Daily: Serbia's reps won’t attend Srebrenica commemoration

I dont understand why its Genocide, they didnt exterminate the population, they only killed the fighting aged men. For it to be Genocide they would of had to kill them for the sole reason that they were Bosnian Muslims, which wasnt the reason, they killed them because they were a group of 6000 or so trained fighters, they were something of a security risk, and the soldiers wanted revenge for the slaughtering of civilians. There was no indication of the Srpska or Serbian government planning the massacre. If thats Genocide, Then didnt the Bosnian Muslims do so in the villiages around that godforsaken town, and didnt the USA commit genocide in Dasht-I-Leilei?

Srebrenica pales in comparison to the Holocaust & Jasenovac, where it wasn't just male POWs who died but women & children who were raped & tortured to death. It's an internal matter.

all woman and children were located to safe areas organised by SERBS! Not UN or Bosniak Army! It's true that Serbs did not kill women and children as the Bosniaks and West made out

The truth always come out remember this to the Bosniak, Croat and Albanian who come on here spewing venom!

GOD BLESS SERBIA, SERBS AND VASOJEVICI!

None of Serbian officials will attend marking of the 16th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide in Potočari on July 11, daily Danas writes.
--
Srebrenica "genocide"? Just because the NATO court says so, it doesn't mean it is. Now tell me which genocide provides passage to women and children?

Can someone here explain to me how this massacre is considered a "genocide"? Anyone?

I dont understand why its Genocide...
(New Zealander, 8 July 2011 11:30)
--
I have a better explanation. Serbians humiliated the empire during its plan to divide and conquer the former YU. We didn't bow down and lick their boots like the Croatians, Muslims and Albanians.

Now they have spent billions and wasted lots of resources to humiliate us. They thought we would eventually submit and be defeated but it only made us stronger. Serbians and the rest of the world know the truth.

Zoran and New Zealander:

The legal definition of Genocide:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole OR IN PART, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group"


Hope this clears up your confusion.

[link]
(Danilo, 8 July 2011 12:23)

No it doesnt, because they didnt kill them because they were Bosnian Muslims, they killed them because they were trained Soldiers who posed something of a security risk, the UN wouldnt help, and they didnt have the recourses to take 6000 or so hostages. Thats the killing of Prisoners of War, while still a tragic event and a war crime, it doesnt legally fit the term Genocide

Zoran and New Zealander:

The legal definition of Genocide:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole OR IN PART, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group"


Hope this clears up your confusion.

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

I dont understand why its Genocide, they didnt exterminate the population, they only killed the fighting aged men. For it to be Genocide they would of had to kill them for the sole reason that they were Bosnian Muslims, which wasnt the reason, they killed them because they were a group of 6000 or so trained fighters, they were something of a security risk, and the soldiers wanted revenge for the slaughtering of civilians.
(New Zealander, 8 July 2011 11:30)
No, they killed alle male population they could get. Of course, it depends on the definition 'Fighting aged men'. You can call a 14 year old guy like that. Or do you refer to African standards, where 8 year old kids are declared as 'fighting age'? In no way the 6000 or so males killed were 'trainded fighters', there might be have some amongst them, yes, but never all. Besides that, it's a war crime to kill even captured fighters or soldiers, in case you don't know.

But well, if some people is not able read and understand the official UN definition of Genocide, then I cannot help.

The legal definition of Genocide:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole OR IN PART, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group"


Hope this clears up your confusion.
(Danilo, 8 July 2011 12:23)
--
So please clear this up for me. Since we are talking about destroying "IN PART, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group" isn't entering a war against another ethnic group an act of genocide because you will, IN PART destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group?

So the K-Albanians have committed genocide in KiM. They have destroyed a large part of the Serbian ethnicity there.
The Bosnian Muslims have committed genocide in BiH particularly around the villages of Srebrenica and Sarajevo, where Serbians were murdered and cleansed.
Croatia has committed genocide twice, Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinians, the US committed Genocide in Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The Australians against the Aborigines, the US against the native Indians and so on.

Can you please clarify. The IN PART section has me confused as Srebrenica was basically a massacre of mainly soldiers.

Why? Because of the shame or because of not caring. This will be remembered and the world will see Serbs for what they truly are.

Jasenovac was genocide

Why should Serbian officials attend a commemoration – genocide at Srebrenica. What a load of BS. This is the Bosniaks trying to :convince the world” that something happened to them.
What actually happened to them is that they chose Alija Izetbegovic who took the wrong path to a greater Islam then he could not force the Serbs to come to the negotiation table and then organized with his mates, the US, a “genocide in Srebrenica” to stop the war.
Please give e Srebrenica a rest and get on with your life and stop this childish rubbish.

The legal definition of Genocide:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole OR IN PART, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group"


Hope this clears up your confusion.
(Danilo, 8 July 2011 12:23)
--
So please clear this up for me. Since we are talking about destroying "IN PART, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group" isn't entering a war against another ethnic group an act of genocide because you will, IN PART destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group?

So the K-Albanians have committed genocide in KiM. They have destroyed a large part of the Serbian ethnicity there.
The Bosnian Muslims have committed genocide in BiH particularly around the villages of Srebrenica and Sarajevo, where Serbians were murdered and cleansed.
Croatia has committed genocide twice, Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinians, the US committed Genocide in Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The Australians against the Aborigines, the US against the native Indians and so on.

Can you please clarify. The IN PART section has me confused as Srebrenica was basically a massacre of mainly soldiers.

I dont understand why its Genocide, they didnt exterminate the population, they only killed the fighting aged men. For it to be Genocide they would of had to kill them for the sole reason that they were Bosnian Muslims, which wasnt the reason, they killed them because they were a group of 6000 or so trained fighters, they were something of a security risk, and the soldiers wanted revenge for the slaughtering of civilians.
(New Zealander, 8 July 2011 11:30)
No, they killed alle male population they could get. Of course, it depends on the definition 'Fighting aged men'. You can call a 14 year old guy like that. Or do you refer to African standards, where 8 year old kids are declared as 'fighting age'? In no way the 6000 or so males killed were 'trainded fighters', there might be have some amongst them, yes, but never all. Besides that, it's a war crime to kill even captured fighters or soldiers, in case you don't know.

But well, if some people is not able read and understand the official UN definition of Genocide, then I cannot help.
(Top, 8 July 2011 16:04)

Might of been the occasional under 18 killed, but it doesnt help when the Bosnian Army were recruiting Children aged 11 http://www.rferl.org/content/Child_Soldiers_Of_The_Balkans/1349516.html

Besides that, it's a war crime to kill even captured fighters or soldiers, in case you don't know.
(Top, 8 July 2011 16:04)
--
Yes top, a war crime it is, a massacre we can all agree upon but genocide? Well, sounds to me like every war is a genocide as it intends to destroy at least in part, some religion, ethnicity and so on.

Now, as New Zealander rightly pointed out, what about the Dasht-i-Leili genocide? Are you familiar with the case? Why hasn't it been investigated? It only happened a short time after Srebrenica. We have those genocide commiters accusing Serbians of committing "genocide"? And you expect us to take them seriously?

Here, Check
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/opinion/14tue2.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/14/afghanistan.lukeharding
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/07/13/the-convoy-of-death-will-obama-investigate-the-afghan-massacre-of-november-2001

The word genocide is meaningless, it is basically a political construct used to pummel an enemy into submission. Srebrenica was a legitimate military operation launched by the BSA as a response to years of muslim terror coming from within the enclave. The so called 'safe area' was never demilitarized, it was crawling with thousands of well armed Bosnian muslim terrorits.
The figure of 8000-10,000 dead is also a big lie as the maximum number of those muslim men killed in combat, as they attempted to fight their way through BSA lines, was a couple of hundred.

No Serb leader with a minimum of self respect should ever attend these so called Srebrenica commemorations which are nothing more than vile political anti Serb hate fests designed to keep the defamation of the Serbian people going for future generations. I say ENOUGH!

People have the Right to their own opinions in a Proper Democracy, and they are also entitled to their opinion, even if they are wrong.

It has been discovered that it is almost impossible to have everyone agree on anything, except for the need for three good meals a day.

Even then, you will some one who will disagree, and they would be those who have been on hunger strikes to promote their cause.

I am entitled to my own opinion, and I reserve the Right to be wrong; however, if I am wrong at times; then I will correct my thinking as soon as I have enough evidence.

My opinions are Always genuinely held opinions, even if some of them might be wrong, but some People will always deliberately and maliciously vomit lies and slander, because that is the lowlife scum that they are.

There are People who say that Slobodan Milosevic was good for Serbia, and there will be those who will say that he was bad for Serbia.

These People are either Serbian, or they could be People who claim to be Serbian, but they could are really another Nationality.

As I have said before, I do not look at the person, but I judge any, and all statements on their Own Merits.

I think the Truth of the Matter is that Slobodan Milosevic was never going to be given an opportunity by Anglo-France to prove that he was good, and Anglo-France were only interested in making him look bad.

They had to use Slander and Lies and do this Constantly to the point of Demonizing the entire Serbian Population.

The supposed Logic is that if all Serbs are evil, then their President must also be evil.

Those who say that Slobodan Milosevic was guilty of alleged genocide and war crimes, are unknowingly saying that all Serbs planned genocide, when the Reality was entirely different.

The Serbian People were only defending themselves from the unprovoked attacks of their enemies.

To this day, the Serbian People have to defend themselves from unwarranted slander, and that task is getting easier by the day.

There are some People who think that it is just too difficult to compete with lies; however, that attitude is only for cowards who have nothing to offer to themselves or to the Human Race.

The Serbian People should say that the Serbian People were the most Innocent of all of the Ethnic Groups in the former Yugoslavia, and say that other are entitled to their opinions.

I can understand it if some People think that it is expedient to say that Slobodan Milosevic was bad, because Serbia might receive a Dog Biscuit for following the Anglo-French Script.

I think that Slobodan Milosevic never had a chance with the intentions and with the tactics of the Anglo-French Enemy of the Human Race, who were assisted by others in the European Union.

We all know that Slobodan Milosevic did not receive a Fair Trial; neither was he going to receive a Fair Trial, just like some other Serbs that are at The Hague.

I came to the opinion that Slobodan Milosevic was Innocent, after stumbling on a five part YouTube documentary that is Titled; SHOCKING Slobodan Milosevic was INNOCENT, that is on the Internet.

He was not allowed his own Lawyers, and the Corrupt and Bribed Judges would not allow him to ask Legitimate questions, and when things did become embarrassing for the International Nazis, then they Censored the proceedings.

The fact that the self proclaimed International Community went to all that trouble to cover up and deny Slobodan Milosevic a Fair Trial.

This means that as far as I am concerned the American Led NATO must have known that he was Innocent, and I believe that he tried to do the best he could for Serbia, under extremely difficult conditions.

That is the opinion that I am entitled to, and I Defy any Person on this Planet to try to deny me my Right to my Genuinely Held Opinions.

There are many People who are not Serbian who believe that Slobodan Milosevic was Innocent.

I hope that we can Agree to Disagree without becoming disagreeable, because that is how it should be in a Proper Democracy.

It's a memorial to Serb enemy forces. The dead are soldiers from Srebrenica and other places, like Zepa, where the Bosnian Muslim military (200,000 strong) had brigades and army bases.

It's known that their soldiers who died fighting in 1992, 1993 etc. are buried at the memorial.

They bury their soldiers who died in the fighting throughout the war there. And the Bosnian Muslim soldiers destroyed scores of Serbian villages all around and many Serbs were killed - often tortured, killed and mutilated, by the ones buried in the memorials.

Why? Because of the shame or because of not caring. This will be remembered and the world will see Serbs for what they truly are.
(ivan, 8 July 2011 17:13)
--
Yes ivan, the world is seeing what Serbians truly are and there is no shame there. Check
http://www.mirosport.net/2011/tennis/29775/double-whammy-for-djokovic-number-1-ranking-and-wimbledon-title
http://www.10sballs.com/2011/07/11/davis-cup-familiar-names-reach-world-group-semifinals
http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/27374.asp?q=Serbia-Wins-FINA-Men%27s-Water-Polo-World-League-Title

I dont understand why its Genocide, they didnt exterminate the population, they only killed the fighting aged men. For it to be Genocide they would of had to kill them for the sole reason that they were Bosnian Muslims, which wasnt the reason, they killed them because they were a group of 6000 or so trained fighters, they were something of a security risk, and the soldiers wanted revenge for the slaughtering of civilians. There was no indication of the Srpska or Serbian government planning the massacre. If thats Genocide, Then didnt the Bosnian Muslims do so in the villiages around that godforsaken town, and didnt the USA commit genocide in Dasht-I-Leilei?

None of Serbian officials will attend marking of the 16th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide in Potočari on July 11, daily Danas writes.
--
Srebrenica "genocide"? Just because the NATO court says so, it doesn't mean it is. Now tell me which genocide provides passage to women and children?

Can someone here explain to me how this massacre is considered a "genocide"? Anyone?

Srebrenica pales in comparison to the Holocaust & Jasenovac, where it wasn't just male POWs who died but women & children who were raped & tortured to death. It's an internal matter.

I dont understand why its Genocide...
(New Zealander, 8 July 2011 11:30)
--
I have a better explanation. Serbians humiliated the empire during its plan to divide and conquer the former YU. We didn't bow down and lick their boots like the Croatians, Muslims and Albanians.

Now they have spent billions and wasted lots of resources to humiliate us. They thought we would eventually submit and be defeated but it only made us stronger. Serbians and the rest of the world know the truth.

Why? Because of the shame or because of not caring. This will be remembered and the world will see Serbs for what they truly are.

People have the Right to their own opinions in a Proper Democracy, and they are also entitled to their opinion, even if they are wrong.

It has been discovered that it is almost impossible to have everyone agree on anything, except for the need for three good meals a day.

Even then, you will some one who will disagree, and they would be those who have been on hunger strikes to promote their cause.

I am entitled to my own opinion, and I reserve the Right to be wrong; however, if I am wrong at times; then I will correct my thinking as soon as I have enough evidence.

My opinions are Always genuinely held opinions, even if some of them might be wrong, but some People will always deliberately and maliciously vomit lies and slander, because that is the lowlife scum that they are.

There are People who say that Slobodan Milosevic was good for Serbia, and there will be those who will say that he was bad for Serbia.

These People are either Serbian, or they could be People who claim to be Serbian, but they could are really another Nationality.

As I have said before, I do not look at the person, but I judge any, and all statements on their Own Merits.

I think the Truth of the Matter is that Slobodan Milosevic was never going to be given an opportunity by Anglo-France to prove that he was good, and Anglo-France were only interested in making him look bad.

They had to use Slander and Lies and do this Constantly to the point of Demonizing the entire Serbian Population.

The supposed Logic is that if all Serbs are evil, then their President must also be evil.

Those who say that Slobodan Milosevic was guilty of alleged genocide and war crimes, are unknowingly saying that all Serbs planned genocide, when the Reality was entirely different.

The Serbian People were only defending themselves from the unprovoked attacks of their enemies.

To this day, the Serbian People have to defend themselves from unwarranted slander, and that task is getting easier by the day.

There are some People who think that it is just too difficult to compete with lies; however, that attitude is only for cowards who have nothing to offer to themselves or to the Human Race.

The Serbian People should say that the Serbian People were the most Innocent of all of the Ethnic Groups in the former Yugoslavia, and say that other are entitled to their opinions.

I can understand it if some People think that it is expedient to say that Slobodan Milosevic was bad, because Serbia might receive a Dog Biscuit for following the Anglo-French Script.

I think that Slobodan Milosevic never had a chance with the intentions and with the tactics of the Anglo-French Enemy of the Human Race, who were assisted by others in the European Union.

We all know that Slobodan Milosevic did not receive a Fair Trial; neither was he going to receive a Fair Trial, just like some other Serbs that are at The Hague.

I came to the opinion that Slobodan Milosevic was Innocent, after stumbling on a five part YouTube documentary that is Titled; SHOCKING Slobodan Milosevic was INNOCENT, that is on the Internet.

He was not allowed his own Lawyers, and the Corrupt and Bribed Judges would not allow him to ask Legitimate questions, and when things did become embarrassing for the International Nazis, then they Censored the proceedings.

The fact that the self proclaimed International Community went to all that trouble to cover up and deny Slobodan Milosevic a Fair Trial.

This means that as far as I am concerned the American Led NATO must have known that he was Innocent, and I believe that he tried to do the best he could for Serbia, under extremely difficult conditions.

That is the opinion that I am entitled to, and I Defy any Person on this Planet to try to deny me my Right to my Genuinely Held Opinions.

There are many People who are not Serbian who believe that Slobodan Milosevic was Innocent.

I hope that we can Agree to Disagree without becoming disagreeable, because that is how it should be in a Proper Democracy.

The legal definition of Genocide:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole OR IN PART, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group"


Hope this clears up your confusion.
(Danilo, 8 July 2011 12:23)
--
So please clear this up for me. Since we are talking about destroying "IN PART, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group" isn't entering a war against another ethnic group an act of genocide because you will, IN PART destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group?

So the K-Albanians have committed genocide in KiM. They have destroyed a large part of the Serbian ethnicity there.
The Bosnian Muslims have committed genocide in BiH particularly around the villages of Srebrenica and Sarajevo, where Serbians were murdered and cleansed.
Croatia has committed genocide twice, Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinians, the US committed Genocide in Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The Australians against the Aborigines, the US against the native Indians and so on.

Can you please clarify. The IN PART section has me confused as Srebrenica was basically a massacre of mainly soldiers.

all woman and children were located to safe areas organised by SERBS! Not UN or Bosniak Army! It's true that Serbs did not kill women and children as the Bosniaks and West made out

The truth always come out remember this to the Bosniak, Croat and Albanian who come on here spewing venom!

GOD BLESS SERBIA, SERBS AND VASOJEVICI!

Zoran and New Zealander:

The legal definition of Genocide:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole OR IN PART, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group"


Hope this clears up your confusion.

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

Zoran and New Zealander:

The legal definition of Genocide:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole OR IN PART, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group"


Hope this clears up your confusion.

[link]
(Danilo, 8 July 2011 12:23)

No it doesnt, because they didnt kill them because they were Bosnian Muslims, they killed them because they were trained Soldiers who posed something of a security risk, the UN wouldnt help, and they didnt have the recourses to take 6000 or so hostages. Thats the killing of Prisoners of War, while still a tragic event and a war crime, it doesnt legally fit the term Genocide

The legal definition of Genocide:

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole OR IN PART, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group"


Hope this clears up your confusion.
(Danilo, 8 July 2011 12:23)
--
So please clear this up for me. Since we are talking about destroying "IN PART, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group" isn't entering a war against another ethnic group an act of genocide because you will, IN PART destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group?

So the K-Albanians have committed genocide in KiM. They have destroyed a large part of the Serbian ethnicity there.
The Bosnian Muslims have committed genocide in BiH particularly around the villages of Srebrenica and Sarajevo, where Serbians were murdered and cleansed.
Croatia has committed genocide twice, Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinians, the US committed Genocide in Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The Australians against the Aborigines, the US against the native Indians and so on.

Can you please clarify. The IN PART section has me confused as Srebrenica was basically a massacre of mainly soldiers.

I dont understand why its Genocide, they didnt exterminate the population, they only killed the fighting aged men. For it to be Genocide they would of had to kill them for the sole reason that they were Bosnian Muslims, which wasnt the reason, they killed them because they were a group of 6000 or so trained fighters, they were something of a security risk, and the soldiers wanted revenge for the slaughtering of civilians.
(New Zealander, 8 July 2011 11:30)
No, they killed alle male population they could get. Of course, it depends on the definition 'Fighting aged men'. You can call a 14 year old guy like that. Or do you refer to African standards, where 8 year old kids are declared as 'fighting age'? In no way the 6000 or so males killed were 'trainded fighters', there might be have some amongst them, yes, but never all. Besides that, it's a war crime to kill even captured fighters or soldiers, in case you don't know.

But well, if some people is not able read and understand the official UN definition of Genocide, then I cannot help.

I dont understand why its Genocide, they didnt exterminate the population, they only killed the fighting aged men. For it to be Genocide they would of had to kill them for the sole reason that they were Bosnian Muslims, which wasnt the reason, they killed them because they were a group of 6000 or so trained fighters, they were something of a security risk, and the soldiers wanted revenge for the slaughtering of civilians.
(New Zealander, 8 July 2011 11:30)
No, they killed alle male population they could get. Of course, it depends on the definition 'Fighting aged men'. You can call a 14 year old guy like that. Or do you refer to African standards, where 8 year old kids are declared as 'fighting age'? In no way the 6000 or so males killed were 'trainded fighters', there might be have some amongst them, yes, but never all. Besides that, it's a war crime to kill even captured fighters or soldiers, in case you don't know.

But well, if some people is not able read and understand the official UN definition of Genocide, then I cannot help.
(Top, 8 July 2011 16:04)

Might of been the occasional under 18 killed, but it doesnt help when the Bosnian Army were recruiting Children aged 11 http://www.rferl.org/content/Child_Soldiers_Of_The_Balkans/1349516.html

Besides that, it's a war crime to kill even captured fighters or soldiers, in case you don't know.
(Top, 8 July 2011 16:04)
--
Yes top, a war crime it is, a massacre we can all agree upon but genocide? Well, sounds to me like every war is a genocide as it intends to destroy at least in part, some religion, ethnicity and so on.

Now, as New Zealander rightly pointed out, what about the Dasht-i-Leili genocide? Are you familiar with the case? Why hasn't it been investigated? It only happened a short time after Srebrenica. We have those genocide commiters accusing Serbians of committing "genocide"? And you expect us to take them seriously?

Here, Check
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/opinion/14tue2.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/14/afghanistan.lukeharding
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/07/13/the-convoy-of-death-will-obama-investigate-the-afghan-massacre-of-november-2001

Why should Serbian officials attend a commemoration – genocide at Srebrenica. What a load of BS. This is the Bosniaks trying to :convince the world” that something happened to them.
What actually happened to them is that they chose Alija Izetbegovic who took the wrong path to a greater Islam then he could not force the Serbs to come to the negotiation table and then organized with his mates, the US, a “genocide in Srebrenica” to stop the war.
Please give e Srebrenica a rest and get on with your life and stop this childish rubbish.

The word genocide is meaningless, it is basically a political construct used to pummel an enemy into submission. Srebrenica was a legitimate military operation launched by the BSA as a response to years of muslim terror coming from within the enclave. The so called 'safe area' was never demilitarized, it was crawling with thousands of well armed Bosnian muslim terrorits.
The figure of 8000-10,000 dead is also a big lie as the maximum number of those muslim men killed in combat, as they attempted to fight their way through BSA lines, was a couple of hundred.

No Serb leader with a minimum of self respect should ever attend these so called Srebrenica commemorations which are nothing more than vile political anti Serb hate fests designed to keep the defamation of the Serbian people going for future generations. I say ENOUGH!

Jasenovac was genocide

It's a memorial to Serb enemy forces. The dead are soldiers from Srebrenica and other places, like Zepa, where the Bosnian Muslim military (200,000 strong) had brigades and army bases.

It's known that their soldiers who died fighting in 1992, 1993 etc. are buried at the memorial.

They bury their soldiers who died in the fighting throughout the war there. And the Bosnian Muslim soldiers destroyed scores of Serbian villages all around and many Serbs were killed - often tortured, killed and mutilated, by the ones buried in the memorials.

Why? Because of the shame or because of not caring. This will be remembered and the world will see Serbs for what they truly are.
(ivan, 8 July 2011 17:13)
--
Yes ivan, the world is seeing what Serbians truly are and there is no shame there. Check
http://www.mirosport.net/2011/tennis/29775/double-whammy-for-djokovic-number-1-ranking-and-wimbledon-title
http://www.10sballs.com/2011/07/11/davis-cup-familiar-names-reach-world-group-semifinals
http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/27374.asp?q=Serbia-Wins-FINA-Men%27s-Water-Polo-World-League-Title