Thankfully, the number of deaths (whatever the real figure) was nowhere near the million plus killed in Rwanda but that does not make the crimes any less abhorent.

why was he hiding all this time if he thinks that he committed no crime?

R.I.P all the innocent people that lost their lives in that war, no matter where they were born or were called.

Tabeau stood by her testimony but confirmed, however, that the number of Serbs in Sarajevo had dropped from 30 percent, according to the 1991 census, to only five percent, according to the 1997 census.

B92

today, it's probably less than 2% - we will never know for sure since the officials in sarajevo refuse to carry out a census. by the time they conduct one there won't be any serbs living in sarajevo. the elderly would have died out and the young moved away to find a job.

Out of the 100000 dead (which includes military btw), how many were Serbs?

With all the bosniak terrorist running around loose...such as NYC subway bombers...who want to cause both destruction upon people and property....Serbs obviously missed a few. The obvious fact is that this is a kangaroo court, with the verdict already decided by western media back in 1991. Karadzic and Mladic will always be remembered as defenders of the Serbian community against nazi croat and islamic terrorists who have once again fanned the flames of hostility. These two men are the sacrificed lambs...

Yet yesterday:

http://news.yahoo.com/oss-agent-led-wwii-rescue-500-dies-ny-002540215.html

How history quickly forgets it's true heros....

i guess you only need "intent" but it depends on who is doing the deed. so the 500,000 iraqi children killed by albright wasn't intentional, nor was the millions of dead in laos, cambodia, vietnam, japan, etc etc....so the British and Americans who have literally killed tens and tens of million people in their history can not have a "genocide" be applied to anything they have ever done because they didn't really mean it right? the indians just got in the way i guess? who is crazy here?

Look at our enemies how they are spewing from hate towards Bosnian Serbs...

I know it hurts your guts,you are in a pre infarct situation when you only think about the Republika Srpska,but remember,THERE IS NOTHING you Western Islamist supporters,Anti Serbs or Albanians can do make the RS go away!

It is here to stay,it is homogenly Serb and it will one day join Serbia!


Radovane,Srbine bez mane,I am so proud that you are not only a Montenegrin like myself but that we are from the same Drobnjaci tribe sharing the same blood!

It was our blood that played such a crucial role in helping our Bosnian Serb brothers achieve a century old dream:

a de facto Serbian state on the other side of the river Drina!

Your name,just like the name of General Ratko Mladic will be written in golden letters in history books!

(NATO New Albanian Treaty Organization, 3 May 2012 16:14)


Look don’t take this the wrong way but your not that up to speed with what goes on as far geopolitics is concerned.

For example, Japan and Germany maybe sovereign countries but they are controlled by the US. When was the last time you saw these two oppose the US on issues of importance? When did you see either vote against the US on matters of concern to the US? I have never seen that happen.

The Us has sponsored some of the worst killers in history just look at South America from the 1950s to 1980s. The US kept recognising Pol Pot as the legitlamte representative government of Cambodia despite the horrors it inflicted on its people. The Us sponsored sanctions against Iraq killed 500 000 children and their invasion killed another 200 000 and people are still suffering. The US brought to power both Saddam Hussein and the Assad family in Syria. The US brought to power the Islamists in Iran and the list goes on and on.

The problem is that the US needed to justify its attack in 1999 so Karadzic, Milosevic, Mladic are demonised as mass murders, but if that was the case why do we have lots of Bosniaks or Albanians left today? If that was their intentions both would not be with us today.

"So the US can cause over 200 000 deaths in Iraq, but that does not matter as it is not classified as either a crime nor genocide, but if the Serbs dare lift a finger then they are guilty."
(sj, 3 May 2012 13:01)

As you could read, it's about the intent. I never heard an US president talking about eliminating the Iraqi people and to take over Iraq, except for several singular atrocities, there was no systematic 'cleansing' of whole towns.

And if you care so much about the numbers: If you assume 200.000s people being killed in Iraq, it is still below 1% (for a population of about 28mio), compared to the 2.6% percent of Bosnian muslims mentioned in the article.

SJ - Karadzic, Milosevic, Mladic are scum of the earth. Also, Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin have killed more people than the US military. So did Adolf Hitler. The other question you have to ask yourself is how many countries which the US has defeated in war are now ruled by the US? The answer is, if you're honest, none. Japan, Germany, Italy, and Iraq are all sovereign nations. The US has made some horrendous blunders with its military, but it is not an imperialistic nation at all. In Iraq, where it made it biggest blunder, most of the war casualties could be attributed to the Al Qaeda insurgency, in addition to fighting between the Shia and the Sunnis. The fact is, Americans don't glorify death, we value life. That's why we are known for our anti-war movements

Naturally it’s irrelevant as it put hole the size of the moon through the prosecution’s case. You can have that pointed out, how else can you claim that Srebrenica was “genocide”. But considering the quality of the people who sit on the judiciary and the fact most take bribes at home or are the scrapings of the bottom of the legal fraternity what else can you expect from the buffoons. They are not even capable of trying to cover up their biased.

So great SJ if they Kill 40K Serbs in Kosovo does this mean its not Genocide. I do not understand how killing 7000 MEn and Boys does not constitute to Genocide you have taken generations away BUT Being that this is how Serbs see their crimes. Did Gotovina commit genocide?

Karadzic the master of spin continues to pave the way to his own conviction. His citing of Tabeau’s findings endorses the report and admits it as part of his defense. His quoting the figure of 49,111 as the base for his percentage definition of genocide brings to the table the other figures from her report, such as 45,110 civilian victims, 90% of whom were Bos. Moslems, were killed between May and August 1992.
The results for the whole period 1992-1995 confirm the RDC’s findings that 83.33% of civilian deaths in the Bosnian war were Moslems; 33,070 Moslem civilians killed, 4,075 Serb civilians, 2,163 Croat civilians and 376 civilians of other nationalities. Moslems were the only one of the three principal Bosnian nationalities who suffered higher civilian than military casualties. Thus, 51.64% of the Moslem dead were civilians, as against 27.77% of the Croat dead and 16.36% of the Serb dead.

These figures refer to deaths directly attributed to firearms or shelling or resulting from the actions of military or paramilitary interventions. Death by indirect consequences of the conflict such as lack of medicines, sanitation, trauma, suicide, depleted food resources, hypothermia and so on will greatly increase the final death toll.

Srebrenica was the last of a list of concentrated killing arenas. Prijedor was not far behind with over 5,000 Bos Moslems killed in a short time frame, along with the terror siege of Sarajevo. Tabeau’s and RDC’s figures for each of the Serb’s takeovers reveal the devastating strategy of eliminating the non-Serb presence. This went beyond the killing of people it also included the methodical elimination of Bos Moslem cultural and historical presence. Karadzic’s attempts to at first cite collateral damage were laughable and then the second attempt to justify it by saying that Orthodox churches were also destroyed is almost obscene in its comparison.

The speed and violent determination in this process bespeaks genocidal intent and if each case was treated as an individual examination then there would clearly be a legal case for genocidal action by any measure.

The end result of Karadzic’s referral is confirmation that the killings were overwhelmingly one sided and conformed to a pattern and strategy to eliminate Bos Moslems from large sections of their homeland.

The attempts to diffuse the allegations by comparisons with the USA’s military actions merely highlight the need for international justice to be given greater independence to examine all countries. The move to internationalize economies and trade policies suggest that international law eventually will follow suit. Many will welcome the day when USA will have to defend its actions in Iraq and Russia in Chechnya and the list goes on. That day will come when we accept that such actions are wrong. Ironically Karadzic et al have helped us move in that direction.

In addition to the names of victims, many other indicators about the war in BiH can be derived from the database. It is therefore obvious that most civilian victims - 45,110 - died in the period May to August 1992. "Srebrenica was just a finishing act," says the president of the RDC.

@sj re 1997 census- there wasn’t one- Tabeau was referring to the 1997 Registry of Voters- she has been misquoted.

@CC – you contribute to the stereotype that I’d hope Serbs with a conscience would want to see disappear.

@ ‘RS secessionists’ - in supporting such action you endorse the method that it is based upon and therefore invite the eventuality of such actions against it. Stupid is as stupid wants.

@stari- post Dayton declaration the RS political leadership issued a decree to vacate large areas of Sarajevo resulting in a mass exodus from the city, including disinterring the dead to take with them. During the siege large numbers of Bos Serbs fled the city. After the siege hope, trust and loyalty were as battered as the survivors of the siege. Ironically the greatest single cause of Bos Serb deaths was the Serb siege.

I am not aware of a 1997 census in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Is anyone else aware of such a census? I would like to get details on this, so it would be nice if someone provides a link.

Sorry the post re census was meant for Lazar.

The UN definition of genocide says (from Wikipedia):

Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "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."

So it's not about the numbers, but the intent.
(Comm. Parrisson, 3 May 2012 12:02)

So, by your posted definition how would you define Operation Storm?
I am curious to hear your answer.............

...yeh and the sky isn't blue!

So based on your quota, there was still room to fill the quota and should have been done more killing.

It's a shame you don't feel no remorse even for the ones who got killed.

SJ - Karadzic, Milosevic, Mladic are scum of the earth. Also, Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin have killed more people than the US military. So did Adolf Hitler. The other question you have to ask yourself is how many countries which the US has defeated in war are now ruled by the US? The answer is, if you're honest, none. Japan, Germany, Italy, and Iraq are all sovereign nations. The US has made some horrendous blunders with its military, but it is not an imperialistic nation at all. In Iraq, where it made it biggest blunder, most of the war casualties could be attributed to the Al Qaeda insurgency, in addition to fighting between the Shia and the Sunnis. The fact is, Americans don't glorify death, we value life. That's why we are known for our anti-war movements

'Only' 50% of the Jews were killed in Holocaust? That cannot be a genocide, according to Karadzic who thinks genocide is defined by numbers and percentages.

The UN definition of genocide says (from Wikipedia):

Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "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."

So it's not about the numbers, but the intent.

Naturally it’s irrelevant as it put hole the size of the moon through the prosecution’s case. You can have that pointed out, how else can you claim that Srebrenica was “genocide”. But considering the quality of the people who sit on the judiciary and the fact most take bribes at home or are the scrapings of the bottom of the legal fraternity what else can you expect from the buffoons. They are not even capable of trying to cover up their biased.

So great SJ if they Kill 40K Serbs in Kosovo does this mean its not Genocide. I do not understand how killing 7000 MEn and Boys does not constitute to Genocide you have taken generations away BUT Being that this is how Serbs see their crimes. Did Gotovina commit genocide?

"So the US can cause over 200 000 deaths in Iraq, but that does not matter as it is not classified as either a crime nor genocide, but if the Serbs dare lift a finger then they are guilty."
(sj, 3 May 2012 13:01)

As you could read, it's about the intent. I never heard an US president talking about eliminating the Iraqi people and to take over Iraq, except for several singular atrocities, there was no systematic 'cleansing' of whole towns.

And if you care so much about the numbers: If you assume 200.000s people being killed in Iraq, it is still below 1% (for a population of about 28mio), compared to the 2.6% percent of Bosnian muslims mentioned in the article.

NOT GUILTY.

Was there are war in Bosnia? Yes; was it a civil war and all the horror that entails such a conflict? Yes. The west wants to recreate something like after WW2 in Germany and while the Germans did commit genocide The war was ugly brutal and vicious and many people were killed and some in terrible ways, but there was no genocide because genocide means you leave none alive.
No western run/dominated tribunal can make it so either because you only have to compare what happened during WW2 or Rwanda to see the truth. I have studied history at length on a tertiary level and in all the genocidal wars I have never read one instant where genocide was committed but the old people, women or children were spared like in Srebrenica.
Let me repeat that again – genocide means that you learn none alive.
“The former RS president pointed out that “around 70 percent of Tutsi were killed in Rwanda and around 50 percent of Jews during WWII in Europe”. “ Judge O-Gon Kwon said that the question was not relevant….”.
Naturally it’s irrelevant as it put hole the size of the moon through the prosecution’s case. You can have that pointed out, how else can you claim that Srebrenica was “genocide”. But considering the quality of the people who sit on the judiciary and the fact most take bribes at home or are the scrapings of the bottom of the legal fraternity what else can you expect from the buffoons. They are not even capable of trying to cover up their biased.

"Intent to completely or partially destroy an entire ethnic group". This is a definition of genocide and the key word here is 'intent'. The fact that a relatively small percentage of Bosniaks were killed compared to the numbers of the respective groups in Rwanda is irrelevant, the issue is one of intent. Only Radovan and his retinue know what their real intention was but as early as the late 1970s Karadzic was warning Sarajevo Serbs not to mix with their muslim neighbours for fear of 'contamination'.

Thankfully, the number of deaths (whatever the real figure) was nowhere near the million plus killed in Rwanda but that does not make the crimes any less abhorent.

..yeh and the sky isn't blue!
(Ian, UK, 3 May 2012 10:53)
----------------------------

OK Ian, can you give us the meaning of genocide?
Then can you tell us who was killed and who was allowed to leave Srebrenica?
Please be sure to answer both questions and don't try to sidetrack.

why was he hiding all this time if he thinks that he committed no crime?

R.I.P all the innocent people that lost their lives in that war, no matter where they were born or were called.

Oh yeah...Karadzic really is innocent. a pathetic man, who dressed like a new age healer to avoid justice. funny, once he's caught, suddenly he wants to reveal the truth! when he was dressed like Rasputin, he did not want to reveal the truth did he? a pathetic human being.

He's right, there was no attempt to exterminate a group of people like there was in Germany or Rwanda. However, there is a forced story line that must be held up and that cannot be challenged. That's weak cognition and in complete contrast to facts. Apparently for the genocide supporters, facts get in the way of reality:-)

@new albo troll org

Your comments are continue to lack any sense or knowledge, and again you leave out details about albo killers still on the loose.

America doesn't rule any of the countries they were victorious against? They build bases all over the world..there are thousands of troops in Japan, and they're not they're to just eat sushi and fish. There are US troops in Germany, and they're not there eating schnitzels. Fact is of course they dont run the countries, but they sort of do. They are very influential in political/military decisions all the time. And they are keeping a close eye on everyone. That's why these bases are set up.

and again.. let's leave out Haradanj, ceku, and other albo killers on the loose. Who themselves killed and tortured numerous serbs, along with thaci. fact of the matter is..protected people remain protected. simple as that. the only justice is the one that will come from above, as He will deal with all of them.

and you i suggest start being realistic, a 5 year old has a better sense of the world around him/her

Karadzic the master of spin continues to pave the way to his own conviction. His citing of Tabeau’s findings endorses the report and admits it as part of his defense. His quoting the figure of 49,111 as the base for his percentage definition of genocide brings to the table the other figures from her report, such as 45,110 civilian victims, 90% of whom were Bos. Moslems, were killed between May and August 1992.
The results for the whole period 1992-1995 confirm the RDC’s findings that 83.33% of civilian deaths in the Bosnian war were Moslems; 33,070 Moslem civilians killed, 4,075 Serb civilians, 2,163 Croat civilians and 376 civilians of other nationalities. Moslems were the only one of the three principal Bosnian nationalities who suffered higher civilian than military casualties. Thus, 51.64% of the Moslem dead were civilians, as against 27.77% of the Croat dead and 16.36% of the Serb dead.

These figures refer to deaths directly attributed to firearms or shelling or resulting from the actions of military or paramilitary interventions. Death by indirect consequences of the conflict such as lack of medicines, sanitation, trauma, suicide, depleted food resources, hypothermia and so on will greatly increase the final death toll.

Srebrenica was the last of a list of concentrated killing arenas. Prijedor was not far behind with over 5,000 Bos Moslems killed in a short time frame, along with the terror siege of Sarajevo. Tabeau’s and RDC’s figures for each of the Serb’s takeovers reveal the devastating strategy of eliminating the non-Serb presence. This went beyond the killing of people it also included the methodical elimination of Bos Moslem cultural and historical presence. Karadzic’s attempts to at first cite collateral damage were laughable and then the second attempt to justify it by saying that Orthodox churches were also destroyed is almost obscene in its comparison.

The speed and violent determination in this process bespeaks genocidal intent and if each case was treated as an individual examination then there would clearly be a legal case for genocidal action by any measure.

The end result of Karadzic’s referral is confirmation that the killings were overwhelmingly one sided and conformed to a pattern and strategy to eliminate Bos Moslems from large sections of their homeland.

The attempts to diffuse the allegations by comparisons with the USA’s military actions merely highlight the need for international justice to be given greater independence to examine all countries. The move to internationalize economies and trade policies suggest that international law eventually will follow suit. Many will welcome the day when USA will have to defend its actions in Iraq and Russia in Chechnya and the list goes on. That day will come when we accept that such actions are wrong. Ironically Karadzic et al have helped us move in that direction.

In addition to the names of victims, many other indicators about the war in BiH can be derived from the database. It is therefore obvious that most civilian victims - 45,110 - died in the period May to August 1992. "Srebrenica was just a finishing act," says the president of the RDC.

Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki considered acts of genocide?
(mms, 3 May 2012 15:59)
--
The US of A is exempt from acts of genocide. Just ask our friend Comm. Parrison.

SJ,

Here's Albright (on YouTube):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=O94V6ziw7ZM

Comm. Parrisson,
The ICTY found no evidence of 'intent' as can be read in the transcripts and the ruling. It inferred 'intent' and redefined genocide to get its conviction. They were very convoluted about it.

Using their new definition, applied retrospectively, then genocide has happened thousands of times. That is unacceptable to the same people who demand that the bosnian serbs are guilty. Now who would like that? Well it is already happening as every group is claiming to be victims of genocide because that is what gets the media coverage.

In the last twenty years the relativization of the Holocaust and the crimes against jews goes hand in hand with this reinterpretation. Go to the baltics and ask them about genocide, they won't mention the jews because they equivocate the Holocaust with the Soviet occupation (have fun in the 'genocide museum' in Vilnius why don't you). Europe is undergoing unprecedented anti-semitism these last few year, from verbal to physical abuse even when they keep their heads down (as history has taught them). Authorities tell them to 'distance yourself from Israel'.

The EP is pushing for a single 'genocide day' to be made official that conveniently wraps everything together, nicely and politically correctly. In the UK, neither the armenians nor the serbs are welcome at their official genocide day, but representatives of the bosnian moslems are. Who here is playing with history? The growth of fascist europe.

As to the others, why do those who scream genocide in Bosnia (since 1992, but only found dodgily in an isolated case in 1995) deny that what the Ustasi regime did constitutes genocide? Not fashionable?

Nikolle- oh dear. Losing it, are we. The lies are unravelling, time is running out. Time for a pogrom or some other provocative action, n'est ce pas?

@sj re 1997 census- there wasn’t one- Tabeau was referring to the 1997 Registry of Voters- she has been misquoted.

@CC – you contribute to the stereotype that I’d hope Serbs with a conscience would want to see disappear.

@ ‘RS secessionists’ - in supporting such action you endorse the method that it is based upon and therefore invite the eventuality of such actions against it. Stupid is as stupid wants.

@stari- post Dayton declaration the RS political leadership issued a decree to vacate large areas of Sarajevo resulting in a mass exodus from the city, including disinterring the dead to take with them. During the siege large numbers of Bos Serbs fled the city. After the siege hope, trust and loyalty were as battered as the survivors of the siege. Ironically the greatest single cause of Bos Serb deaths was the Serb siege.

Thankfully, the number of deaths (whatever the real figure) was nowhere near the million plus killed in Rwanda but that does not make the crimes any less abhorent.
(ned taylor, 3 May 2012 12:22)
Whether he said that Serbs should not mix with the Bosniaks for fear of contamination is neither here nor there, but what is factual is the Bosnaiks fired the first shot in that civil war and not the Serbs.

So it's not about the numbers, but the intent.
(Comm. Parrisson, 3 May 2012 12:02)
So the US can cause over 200 000 deaths in Iraq, but that does not matter as it is not classified as either a crime nor genocide, but if the Serbs dare lift a finger then they are guilty. The fact that the Croats murdered and in some instances locked in cellars and burnt alive Muslims in central Bosnia, their crime is not genocide nor is it a crime at all because, as the west said after the war, ‘it was Milosevic’s fault” then they are fine and no problems.
The problem with intent is the person providing the definition of the word. As the say beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

I believe the "intent" of war is to inflict as much damage to the other side as possible. Ex: Croatian operation storm, US lead wars for the last 3 plus decades.

So it's not about the numbers, but the intent.
(Comm. Parrisson, 3 May 2012 12:02)

The intent to destroy means the physical and biological destruction of the people. The Serbs had the ability and opportunity to destroy the whole population in Srebrenica but that intent clearly was not excercised. The intent was clearly targetted at military aged persons who many, before being overun, were committing attrocities against the surrounding Serb population.

Other factors to consider, the "Group" being Muslims were not viewed that way in Bosnia by RS forces, but, were seperated across Bosnia into political categories ie those Muslims with Fikret Abdic were veiwed as allies and were supported and protected by RS forces. Again intent was not targetted against a national, ethnic, racial or religious group but a specific part of a group that was veiwed as committing attrocities.

Those fighting men under the warlord Naser Oric committing atrocities were targetted for liquidation. This by and large was a military operation whose aim was to remove this threat.

It also has to be about the numbers otherwise we can deduce that even a multiple murder to destroy any ethnicity in a village can be open for interpretation as Genocide and thus the Genocide meaning becomes reduced. To quote: "When Raphael Lemkin coined the word genocide in 1944 he cited the 1915 annihilation of Armenians as a seminal example of genocide."

Srebrenica is only interpreted as a act of Genocide by ad hoc judiciaries and not by the International Criminal Court (which would apply a more consistent legal standard and interpretation of the convention).

I have much respect for the Afghan and Iraqi people!
Millions died in the wars from last 30 years in that region, but still they keep their heads up even with US occupation, and they have many children!
And Afghanistan/Iraq will both reach the 100 Million people mark in 2050.

About Karadzic, he will get justice and I hope he will be set free, or that Nato court has to pull a Milosevic poisoning trick...

For example in Iraq died 500.000 CHILDREN as a consequence of the NATO invasion! That's is genocide.

why was he hiding all this time if he thinks that he committed no crime?

R.I.P all the innocent people that lost their lives in that war, no matter where they were born or were called.
(ilir, 3 May 2012 13:49)

They had nothing on Milosevic but he is dead. Seselj turned himself in, look where he is now. Why would he think he would be treated any different in this kangaroo court? I'm not defending him or saying he is guilty or innocent, just answering your question.

With all the bosniak terrorist running around loose...such as NYC subway bombers...who want to cause both destruction upon people and property....Serbs obviously missed a few. The obvious fact is that this is a kangaroo court, with the verdict already decided by western media back in 1991. Karadzic and Mladic will always be remembered as defenders of the Serbian community against nazi croat and islamic terrorists who have once again fanned the flames of hostility. These two men are the sacrificed lambs...

Yet yesterday:

http://news.yahoo.com/oss-agent-led-wwii-rescue-500-dies-ny-002540215.html

How history quickly forgets it's true heros....

Tabeau stood by her testimony but confirmed, however, that the number of Serbs in Sarajevo had dropped from 30 percent, according to the 1991 census, to only five percent, according to the 1997 census.

B92

today, it's probably less than 2% - we will never know for sure since the officials in sarajevo refuse to carry out a census. by the time they conduct one there won't be any serbs living in sarajevo. the elderly would have died out and the young moved away to find a job.

Look at our enemies how they are spewing from hate towards Bosnian Serbs...

I know it hurts your guts,you are in a pre infarct situation when you only think about the Republika Srpska,but remember,THERE IS NOTHING you Western Islamist supporters,Anti Serbs or Albanians can do make the RS go away!

It is here to stay,it is homogenly Serb and it will one day join Serbia!


Radovane,Srbine bez mane,I am so proud that you are not only a Montenegrin like myself but that we are from the same Drobnjaci tribe sharing the same blood!

It was our blood that played such a crucial role in helping our Bosnian Serb brothers achieve a century old dream:

a de facto Serbian state on the other side of the river Drina!

Your name,just like the name of General Ratko Mladic will be written in golden letters in history books!

The argument Karadžić is trying to make is that the relatively low amount of Muslims killed during 3 years of war is evidence that indicates there was no 'intent' to exterminate that populace. Which is actually a valid defense.

It's an interesting argument to decide genocide purely on numbers.Most wars involve taking over an area. Some involve taking power and some involve taking power and removing a whole group of people.Does genocide mean killing them all or killing some and forcing the rest out?

“As you could read, it's about the intent. I never heard an US president talking about eliminating the Iraqi people and to take over Iraq, except for several singular atrocities, there was no systematic 'cleansing' of whole towns.”
In fact Hitler never issued an official instruction on the Holocaust but still people died. Please no semantics. US Presidents knew what was going on and just kept quiet. Why even Albright said it with a straight face that 500 000 deaths in Iraq due to sanctions was worth it.
What do you think happened recently in Afghbaistan with the so called rogue soldier killing 17 people? That guy was not alone and the President knows that but wants to hush it up because it might make life worse for the rest there. In fact parts of the northern region of Afghanistan were cleansed by NATO troops to stop Taliban raids, but I suppose US Presidents didn’t know about that either or is that OK because it was done by the “good guys”.
Also if I am not mistaken others died during the war in Bosnia not just the Bosniaks.

Out of the 100000 dead (which includes military btw), how many were Serbs?

(NATO New Albanian Treaty Organization, 3 May 2012 16:14)


Look don’t take this the wrong way but your not that up to speed with what goes on as far geopolitics is concerned.

For example, Japan and Germany maybe sovereign countries but they are controlled by the US. When was the last time you saw these two oppose the US on issues of importance? When did you see either vote against the US on matters of concern to the US? I have never seen that happen.

The Us has sponsored some of the worst killers in history just look at South America from the 1950s to 1980s. The US kept recognising Pol Pot as the legitlamte representative government of Cambodia despite the horrors it inflicted on its people. The Us sponsored sanctions against Iraq killed 500 000 children and their invasion killed another 200 000 and people are still suffering. The US brought to power both Saddam Hussein and the Assad family in Syria. The US brought to power the Islamists in Iran and the list goes on and on.

The problem is that the US needed to justify its attack in 1999 so Karadzic, Milosevic, Mladic are demonised as mass murders, but if that was the case why do we have lots of Bosniaks or Albanians left today? If that was their intentions both would not be with us today.

Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki considered acts of genocide?

I am not aware of a 1997 census in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Is anyone else aware of such a census? I would like to get details on this, so it would be nice if someone provides a link.

i guess you only need "intent" but it depends on who is doing the deed. so the 500,000 iraqi children killed by albright wasn't intentional, nor was the millions of dead in laos, cambodia, vietnam, japan, etc etc....so the British and Americans who have literally killed tens and tens of million people in their history can not have a "genocide" be applied to anything they have ever done because they didn't really mean it right? the indians just got in the way i guess? who is crazy here?

The UN definition of genocide says (from Wikipedia):

Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "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."

So it's not about the numbers, but the intent.
(Comm. Parrisson, 3 May 2012 12:02)

So, by your posted definition how would you define Operation Storm?
I am curious to hear your answer.............

Sorry the post re census was meant for Lazar.