When will teh dead of Jasenovac have their day in court? When will the genocide haters on this site speak out for those victims.
I sense a great deal of hypocrisy by those here who hate genocide. It appears they don't hate it so much when Serbs are killed.
(factman, 12 July 2016 01:52)
Hypocrisy on Serbia's side?! Nobody is preventing Serbia's prosecution to indict those who committed genocide at Jasenovac. Alternatively, Serbia could ask the UNSC to change ICTY's jurisdiction to cover grave violations of international humanitarian law since 1939, because currently it's jurisdiction is limited to 1991 onward. I'm not aware that Serbia has asked that. A lot of talk by Serbs about the victims of Jasenovac, but no action!
(icj1, 12 July 2016 14:44)
legal trivialities from icj1 and splitting of hairs.
regardless of whether genocide existed as a legal concept in the 1940's.... the act was committed.
And the people representing certain nationalities don't care.
And because of that, neither do serbs care. nor will they ever.
(factman, 14 July 2016 01:47)
That was exactly my point. That Serbs really don't care about the genocide that was committed in Jasenovac since they only talk about it instead of taking action. As a result of Serbs not caring, your original question about when will the dead of Jasenovac have their day in court remains unanswered.
legal trivialities from icj1 and splitting of hairs.
regardless of whether genocide existed as a legal concept in the 1940's.... the act was committed.
And the people representing certain nationalities don't care.
And because of that, neither do serbs care. nor will they ever.
The breakup of yugoslavia was a wonderful thing for serbia (although it was done recklessly by world powers) soon Serbia will forever be rid of its neighbors. The sooner the better.
The ICTY definition of genocide is so broad that A and B can be assigned to that man who shot the 5 police officers in Dallas.
(sj, 12 July 2016 10:02)
Sure, if he did that with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Unfortunately, that person is dead and we night never learn his intent. However, I'm sure the CE of B92 forums sj is powerful enough to get info from that guy even from hell or paradise (depending where he went) lol
----------
That is why the ICTY is considered a laughing stock by most countries.
(sj, 12 July 2016 10:02)
You are saying that the UNSC is the laughing stock by most countries, since it's the UNSC that has told ICTY to use that definition of genocide. Perhaps the CE of B92 forums sj might want to propose a better definition that should become mandatory worldwide, including the UNSC!
----------
Srebrenica is called war, not genocide.
(sj, 12 July 2016 10:02)
Unfortunately the international community disagrees with the CE of B92 forums sj. That is, of course, a disgrace since obeying the commands of the CE of B92 forums sj is the duty of every living organism :)
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, or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
[link]/
If you think this all applies to what happend in Srebrenica then you are correct. If not I suggest you educate yourself.
(Tom Tom, 12 July 2016 11:42)
Read carefully the link that you provided... that link says if "ANY" of the actions you listed is committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, than it's genocide.
It does does say "ALL" needs to apply for it to be genocide. You just made up the "ALL" part, mate. Nice try...
When will teh dead of Jasenovac have their day in court? When will the genocide haters on this site speak out for those victims.
I sense a great deal of hypocrisy by those here who hate genocide. It appears they don't hate it so much when Serbs are killed.
(factman, 12 July 2016 01:52)
Hypocrisy on Serbia's side?! Nobody is preventing Serbia's prosecution to indict those who committed genocide at Jasenovac. Alternatively, Serbia could ask the UNSC to change ICTY's jurisdiction to cover grave violations of international humanitarian law since 1939, because currently it's jurisdiction is limited to 1991 onward. I'm not aware that Serbia has asked that. A lot of talk by Serbs about the victims of Jasenovac, but no action!
Note the definition says "ANY" of a, b, c, d or e is sufficient to determine that genocide was committed. You actually found that two of them (a and b) and not just one applies to Srebrenica, thus providing the reason why what happened in Srebrenica was indeed genocide.
(icj1, 11 July 2016 21:24)
Then we've got a lot more genocides on our case with if "any" of the criteria apply.
(the actual truth, 12 July 2016 06:15)
Sure, if we agree that any of a, b, c, d or e happened in other cases. So far we have only agreed that a and b apply to what happened in Srebrenica. Therefore the only genocide we both have agreed on is Srebrenica.
What is Genocide in Serbia's EYES?
(Bilbao, 11 July 2016 13:25)
The ICTY definition of genocide is so broad that A and B can be assigned to that man who shot the 5 police officers in Dallas. That is why the ICTY is considered a laughing stock by most countries. How do you then categorise the 350,000 killed by the US and partners in Iraq? Democratically sanctioned?
The ICTY was set up by Sir Ninian Stephens, an eminent Australian jurist who wanted to establish a proper court, but within 12 months he saw where it was heading and left immediately. How many eminent jurists do they have on that panel? You find that these people are so bad they would have had trouble sitting on local traffic courts in their respective countries. They are all politically affiliated appointees.
If genocide occurred in Srebrenica then why did the Serbs allow women, children and old men to leave on buses headed to Sarajevo? Genocide means all not some. You cannot be half pregnant; its either genocide and Serbs killed men women and children or its not.
Its amazing that Croats killed hundreds of Bosniaks in central Bosnia but not a peep out of the ICTY. They burnt some alive locked in cellars. Not one Croat was prosecuted.
Srebrenica is called war, not genocide.
Note the definition says "ANY" of a, b, c, d or e is sufficient to determine that genocide was committed. You actually found that two of them (a and b) and not just one applies to Srebrenica, thus providing the reason why what happened in Srebrenica was indeed genocide.
(icj1, 11 July 2016 21:24)
Then we've got a lot more genocides on our case with if "any" of the criteria apply. Including a collection of genocides committed by Kosovo Albanians since 1999 and two big ones committed by Croats in 1942 and 1995.
Thanks for implicating everyone in the region and making Srebrenica nothing special beyond a drop in the bucket of orchestrated murder. I fully expect you to now acknowledge the crimes committed by your people in your people's names and stop whatever denial syndrome you're in.
What happened in Srebrenica was not genocide. There was a civil war going on and the dead represented combatants.
(Paul, 11 July 2016 22:54)
Ah, Ok... so according to your logic, if there is a war in a given territory, everybody who happens to be in that territory is a combatant and can be targeted and killed!!!
Just a small note in case you are not aware... we are not in 1389 mate!
For 80 years now Serbs are trying to bring attention to the world that what happened in WW2 was genocide of a profound magnitude (600k Serb dead in Bosnia and Croatia). But this falls on deaf ears. It is even denied. And some even blame the victim. So why are people surprised that Serbs seem to be ambivalent? When will teh dead of Jasenovac have their day in court? When will the genocide haters on this site speak out for those victims.
I sense a great deal of hypocrisy by those here who hate genocide. It appears they don't hate it so much when Serbs are killed.
There are enough brave Serbs that have admitted to the genocide they participated in and whose stories have been confirmed and documented.
For the other Serbs who were involved but are still in denial, they will suffer and eventually perish from the guilt they carry.
The most important part of the term genocide is the root of the word, "cide". Like homicide, fratricide and matricide, murder is implicit in the term. Subjecting a people representing an innocent culture is genocide, just as targeting an innocent individual is genocide. What happened in Srebrenica was not genocide. There was a civil war going on and the dead represented combatants.
This is one of the excuses that Turkey uses to deflect accusations against it of genocide against the Armenians, that the Armenians were engaged in a civil war against the Turks. But there is no evidence that Armenians were ever doing anything except defending themselves and of course the Turks targeted women, children and old people too, something the Serbs did not do.
Here sj is the definition of Genocide that is used in the ICTY trials, the only definition that matters for this article.
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
(Bilbao, 11 July 2016 13:25)
Srebrenica then only applies to A and B. C didn't happen because it was focused on one area, not the entirely of Bosnia. D doesn't count because all women in the group were allowed to leave. E doesn't count because they were grouped with the women who were removed.
(the actual truth, 11 July 2016 16:06)
Since, according to you, Sebrenica applies to a and b, you are then admitting that Srebrenica was genocide, indeed.
Note the definition says "ANY" of a, b, c, d or e is sufficient to determine that genocide was committed. You actually found that two of them (a and b) and not just one applies to Srebrenica, thus providing the reason why what happened in Srebrenica was indeed genocide.
Thanks mate for providing the reasons why what happened in Srebrenica was genocide.
one of many stains on Serbia. committed in the name of Serbdom by people who in many parts of Serbia are still venerated. we can take some solace in the fact that soke of the perpetrators will die in jail, where they belong
Is Srebrenica genocide? It is to those who fought against the serbs. Not because 4000-8000 bosnian men were killed but because defining this event as genocide would justify the abolishment of Republika Srpska. It would justify the theft of Kosovo and the bombing of Serbia by Nato. Even the number of dead in the Kosovo conflict was widely exageratet in order to continue the bombing of our country and to convince the world of how evil serbs were. More or less every day US military staff gave intervjuers saying they found mass graves with thousands of people killed. When the war was over 7500 albanians and 2500 serbs had lost their lives.
If Srebrenica is genocide then so was the bombing of Serbia by Nato. A bombing that was not aimed at only men of fighting age like the case with Srebrenica but agains men, women and children. Srebrenica is not genocide but a tragic event in times of war.
A pity a delegation from Serbia didn't go. While grandmothers got money to wail and moan for the cameras, they could have enjoyed the carnival atmosphere everyone else was experiencing with food, t-shirt, candy, and souvenir vendors for all the visiting officials. No wonder Bosnia wants to cash in on the misery. It's the one day of the year the world pays attention to them. Might as well do some price gouging in between calls for justice and never again.
Today sounds like day when people who hate serbs stamp their feet, shout and have tantrum because they lost military in bosnia. nato bring too much destruction Balkans, better if we get along with each other. today is not a good day to get along. everyone pointing fingers like babies.
Here sj is the definition of Genocide that is used in the ICTY trials, the only definition that matters for this article.
(Bilbao, 11 July 2016 13:25)
Srebrenica then only applies to A and B. C didn't happen because it was focused on one area, not the entirely of Bosnia. D doesn't count because all women in the group were allowed to leave. E doesn't count because they were grouped with the women who were removed.
Srebrenica counts as mass murder and most certainly a war crime - one of many war crimes committed in a three-year conflict in which Serbs, Bosnian Muslims, and Croats killed each other. At the absolute best, had all women and children been prevented from leaving and were killed en masse with the males, then it would have been considered localized genocide. But that didn't happen despite attempts by the international community to label it as such. If you want a good description of localized genocide look at Oric's campaigns in Kravica and Bratunac where every living thing, including animals, were killed. Oric should be suffering the same fate as Mladic.
Here is a book written by former Bosnian Muslim army general Ibran Mustafic who says that Naser Oric deserves most of the blame for what happened in Srebrenica. For killing Serb civilians and then for abandoning his own units to face the consequences for his leadership. Again, condolences to families of civilians killed. But the 3500 Serb civilians killed in the same region will never get their respect because it doesn't help justify NATO intervention in the Bosnian civil war.
[link]/
(Ari Gold, 11 July 2016 13:15)
Most of the few hundred Serb victims were soldiers killed in combat firing and shelling the Srebrenica safe haven. But a few civilians as well.
But today, we commemorate the G E N O C I D E of Bosniaks carried out by Serbs and Bosnian Serbs in July 1995.
What is Genocide in Serbia's EYES?
(Bilbao, 11 July 2016 13:25)
--
1. Killing practically all native Indians by Americans in the USA.
2. Nagasaki and Hiroshima atomic bombings by USA.
3. Armenian Genocide committed by Turks.
4. Jasenovac
5. Operation storm
5. Albanians attempt for an ethnically clean KiM.
6. German's actions during WWII.
It's interesting how those who have truly committed genocide attempt to cover up their own crimes and pin non-existent crimes on their foes.
We can see how this works with the recent revelations against Tony Bliar. They make things up to justify their crimes and the media just goes along with it.
Here sj is the definition of Genocide that is used in the ICTY trials, the only definition that matters for this article.
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
What is Genocide in Serbia's EYES?
(Bilbao, 11 July 2016 13:25)
Bilbao, sj has stated before that he would like to kill or deport every Albanian from Kosovo (about 1.6 million people), and I dont think that he would consider than genocide either,
so please forgive him if he thinks nothing of 8,000 murdered.
Rest in peace to all victims who were civilians killed in Srebrenica. What the official narrative does leave out however is why these acts took place at all. Bosnian terrorist Naser Oric and his militia were butchering Serb civilians in and around Srebrenica, Bratunac and Kravica throughout most of the war.
The crimes which are today being promoted as "genocide" were in response to these actions. Probably some civilians were wrongfully killed too. But many if not most of those killed were members of Naser Oric's death squad. For his part, when Naser knew there was an attack on his army being prepared, he fled the region like a coward and let his own men take the fall.
Here is a book written by former Bosnian Muslim army general Ibran Mustafic who says that Naser Oric deserves most of the blame for what happened in Srebrenica. For killing Serb civilians and then for abandoning his own units to face the consequences for his leadership. Again, condolences to families of civilians killed. But the 3500 Serb civilians killed in the same region will never get their respect because it doesn't help justify NATO intervention in the Bosnian civil war.
https://theremustbejustice.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/sensational-confession-of-ibran-mustafic-bosnian-muslim-war-veteran-and-politician-we-were-killing-our-own-people-in-srebrenica-srebrenica/
For the 38 Serbs who have so far been convicted of Genocide to 637 years I hope your mind is full of guilt and shame. To commit such genocide in modern Europe is unbelievable. For the sake of reconciliation, the Vucic lead government needs to admit genocide was committed by Serbs and pay compensation to family members who continue to suffer mentally from this horror.
Its always hard to deal with people that have little to no understanding of the term genocide. It was been bastardized by the so called learned judiciary in the Hague in a desperation to lay some type of guilt on Serbs.
What had occurred in Srebrenica was not genocide. If that was the case then the US and their merry band of accomplices who were responsible for 350,000 deaths in Iraq would be in the docks now.
What I find interesting is that they have dug up bodies near Zvornik who were actually killed in fighting against the Serbs and brought them to Srebrenica. I can only imagine the Bosniaks do not have 8,000 and need them to make up the numbers.
What is even more interesting is the recent and highly disputed census which discloses that there are now more Bosniaks in Srebrenica than prior to the war.
I have a feeling that to the world Srebrenica has served its purpose and failed so they will not turn up to any further ceremonies.
Its always hard to deal with people that have little to no understanding of the term genocide. It was been bastardized by the so called learned judiciary in the Hague in a desperation to lay some type of guilt on Serbs.
What had occurred in Srebrenica was not genocide. If that was the case then the US and their merry band of accomplices who were responsible for 350,000 deaths in Iraq would be in the docks now.
What I find interesting is that they have dug up bodies near Zvornik who were actually killed in fighting against the Serbs and brought them to Srebrenica. I can only imagine the Bosniaks do not have 8,000 and need them to make up the numbers.
What is even more interesting is the recent and highly disputed census which discloses that there are now more Bosniaks in Srebrenica than prior to the war.
I have a feeling that to the world Srebrenica has served its purpose and failed so they will not turn up to any further ceremonies.
Rest in peace to all victims who were civilians killed in Srebrenica. What the official narrative does leave out however is why these acts took place at all. Bosnian terrorist Naser Oric and his militia were butchering Serb civilians in and around Srebrenica, Bratunac and Kravica throughout most of the war.
The crimes which are today being promoted as "genocide" were in response to these actions. Probably some civilians were wrongfully killed too. But many if not most of those killed were members of Naser Oric's death squad. For his part, when Naser knew there was an attack on his army being prepared, he fled the region like a coward and let his own men take the fall.
Here is a book written by former Bosnian Muslim army general Ibran Mustafic who says that Naser Oric deserves most of the blame for what happened in Srebrenica. For killing Serb civilians and then for abandoning his own units to face the consequences for his leadership. Again, condolences to families of civilians killed. But the 3500 Serb civilians killed in the same region will never get their respect because it doesn't help justify NATO intervention in the Bosnian civil war.
https://theremustbejustice.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/sensational-confession-of-ibran-mustafic-bosnian-muslim-war-veteran-and-politician-we-were-killing-our-own-people-in-srebrenica-srebrenica/
What is Genocide in Serbia's EYES?
(Bilbao, 11 July 2016 13:25)
--
1. Killing practically all native Indians by Americans in the USA.
2. Nagasaki and Hiroshima atomic bombings by USA.
3. Armenian Genocide committed by Turks.
4. Jasenovac
5. Operation storm
5. Albanians attempt for an ethnically clean KiM.
6. German's actions during WWII.
It's interesting how those who have truly committed genocide attempt to cover up their own crimes and pin non-existent crimes on their foes.
We can see how this works with the recent revelations against Tony Bliar. They make things up to justify their crimes and the media just goes along with it.
Is Srebrenica genocide? It is to those who fought against the serbs. Not because 4000-8000 bosnian men were killed but because defining this event as genocide would justify the abolishment of Republika Srpska. It would justify the theft of Kosovo and the bombing of Serbia by Nato. Even the number of dead in the Kosovo conflict was widely exageratet in order to continue the bombing of our country and to convince the world of how evil serbs were. More or less every day US military staff gave intervjuers saying they found mass graves with thousands of people killed. When the war was over 7500 albanians and 2500 serbs had lost their lives.
If Srebrenica is genocide then so was the bombing of Serbia by Nato. A bombing that was not aimed at only men of fighting age like the case with Srebrenica but agains men, women and children. Srebrenica is not genocide but a tragic event in times of war.
For the 38 Serbs who have so far been convicted of Genocide to 637 years I hope your mind is full of guilt and shame. To commit such genocide in modern Europe is unbelievable. For the sake of reconciliation, the Vucic lead government needs to admit genocide was committed by Serbs and pay compensation to family members who continue to suffer mentally from this horror.
A pity a delegation from Serbia didn't go. While grandmothers got money to wail and moan for the cameras, they could have enjoyed the carnival atmosphere everyone else was experiencing with food, t-shirt, candy, and souvenir vendors for all the visiting officials. No wonder Bosnia wants to cash in on the misery. It's the one day of the year the world pays attention to them. Might as well do some price gouging in between calls for justice and never again.
Here sj is the definition of Genocide that is used in the ICTY trials, the only definition that matters for this article.
(Bilbao, 11 July 2016 13:25)
Srebrenica then only applies to A and B. C didn't happen because it was focused on one area, not the entirely of Bosnia. D doesn't count because all women in the group were allowed to leave. E doesn't count because they were grouped with the women who were removed.
Srebrenica counts as mass murder and most certainly a war crime - one of many war crimes committed in a three-year conflict in which Serbs, Bosnian Muslims, and Croats killed each other. At the absolute best, had all women and children been prevented from leaving and were killed en masse with the males, then it would have been considered localized genocide. But that didn't happen despite attempts by the international community to label it as such. If you want a good description of localized genocide look at Oric's campaigns in Kravica and Bratunac where every living thing, including animals, were killed. Oric should be suffering the same fate as Mladic.
Here sj is the definition of Genocide that is used in the ICTY trials, the only definition that matters for this article.
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
What is Genocide in Serbia's EYES?
(Bilbao, 11 July 2016 13:25)
Bilbao, sj has stated before that he would like to kill or deport every Albanian from Kosovo (about 1.6 million people), and I dont think that he would consider than genocide either,
so please forgive him if he thinks nothing of 8,000 murdered.
Today sounds like day when people who hate serbs stamp their feet, shout and have tantrum because they lost military in bosnia. nato bring too much destruction Balkans, better if we get along with each other. today is not a good day to get along. everyone pointing fingers like babies.
Here is a book written by former Bosnian Muslim army general Ibran Mustafic who says that Naser Oric deserves most of the blame for what happened in Srebrenica. For killing Serb civilians and then for abandoning his own units to face the consequences for his leadership. Again, condolences to families of civilians killed. But the 3500 Serb civilians killed in the same region will never get their respect because it doesn't help justify NATO intervention in the Bosnian civil war.
[link]/
(Ari Gold, 11 July 2016 13:15)
Most of the few hundred Serb victims were soldiers killed in combat firing and shelling the Srebrenica safe haven. But a few civilians as well.
But today, we commemorate the G E N O C I D E of Bosniaks carried out by Serbs and Bosnian Serbs in July 1995.
one of many stains on Serbia. committed in the name of Serbdom by people who in many parts of Serbia are still venerated. we can take some solace in the fact that soke of the perpetrators will die in jail, where they belong
The most important part of the term genocide is the root of the word, "cide". Like homicide, fratricide and matricide, murder is implicit in the term. Subjecting a people representing an innocent culture is genocide, just as targeting an innocent individual is genocide. What happened in Srebrenica was not genocide. There was a civil war going on and the dead represented combatants.
This is one of the excuses that Turkey uses to deflect accusations against it of genocide against the Armenians, that the Armenians were engaged in a civil war against the Turks. But there is no evidence that Armenians were ever doing anything except defending themselves and of course the Turks targeted women, children and old people too, something the Serbs did not do.
There are enough brave Serbs that have admitted to the genocide they participated in and whose stories have been confirmed and documented.
For the other Serbs who were involved but are still in denial, they will suffer and eventually perish from the guilt they carry.
What happened in Srebrenica was not genocide. There was a civil war going on and the dead represented combatants.
(Paul, 11 July 2016 22:54)
Ah, Ok... so according to your logic, if there is a war in a given territory, everybody who happens to be in that territory is a combatant and can be targeted and killed!!!
Just a small note in case you are not aware... we are not in 1389 mate!
When will teh dead of Jasenovac have their day in court? When will the genocide haters on this site speak out for those victims.
I sense a great deal of hypocrisy by those here who hate genocide. It appears they don't hate it so much when Serbs are killed.
(factman, 12 July 2016 01:52)
Hypocrisy on Serbia's side?! Nobody is preventing Serbia's prosecution to indict those who committed genocide at Jasenovac. Alternatively, Serbia could ask the UNSC to change ICTY's jurisdiction to cover grave violations of international humanitarian law since 1939, because currently it's jurisdiction is limited to 1991 onward. I'm not aware that Serbia has asked that. A lot of talk by Serbs about the victims of Jasenovac, but no action!
For 80 years now Serbs are trying to bring attention to the world that what happened in WW2 was genocide of a profound magnitude (600k Serb dead in Bosnia and Croatia). But this falls on deaf ears. It is even denied. And some even blame the victim. So why are people surprised that Serbs seem to be ambivalent? When will teh dead of Jasenovac have their day in court? When will the genocide haters on this site speak out for those victims.
I sense a great deal of hypocrisy by those here who hate genocide. It appears they don't hate it so much when Serbs are killed.
What is Genocide in Serbia's EYES?
(Bilbao, 11 July 2016 13:25)
The ICTY definition of genocide is so broad that A and B can be assigned to that man who shot the 5 police officers in Dallas. That is why the ICTY is considered a laughing stock by most countries. How do you then categorise the 350,000 killed by the US and partners in Iraq? Democratically sanctioned?
The ICTY was set up by Sir Ninian Stephens, an eminent Australian jurist who wanted to establish a proper court, but within 12 months he saw where it was heading and left immediately. How many eminent jurists do they have on that panel? You find that these people are so bad they would have had trouble sitting on local traffic courts in their respective countries. They are all politically affiliated appointees.
If genocide occurred in Srebrenica then why did the Serbs allow women, children and old men to leave on buses headed to Sarajevo? Genocide means all not some. You cannot be half pregnant; its either genocide and Serbs killed men women and children or its not.
Its amazing that Croats killed hundreds of Bosniaks in central Bosnia but not a peep out of the ICTY. They burnt some alive locked in cellars. Not one Croat was prosecuted.
Srebrenica is called war, not genocide.
When will teh dead of Jasenovac have their day in court? When will the genocide haters on this site speak out for those victims.
I sense a great deal of hypocrisy by those here who hate genocide. It appears they don't hate it so much when Serbs are killed.
(factman, 12 July 2016 01:52)
Hypocrisy on Serbia's side?! Nobody is preventing Serbia's prosecution to indict those who committed genocide at Jasenovac. Alternatively, Serbia could ask the UNSC to change ICTY's jurisdiction to cover grave violations of international humanitarian law since 1939, because currently it's jurisdiction is limited to 1991 onward. I'm not aware that Serbia has asked that. A lot of talk by Serbs about the victims of Jasenovac, but no action!
(icj1, 12 July 2016 14:44)
legal trivialities from icj1 and splitting of hairs.
regardless of whether genocide existed as a legal concept in the 1940's.... the act was committed.
And the people representing certain nationalities don't care.
And because of that, neither do serbs care. nor will they ever.
(factman, 14 July 2016 01:47)
That was exactly my point. That Serbs really don't care about the genocide that was committed in Jasenovac since they only talk about it instead of taking action. As a result of Serbs not caring, your original question about when will the dead of Jasenovac have their day in court remains unanswered.
Here sj is the definition of Genocide that is used in the ICTY trials, the only definition that matters for this article.
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
(Bilbao, 11 July 2016 13:25)
Srebrenica then only applies to A and B. C didn't happen because it was focused on one area, not the entirely of Bosnia. D doesn't count because all women in the group were allowed to leave. E doesn't count because they were grouped with the women who were removed.
(the actual truth, 11 July 2016 16:06)
Since, according to you, Sebrenica applies to a and b, you are then admitting that Srebrenica was genocide, indeed.
Note the definition says "ANY" of a, b, c, d or e is sufficient to determine that genocide was committed. You actually found that two of them (a and b) and not just one applies to Srebrenica, thus providing the reason why what happened in Srebrenica was indeed genocide.
Thanks mate for providing the reasons why what happened in Srebrenica was genocide.
Note the definition says "ANY" of a, b, c, d or e is sufficient to determine that genocide was committed. You actually found that two of them (a and b) and not just one applies to Srebrenica, thus providing the reason why what happened in Srebrenica was indeed genocide.
(icj1, 11 July 2016 21:24)
Then we've got a lot more genocides on our case with if "any" of the criteria apply. Including a collection of genocides committed by Kosovo Albanians since 1999 and two big ones committed by Croats in 1942 and 1995.
Thanks for implicating everyone in the region and making Srebrenica nothing special beyond a drop in the bucket of orchestrated murder. I fully expect you to now acknowledge the crimes committed by your people in your people's names and stop whatever denial syndrome you're in.
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, or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
[link]/
If you think this all applies to what happend in Srebrenica then you are correct. If not I suggest you educate yourself.
(Tom Tom, 12 July 2016 11:42)
Read carefully the link that you provided... that link says if "ANY" of the actions you listed is committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, than it's genocide.
It does does say "ALL" needs to apply for it to be genocide. You just made up the "ALL" part, mate. Nice try...
Note the definition says "ANY" of a, b, c, d or e is sufficient to determine that genocide was committed. You actually found that two of them (a and b) and not just one applies to Srebrenica, thus providing the reason why what happened in Srebrenica was indeed genocide.
(icj1, 11 July 2016 21:24)
Then we've got a lot more genocides on our case with if "any" of the criteria apply.
(the actual truth, 12 July 2016 06:15)
Sure, if we agree that any of a, b, c, d or e happened in other cases. So far we have only agreed that a and b apply to what happened in Srebrenica. Therefore the only genocide we both have agreed on is Srebrenica.
The ICTY definition of genocide is so broad that A and B can be assigned to that man who shot the 5 police officers in Dallas.
(sj, 12 July 2016 10:02)
Sure, if he did that with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Unfortunately, that person is dead and we night never learn his intent. However, I'm sure the CE of B92 forums sj is powerful enough to get info from that guy even from hell or paradise (depending where he went) lol
----------
That is why the ICTY is considered a laughing stock by most countries.
(sj, 12 July 2016 10:02)
You are saying that the UNSC is the laughing stock by most countries, since it's the UNSC that has told ICTY to use that definition of genocide. Perhaps the CE of B92 forums sj might want to propose a better definition that should become mandatory worldwide, including the UNSC!
----------
Srebrenica is called war, not genocide.
(sj, 12 July 2016 10:02)
Unfortunately the international community disagrees with the CE of B92 forums sj. That is, of course, a disgrace since obeying the commands of the CE of B92 forums sj is the duty of every living organism :)
legal trivialities from icj1 and splitting of hairs.
regardless of whether genocide existed as a legal concept in the 1940's.... the act was committed.
And the people representing certain nationalities don't care.
And because of that, neither do serbs care. nor will they ever.
The breakup of yugoslavia was a wonderful thing for serbia (although it was done recklessly by world powers) soon Serbia will forever be rid of its neighbors. The sooner the better.
For the 38 Serbs who have so far been convicted of Genocide to 637 years I hope your mind is full of guilt and shame. To commit such genocide in modern Europe is unbelievable. For the sake of reconciliation, the Vucic lead government needs to admit genocide was committed by Serbs and pay compensation to family members who continue to suffer mentally from this horror.
Its always hard to deal with people that have little to no understanding of the term genocide. It was been bastardized by the so called learned judiciary in the Hague in a desperation to lay some type of guilt on Serbs.
What had occurred in Srebrenica was not genocide. If that was the case then the US and their merry band of accomplices who were responsible for 350,000 deaths in Iraq would be in the docks now.
What I find interesting is that they have dug up bodies near Zvornik who were actually killed in fighting against the Serbs and brought them to Srebrenica. I can only imagine the Bosniaks do not have 8,000 and need them to make up the numbers.
What is even more interesting is the recent and highly disputed census which discloses that there are now more Bosniaks in Srebrenica than prior to the war.
I have a feeling that to the world Srebrenica has served its purpose and failed so they will not turn up to any further ceremonies.
Here is a book written by former Bosnian Muslim army general Ibran Mustafic who says that Naser Oric deserves most of the blame for what happened in Srebrenica. For killing Serb civilians and then for abandoning his own units to face the consequences for his leadership. Again, condolences to families of civilians killed. But the 3500 Serb civilians killed in the same region will never get their respect because it doesn't help justify NATO intervention in the Bosnian civil war.
[link]/
(Ari Gold, 11 July 2016 13:15)
Most of the few hundred Serb victims were soldiers killed in combat firing and shelling the Srebrenica safe haven. But a few civilians as well.
But today, we commemorate the G E N O C I D E of Bosniaks carried out by Serbs and Bosnian Serbs in July 1995.
Rest in peace to all victims who were civilians killed in Srebrenica. What the official narrative does leave out however is why these acts took place at all. Bosnian terrorist Naser Oric and his militia were butchering Serb civilians in and around Srebrenica, Bratunac and Kravica throughout most of the war.
The crimes which are today being promoted as "genocide" were in response to these actions. Probably some civilians were wrongfully killed too. But many if not most of those killed were members of Naser Oric's death squad. For his part, when Naser knew there was an attack on his army being prepared, he fled the region like a coward and let his own men take the fall.
Here is a book written by former Bosnian Muslim army general Ibran Mustafic who says that Naser Oric deserves most of the blame for what happened in Srebrenica. For killing Serb civilians and then for abandoning his own units to face the consequences for his leadership. Again, condolences to families of civilians killed. But the 3500 Serb civilians killed in the same region will never get their respect because it doesn't help justify NATO intervention in the Bosnian civil war.
https://theremustbejustice.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/sensational-confession-of-ibran-mustafic-bosnian-muslim-war-veteran-and-politician-we-were-killing-our-own-people-in-srebrenica-srebrenica/
What is Genocide in Serbia's EYES?
(Bilbao, 11 July 2016 13:25)
--
1. Killing practically all native Indians by Americans in the USA.
2. Nagasaki and Hiroshima atomic bombings by USA.
3. Armenian Genocide committed by Turks.
4. Jasenovac
5. Operation storm
5. Albanians attempt for an ethnically clean KiM.
6. German's actions during WWII.
It's interesting how those who have truly committed genocide attempt to cover up their own crimes and pin non-existent crimes on their foes.
We can see how this works with the recent revelations against Tony Bliar. They make things up to justify their crimes and the media just goes along with it.
A pity a delegation from Serbia didn't go. While grandmothers got money to wail and moan for the cameras, they could have enjoyed the carnival atmosphere everyone else was experiencing with food, t-shirt, candy, and souvenir vendors for all the visiting officials. No wonder Bosnia wants to cash in on the misery. It's the one day of the year the world pays attention to them. Might as well do some price gouging in between calls for justice and never again.
Here sj is the definition of Genocide that is used in the ICTY trials, the only definition that matters for this article.
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
What is Genocide in Serbia's EYES?
(Bilbao, 11 July 2016 13:25)
Bilbao, sj has stated before that he would like to kill or deport every Albanian from Kosovo (about 1.6 million people), and I dont think that he would consider than genocide either,
so please forgive him if he thinks nothing of 8,000 murdered.
one of many stains on Serbia. committed in the name of Serbdom by people who in many parts of Serbia are still venerated. we can take some solace in the fact that soke of the perpetrators will die in jail, where they belong
Today sounds like day when people who hate serbs stamp their feet, shout and have tantrum because they lost military in bosnia. nato bring too much destruction Balkans, better if we get along with each other. today is not a good day to get along. everyone pointing fingers like babies.
There are enough brave Serbs that have admitted to the genocide they participated in and whose stories have been confirmed and documented.
For the other Serbs who were involved but are still in denial, they will suffer and eventually perish from the guilt they carry.
Is Srebrenica genocide? It is to those who fought against the serbs. Not because 4000-8000 bosnian men were killed but because defining this event as genocide would justify the abolishment of Republika Srpska. It would justify the theft of Kosovo and the bombing of Serbia by Nato. Even the number of dead in the Kosovo conflict was widely exageratet in order to continue the bombing of our country and to convince the world of how evil serbs were. More or less every day US military staff gave intervjuers saying they found mass graves with thousands of people killed. When the war was over 7500 albanians and 2500 serbs had lost their lives.
If Srebrenica is genocide then so was the bombing of Serbia by Nato. A bombing that was not aimed at only men of fighting age like the case with Srebrenica but agains men, women and children. Srebrenica is not genocide but a tragic event in times of war.
Here sj is the definition of Genocide that is used in the ICTY trials, the only definition that matters for this article.
(Bilbao, 11 July 2016 13:25)
Srebrenica then only applies to A and B. C didn't happen because it was focused on one area, not the entirely of Bosnia. D doesn't count because all women in the group were allowed to leave. E doesn't count because they were grouped with the women who were removed.
Srebrenica counts as mass murder and most certainly a war crime - one of many war crimes committed in a three-year conflict in which Serbs, Bosnian Muslims, and Croats killed each other. At the absolute best, had all women and children been prevented from leaving and were killed en masse with the males, then it would have been considered localized genocide. But that didn't happen despite attempts by the international community to label it as such. If you want a good description of localized genocide look at Oric's campaigns in Kravica and Bratunac where every living thing, including animals, were killed. Oric should be suffering the same fate as Mladic.
Here sj is the definition of Genocide that is used in the ICTY trials, the only definition that matters for this article.
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
(Bilbao, 11 July 2016 13:25)
Srebrenica then only applies to A and B. C didn't happen because it was focused on one area, not the entirely of Bosnia. D doesn't count because all women in the group were allowed to leave. E doesn't count because they were grouped with the women who were removed.
(the actual truth, 11 July 2016 16:06)
Since, according to you, Sebrenica applies to a and b, you are then admitting that Srebrenica was genocide, indeed.
Note the definition says "ANY" of a, b, c, d or e is sufficient to determine that genocide was committed. You actually found that two of them (a and b) and not just one applies to Srebrenica, thus providing the reason why what happened in Srebrenica was indeed genocide.
Thanks mate for providing the reasons why what happened in Srebrenica was genocide.
What is Genocide in Serbia's EYES?
(Bilbao, 11 July 2016 13:25)
The ICTY definition of genocide is so broad that A and B can be assigned to that man who shot the 5 police officers in Dallas. That is why the ICTY is considered a laughing stock by most countries. How do you then categorise the 350,000 killed by the US and partners in Iraq? Democratically sanctioned?
The ICTY was set up by Sir Ninian Stephens, an eminent Australian jurist who wanted to establish a proper court, but within 12 months he saw where it was heading and left immediately. How many eminent jurists do they have on that panel? You find that these people are so bad they would have had trouble sitting on local traffic courts in their respective countries. They are all politically affiliated appointees.
If genocide occurred in Srebrenica then why did the Serbs allow women, children and old men to leave on buses headed to Sarajevo? Genocide means all not some. You cannot be half pregnant; its either genocide and Serbs killed men women and children or its not.
Its amazing that Croats killed hundreds of Bosniaks in central Bosnia but not a peep out of the ICTY. They burnt some alive locked in cellars. Not one Croat was prosecuted.
Srebrenica is called war, not genocide.
The most important part of the term genocide is the root of the word, "cide". Like homicide, fratricide and matricide, murder is implicit in the term. Subjecting a people representing an innocent culture is genocide, just as targeting an innocent individual is genocide. What happened in Srebrenica was not genocide. There was a civil war going on and the dead represented combatants.
This is one of the excuses that Turkey uses to deflect accusations against it of genocide against the Armenians, that the Armenians were engaged in a civil war against the Turks. But there is no evidence that Armenians were ever doing anything except defending themselves and of course the Turks targeted women, children and old people too, something the Serbs did not do.
Note the definition says "ANY" of a, b, c, d or e is sufficient to determine that genocide was committed. You actually found that two of them (a and b) and not just one applies to Srebrenica, thus providing the reason why what happened in Srebrenica was indeed genocide.
(icj1, 11 July 2016 21:24)
Then we've got a lot more genocides on our case with if "any" of the criteria apply.
(the actual truth, 12 July 2016 06:15)
Sure, if we agree that any of a, b, c, d or e happened in other cases. So far we have only agreed that a and b apply to what happened in Srebrenica. Therefore the only genocide we both have agreed on is Srebrenica.
When will teh dead of Jasenovac have their day in court? When will the genocide haters on this site speak out for those victims.
I sense a great deal of hypocrisy by those here who hate genocide. It appears they don't hate it so much when Serbs are killed.
(factman, 12 July 2016 01:52)
Hypocrisy on Serbia's side?! Nobody is preventing Serbia's prosecution to indict those who committed genocide at Jasenovac. Alternatively, Serbia could ask the UNSC to change ICTY's jurisdiction to cover grave violations of international humanitarian law since 1939, because currently it's jurisdiction is limited to 1991 onward. I'm not aware that Serbia has asked that. A lot of talk by Serbs about the victims of Jasenovac, but no action!
For 80 years now Serbs are trying to bring attention to the world that what happened in WW2 was genocide of a profound magnitude (600k Serb dead in Bosnia and Croatia). But this falls on deaf ears. It is even denied. And some even blame the victim. So why are people surprised that Serbs seem to be ambivalent? When will teh dead of Jasenovac have their day in court? When will the genocide haters on this site speak out for those victims.
I sense a great deal of hypocrisy by those here who hate genocide. It appears they don't hate it so much when Serbs are killed.
Note the definition says "ANY" of a, b, c, d or e is sufficient to determine that genocide was committed. You actually found that two of them (a and b) and not just one applies to Srebrenica, thus providing the reason why what happened in Srebrenica was indeed genocide.
(icj1, 11 July 2016 21:24)
Then we've got a lot more genocides on our case with if "any" of the criteria apply. Including a collection of genocides committed by Kosovo Albanians since 1999 and two big ones committed by Croats in 1942 and 1995.
Thanks for implicating everyone in the region and making Srebrenica nothing special beyond a drop in the bucket of orchestrated murder. I fully expect you to now acknowledge the crimes committed by your people in your people's names and stop whatever denial syndrome you're in.
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, or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
[link]/
If you think this all applies to what happend in Srebrenica then you are correct. If not I suggest you educate yourself.
(Tom Tom, 12 July 2016 11:42)
Read carefully the link that you provided... that link says if "ANY" of the actions you listed is committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, than it's genocide.
It does does say "ALL" needs to apply for it to be genocide. You just made up the "ALL" part, mate. Nice try...
The ICTY definition of genocide is so broad that A and B can be assigned to that man who shot the 5 police officers in Dallas.
(sj, 12 July 2016 10:02)
Sure, if he did that with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Unfortunately, that person is dead and we night never learn his intent. However, I'm sure the CE of B92 forums sj is powerful enough to get info from that guy even from hell or paradise (depending where he went) lol
----------
That is why the ICTY is considered a laughing stock by most countries.
(sj, 12 July 2016 10:02)
You are saying that the UNSC is the laughing stock by most countries, since it's the UNSC that has told ICTY to use that definition of genocide. Perhaps the CE of B92 forums sj might want to propose a better definition that should become mandatory worldwide, including the UNSC!
----------
Srebrenica is called war, not genocide.
(sj, 12 July 2016 10:02)
Unfortunately the international community disagrees with the CE of B92 forums sj. That is, of course, a disgrace since obeying the commands of the CE of B92 forums sj is the duty of every living organism :)
legal trivialities from icj1 and splitting of hairs.
regardless of whether genocide existed as a legal concept in the 1940's.... the act was committed.
And the people representing certain nationalities don't care.
And because of that, neither do serbs care. nor will they ever.
The breakup of yugoslavia was a wonderful thing for serbia (although it was done recklessly by world powers) soon Serbia will forever be rid of its neighbors. The sooner the better.
What happened in Srebrenica was not genocide. There was a civil war going on and the dead represented combatants.
(Paul, 11 July 2016 22:54)
Ah, Ok... so according to your logic, if there is a war in a given territory, everybody who happens to be in that territory is a combatant and can be targeted and killed!!!
Just a small note in case you are not aware... we are not in 1389 mate!
When will teh dead of Jasenovac have their day in court? When will the genocide haters on this site speak out for those victims.
I sense a great deal of hypocrisy by those here who hate genocide. It appears they don't hate it so much when Serbs are killed.
(factman, 12 July 2016 01:52)
Hypocrisy on Serbia's side?! Nobody is preventing Serbia's prosecution to indict those who committed genocide at Jasenovac. Alternatively, Serbia could ask the UNSC to change ICTY's jurisdiction to cover grave violations of international humanitarian law since 1939, because currently it's jurisdiction is limited to 1991 onward. I'm not aware that Serbia has asked that. A lot of talk by Serbs about the victims of Jasenovac, but no action!
(icj1, 12 July 2016 14:44)
legal trivialities from icj1 and splitting of hairs.
regardless of whether genocide existed as a legal concept in the 1940's.... the act was committed.
And the people representing certain nationalities don't care.
And because of that, neither do serbs care. nor will they ever.
(factman, 14 July 2016 01:47)
That was exactly my point. That Serbs really don't care about the genocide that was committed in Jasenovac since they only talk about it instead of taking action. As a result of Serbs not caring, your original question about when will the dead of Jasenovac have their day in court remains unanswered.
IMAGE SOURCE
29 Komentari
Sortiraj po: