Genocide as a term has become blurred as in the case when the US recognised the Holodomor famine as an act of genocide, even though there is no evidence that there was a plan to exterminate the Ukrainian people. Therefor the US potentially leaves itself open to the same charge in relation to Iraq.
Though not genocidal, the Iraqi sanctions killed at least 100,000 people and that was direct US government policy. It was estimated that the US/UK forces killed up to 100,000 2003-04. Iraqi civilians killed in the civil war were in the tens of thousands. As for Ian's false claims that the Iraqis were responsible for the high death toll and not the west, when you invade a country, remove its government, and disband its army and state institutions, which leads to a bloodbath on sectarian anarchy; exactly how are you not responsible?
Its ironic that you are lecturing people about ignorance, coming from a person who thinks Bashar al-Assad was an ally of Saddam Hussein, that the Czech president was a supporter of the Soviet invasion when infact he was persecuted dissident and that Armenians are Orthodox Christians!
And claiming you opposes NATO and the Iraq War (yeah right) I bet you cheered the latter on and only backtracked when it went pear shaped.
You think the UK & US were trying to exterminate all Iraqi (not an ethnicity) Muslims? Iraq is very multi-cultural society
Iraq is mainly made up by Arabs and Kurds. Since the Kurds managed their own affairs(remember the non-flight zone) those sanctions were directed against the Muslim Arabs.
Yes, putting sanctions on food & medicine caused people to die in Iraq, but it doesn't equate to genocide.
One can kill people with bullets,missiles and sanctions which is probably the worst of them all.
When have I warmongered? I'm anti Iraq War.
No you were not.You were anti-Blair and you try to justify the killing of 1.5 million people just as non-event.When the US military invades a country they follow a plan which they try to execute to the letter.As Clarke says the US hierarchy knew exactly of their actions.
You've also supported the wars in Afganistan,Libya and sided with the Islamists against the legitimate government of Syria.
Genocide comes from the Greek word "Genos" which means race.
Thank you for telling me. I was just about to google it.I was laughing the other day when you asked me to look for the definition of " systematic".Read a bit of Plato and Aristotle and you'll find how the define " systema".
Clark's achievement can be seen in the context of exposing the crimes of US & UK governments around the world.We need Nuremberg trials for the culprits.
Clark never got it classed as a genocide because it wasn't one.
You think the UK & US were trying to exterminate all Iraqi (not an ethnicity) Muslims? Iraq is very multi-cultural society. The main ethnic groups are Arabs 75%, Kurds 17%, Turkmen 3%, Assyrians 2%, Persians 2%, Other 1%. The religions in Iraq are Shi'a, Sunni, Christianity, Mandaeism & Atheism. Iraq is a country & a state but it is not a nation as Iraqi isn't an ethnicity. I'm pretty sure that the sanctions were indiscriminate of people's ethnicity & religion in Iraq. But please prove me wrong.
Yes, putting sanctions on food & medicine caused people to die in Iraq, but it doesn't equate to genocide.
Killing lots of people = murder.
Killing people with the intention of exterminating & wiping out their race, religion or ethnicity = genocide.
You need to learn the difference between the two.
I'm semi-illiterate? You don't know what genocide means & you don't know what warmonger means either. When have I warmongered? I'm anti Iraq War.
Genocide comes from the Greek word "Genos" which means race/ nation (you should know) & the Latin word "cidere" which means "to kill".
So for it to be genocide, we need to know which ethnicity/ race the West was deliberately & intentionally (that is something else which you'll have to prove) trying to exterminate & wipe out.
There is a lot of assumption on your behalf.
What specifically has Clark achieved regarding his genocide claims?
How can a patriotic Serbs rely on the attorney general of US (that Serbs consider the Devil) ?!
(icj1, 4 October 2013 05:37)
In US one has either to be brave enough or a fool to go against the fascist establishment and expose its crimes around the world.Ramsay Clarke had the balls to condemn the Nato bombing on Serbia and expose the genocide of 1.5 million dead Iraqis and 7 million displacements in Iraq.
He also campaigned for the impeachment of the Albanians hero G.W Bush on war crimes but he was unsuccessful(not surprised).If there were few more people like Clarke around the world would've been a better place.
These sanctions would never qualify as "genocide" per the Genocide Convention, even if it is Clark's opinion that it is.
(Ian, UK, 3 October 2013 09:55)
Yeah, but our dear friend Leonidas has outsourced the thinking process to Clark. If Clark were to say tomorrow that it is in Leonidas interest to jump into a river, Leonidas would never question the reasoning behind it, but would happily follow Clark's advice :)
lets ask where the un is headquartered: america. lets ask which nation pays the lion's share of the funding budget: america. we can pretend all we want, but the oldest rules in the book (he who pays for it owns it, and he who has it owns it) clearly show it is america's un.
(2cents, 3 October 2013 17:55)
I just go by the fact that America being Serbs' number one enemy and Serbs loving something that is America's, is sort of a paradox. Anyway, I'm fine with either choice of yours - you just can't have both.
----------
and yes i can read. it would seem you missed that i fully akowledged what you wrote (your definition) was provided to you (and all to see) by an arm of the un (thus the un).
(2cents, 3 October 2013 17:55)
Me writing and me defining is not the same thing, but anyway we're finally on the same page that is UNSC's definition.
Ramsay Clark was the Attorney General of the United States with vast experience in international Law.One would rather heed to his statements and knowledge than that of a cut and paste semi-illiterate English warmonger.
(Leonidas, 3 October 2013 19:45)
Wooooooooooooow, this forum has started to fill in with traitors... How can a patriotic Serbs rely on the attorney general of US (that Serbs consider the Devil) ?!
another thing that's a bit silly about the srebrenica logic (because it was mostly males that were killed (exterminated, slaugtered, pick what ever word you wish to use), then the act of letting women and children escape a besiged war area might lead to genocide, and as such it would be prudent to act counter to that one long standing unwritten rule of letting women and children escape.
(2cents, 3 October 2013 17:55)
This is such a convoluted sentence that I'm not sure what you are trying to say! Anyway, there does not exist such a rule of letting women and children escape. But there are rules that prevent the killing or mistreatment of anybody, regardless of gender or age, except in the course of fighting. Even the killing or mistreatment of a fighter after he/she has been captured is a crime. We're not in the 6th century AD, dear - it's the 21st century in case you are not aware.
He managed to raise the consciousness of the world that his own country and its poodles committed in the name of democracy
Which ethnic group, race, religion or nation was being targeted for extermination again?
Iraqi muslims.
The sanctions may have been systematic but there wasn't a systematic extermination of people based on race, ethnicity or religion.
What a stupid statement.A systematic course of sanctions over a period of 13 years resulted in more than half a million children deaths.
If you have proof or evidence that the aim of the sanction
When sanctions target infants food and medicine and results in thousands of deaths what other proof does one need?Do you really expect the US and Britain to admit guilt?
is this just another anti-Western conspiracy theory
Yes it is.So was the sexual torture of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib(you recall the heroin Linsday English),The killing of Iraqi civilians by US helicopter (as per Snowden video),the use of phosphorous bombs in Fallujah which destroyed the city and killed and maimed thousands of people and of course the finger-chopping of Iraqi prisoner by English soldiers for the purpose of souvenirs.
Ramsay Clark was the Attorney General of the United States with vast experience in international Law.One would rather heed to his statements and knowledge than that of a cut and paste semi-illiterate English warmonger.
lets ask where the un is headquartered: america. lets ask which nation pays the lion's share of the funding budget: america. we can pretend all we want, but the oldest rules in the book (he who pays for it owns it, and he who has it owns it) clearly show it is america's un.
and yes i can read. it would seem you missed that i fully akowledged what you wrote (your definition) was provided to you (and all to see) by an arm of the un (thus the un).
the point is there are two very different definitions provided by both icj1 and ian as to what consititutes geonocide.
perhaps once this proposed bih census is complete a similarly drastic decline of serb population in sarajevo will be seen. would then either of the legal gurus proclaim geonicde as per srebrenica precident?
lets face it, two to abombs each killed far more people, in a similarly localized area within a nation that had orders of magnitude remaining population.
another thing that's a bit silly about the srebrenica logic (because it was mostly males that were killed (exterminated, slaugtered, pick what ever word you wish to use), then the act of letting women and children escape a besiged war area might lead to genocide, and as such it would be prudent to act counter to that one long standing unwritten rule of letting women and children escape.
of course the intervention was the right thing. it stopped the war and brought about relative peace, which is much better than no peace at all. sadly the European left has become contaminated with anti-Americanism, which they confuse for anti-imperialism. i seldom read any objection to Russian meddling in Georgia, Ukraine and any former Soviet Republic. Who here is going to argue that doing nothing in Rwanda was a good idea? this has become my issue with the so called antiwar movement. its not so much anti war as anti-action, they're not pacifists, they're passivists, basically they advocate doing nothing.
Which ethnic group, race, religion or nation was being targeted for extermination again?
The sanctions may have been systematic but there wasn't a systematic extermination of people based on race, ethnicity or religion.
If you have proof or evidence that the aim of the sanctions was to deliberately kill Iraqi children on the grounds of race, ethnicty or religion then I'd inform someone because these are very serious accusations. I'd be taking this to a very senior authority. Or is this just another anti-Western conspiracy theory that the deaths of Iraqi children were deliberate and intentional? I hope you're able to back them up unlike Ramsay Clark who has got nowhere with his genocide claims.
There were sanctions put on Iraq to cause political pressure on Saddam's regime. Many people died in this period, I don't deny that. What poeple like you have done is decided that because people have died, it must have been deliberate and that the reason why the West wanted these people to die was on the grounds of wanting to exterminate a race, relgion or ethnicity. Do you realise how ridiculous and absurd your theory sounds?
The West did not deliberately cause the death of Iraqis on the grounds of wanting to exterminate a race, religion or ethnicty. The West indiscrimianately didn't care who died as a consequence of the sanctions. It wasn't intentional, it is more a case of neglect.
These sanctions would never qualify as "genocide" per the Genocide Convention, even if it is Clark's opinion that it is.
(Ian, UK, 3 October 2013 09:55
I reckon the opinion of the best legal brains like yourself carries more weight than Ransay Clark who's been numerous times in Iraq and warned many times the likes og Bush(senior) and John Major of the thousands of deaths of children the sanctions were causing.These deaths did take place within a time frame of thirteen years(systematic)andwere deliberate because they were targeting children.
If I were you I would rather shut up and admit I was wrong than trying to defend the indefensible.The following link just proves my point.Read what Ramsay Clark had to say about the genocide committed in Iraq.
[link]
(Leonidas, 2 October 2013 17:09)
Oh no, not another article revealing the "truth"!
I suppose if Ramsey Clark says it, then it must be true.
There is genocide and there is letting people die, don't confuse the two like Clark has.
I'm still unsure which "national, ethnical, racial or religious group" the West was "Deliberately" trying to "bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" of in the so-called "genocide". Who were we supposedly trying to wipe out?
These sanctions would never qualify as "genocide" per the Genocide Convention, even if it is Clark's opinion that it is.
you know what i'm not surprised that you said that considering albanians have no basic clue, common sense or even a sub-par education ...you people literally bring a whole new meaning to the words moron and idiot ... a country cannot be a terrorist because a country is neither a organization or group .. a country is a state in which a certain group of people live in that share a common national identity
as to milosevic using those tactics you mentioned, i dare you to name me one leader of a country that didnt use fear, intimidation or even manipulation during their rule ... every single leader throughout history even in democratic countries has used all, some or even one these traits to consolidate their power .. the only terrorist organization that was involved during the kososvo war was the kla, with even your biggest allies (i.e. the us, uk, germany and etc) were saying and had the kla listed as a terrorist organization
thanks icj1...
so as per your definitions (provided by america's un
(2cents, 2 October 2013 16:15)
Just a small correction since some people appear to have reading comprehension difficulties. I said that the definition I provided is UNSC's definition. I thank you for equating me with UNSC but I'm not UNSC.
And the UNSC can't be America's; otherwise Serbs would not love it that much!
(yes, they'll have you believe that every Bosniak male over the age of ten living in Srebrenica was a soldier).
(Ian, UK, 2 October 2013 16:29)
I've actually heard and read a few times from Serbian extremists that since the corpses of teenagers found in mass graves with their hands tied behind their backs would have been vulnerable to have been conscripted as child-soldiers, they were all fair game.
"(Terrorists are defined as a group that uses violence or intimidation to over through a political group or government) So 100% we can clearly say that the KLA are terrorists"
-- Truth,by this very definition the whole state of Serbia was a terrorist organization. Especially since in the 90's Serbia was thrown out of the UN and as a group it used force and violence to overthrow the elected government of Ibrahim Rrugova. Keeping in mind that the state structures of Serbia were ruled by a dictator, that ruled through fear, violence, intimidation and physical elimination of political rivals; then Serbia , we can say with 100% certainty, was a terrorist organization. That definition fits Serbia.
If I were you I would rather shut up and admit I was wrong than trying to defend the indefensible.The following link just proves my point.Read what Ramsay Clark had to say about the genocide committed in Iraq.
I'm not saying that Albanians weren't fleeing from Serbian security forces. What I am saying is that the NATO bombing put a spiral of violence into motion.
You didn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if you bombed Serbia on account of the Albanians in Kosovo that Serbian forces would retaliate against the Albanians in Kosovo.
Likewise, it doesn't take a prophet to figure out that once the Albanians got the upper hand that they would retaliate against the Serbs.
The NATO bombing set off a spiral of violence. The argument that NATO bombed Yugoslavia to stop war crimes against Albanians in Kosovo doesn't wash because there were no war crimes against Albanians until after the bombing started.
The ICTY couldn't find any evidence of a Serbian plan to displace the Albanians during the Kosovo six trial. According to the judgment, "The Chamber places little stock in the witnesses who testified that there was no common plan, design, or purpose to displace the population or in the lack of any reference to such a common purpose in official meetings of entities such as the VJ Collegium."
If you're convinced by a judgment of conviction that "places little stock" in the total lack of evidence to support a conviction, then you're not very bright.
thanks icj1...
so as per your definitions (provided by america's un -- lets call a dead horse a dead horse with or without flogging) of genocide, there seems to be a big discrpepency with that provided by ian.
perhaps you and ian can clariy which definition it is that you wish to use.
The UN defines it as "whole or part of" an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.
The UN considers the Srebrenica-Bosniaks to have been subjected to an attempted genocide.
In 1991 Bosniaks/ Muslims comprimised 75.19% of Srebrenica Municipality's population. By 2003, Bosnian-Serbs compromised 95% of the total Municipality population.
A significant amount of the male population were systematically executed in an attempt to exterminate all Bosniaks/ Muslims from the Srebrenica Municipality whilst the women were taken away by force is buses and 296 Bosniak villages in the were Municipality destroyed.
The UN which Serbs seem to love recognises this as a genocide. However nationalists will tell you it isn't a genocide as they only sytematically exterminated the males and they'll back this up by suggesting that they are soldiers (yes, they'll have you believe that every Bosniak male over the age of ten living in Srebrenica was a soldier).
Accusing the West of "Genocide by Sanctions" is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
1. All the security council would have to support/ not oppose the sanctions for them to be put in place initially.
2. Saddam and the Ba'athists could have stepped down to end the sanction, so one could just as easily blame them for the deaths.
3. Sanctions don't discriminate against race, ethnicity, religion ect.
4. The deaths of the Iraqis may have been linked to the sanctions but they were not CAUSED by the sanctions.
5. Sanctions don't exterminate people, there was no "extermination" of people.
6. There was nothing systematic about the extermination of people which never happened.
7. There was nothing deliberate on the West's behalf regarding the death of the Iraqis.
8. The sanctions were put in place to put pressure on the Ba'athists, not to kill people.
9. The deaths can only be indirectly linked to the west.
10. Look up the following words in a dictionary: "genocide", "systematic", "deliberate" and "extermination".
icj-are you a simpleton? Nothing is black and white. Prior to the bombing there were some population movements, mostly from areas where the KLA were expelling those seen as friendly to Serbia. When the bombing started this movement increased dramatically. The Army was essentially back to barracks to minimise losses,which they did successfully, so how could they be to blame. Some paramilitaries were taking on the KLA, but greatly outnumbered so I dont know how they had the time or planning to to expel 100000 Kalbs. 2 plus 2 equals 4. NATO bombing was the main cause for the movements. And please dont start on Operation Horseshoe which the head of German intelligence himself called "a red herring".
(Stan, 1 October 2013 13:05)
I think you meant that the UN is a simpleton and bla, bla, bla... since I was just quoting Vuk's UN that Serbs love so much.
Again, we are flogging a dead horse here. The UN, ***NOT ME***, has already proven beyond reasonable doubt that "the NATO bombing was not the reason for the mass displacement of Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo". You don't need to convince me; I'm just the messenger. If you disagree, feel free to let the UN know.
now, we have all been made aware that srebrenica was called genocide. how does less than 20,000 (thats a very generous estimate of those killed by serb forces in srebrenica) consitute an entire national, racial, religious or ethnic group, if the total population of that group numbered into the multiple millions?
perhaps it is you or icj that has trouble understanding what genocide means because according to this definition, and the judgements there is a vast gap between the two meanings...
(2cents, 1 October 2013 22:41)
I understand what the UNSC says. But we are flogging another dead horse here. Vuk's UN that Serbs love so much has already proven beyond reasonable doubt that what happened in Srebrenica was genocide. If you disagree, please feel free to complain to the UN.
That is because the UNSC (which Serbs love so much) 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;
- forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
As you can see there is no criteria that the number has to be 100, 1000 or 1 million. It is the intent that matters...
(2cents, 1 October 2013 22:41)
Not Ian or icj, but maybe this will help. According to your logic, any actions at any single NAZI concentration camps would not have been genocide as there would be no way it would wipe out an entire population. But it was a part of a systematic plan to do so.
The key is that the individuals were chosen for no other reason than their genetic makeup for extermination. The people killed at Srebrenica were not killed for actual crimes but the fact that they were who they were made the enemies of Serbs.
as per defintion you provided.
"The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group."
now, we have all been made aware that srebrenica was called genocide. how does less than 20,000 (thats a very generous estimate of those killed by serb forces in srebrenica) consitute an entire national, racial, religious or ethnic group, if the total population of that group numbered into the multiple millions?
perhaps it is you or icj that has trouble understanding what genocide means because according to this definition, and the judgements there is a vast gap between the two meanings...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Iraqis who were killed in the Iraq War (Iraq Civil War) were killed by fellow Iraqis not by the US, UK ect. Yes I'm opposed to the Iraq War, yes I think it was illegal and yes it has ruined the coutry and Bush & Balir should be punished; however it isn't the US and UK ect who are planting bombs and pulling the triggers of guns which are killing civilians in Iraq on almost a daily basis. Iraqis are doing that!
(Ian, UK, 1 October 2013 13:48)
Your posting confuses two periods in Iraqi history.I am talking about the effects the sanctions the West imposed on Iraq in the year 1990-2000 had on Iraqi children and not the Iraqi deaths post 2003 invasion.The sanctions of baby products and medicines resulted in malnutrition of these children and their subsequent deaths.The likes of Clinton,Major and Blair amongst others should've been brought in a type of Nuremberg court and tried for genocide.
Truth- you are absolutely right of course. Less than 10000 casualties, with proportionally far more Serb victims. No mass graves, very few civilian casualties. Can you remember the false flags? It was a very low level civil war, egged on by the US and its allies, for the sole purpose of stealing Kosovo from Serbia. The Kalbs and their ilk have to propagate the lie or the world will see how they were tricked into siding with these scum.
The genocide of Serbs in Kosovo has been going on a long time. Just look at Pristina today. And these evil doers are proud of their deeds.
This fascist creature was responsible for the genocide of 500000 Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions she and her poodle friends imposed on Iraq.When she was asked if those deaths were acceptable her answer was " they was absolutely worth it".
(Leonidas, 1 October 2013 09:46)
You obviously don't understand what the word "genocide" means. I'll be honoured to give you a defination:
"The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group."
Placing sanctions on a country is slightly different to a systematic extermination of people. Also which nation/ race/ religion/ ethnic group was she supposedly trying to wipe off the face of the earth? And what was "systematic" about it? Why is she to be held responsible?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Iraqis who were killed in the Iraq War (Iraq Civil War) were killed by fellow Iraqis not by the US, UK ect. Yes I'm opposed to the Iraq War, yes I think it was illegal and yes it has ruined the coutry and Bush & Balir should be punished; however it isn't the US and UK ect who are planting bombs and pulling the triggers of guns which are killing civilians in Iraq on almost a daily basis. Iraqis are doing that!
icj-are you a simpleton? Nothing is black and white. Prior to the bombing there were some population movements, mostly from areas where the KLA were expelling those seen as friendly to Serbia. When the bombing started this movement increased dramatically. The Army was essentially back to barracks to minimise losses,which they did successfully, so how could they be to blame. Some paramilitaries were taking on the KLA, but greatly outnumbered so I dont know how they had the time or planning to to expel 100000 Kalbs. 2 plus 2 equals 4. NATO bombing was the main cause for the movements. And please dont start on Operation Horseshoe which the head of German intelligence himself called "a red herring".
his was heard from former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who spoke for the NPR radio station
This fascist creature was responsible for the genocide of 500000 Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions she and her poodle friends imposed on Iraq.When she was asked if those deaths were acceptable her answer was " they was absolutely worth it".
Milosevic did NOT want GREATER SERBIA... exactly how much bigger would have Serbia been if it "annexed" Kosovo? Have you ever seen a map of Serbia. Kosovo was ALREADY part of Serbia. How can you take over something thats already yours and has been yours for CENTURIES!?
(Truth, 30 September 2013 20:49)
I was reffering to the client states in Bosnia and Croatia which Belgrade funded.
Hitler's Germany also used to have many client states, which carried out his dirty work.
At the end of the day, the ICTY did not convict any Serb of any crime committed in Kosovo before the NATO bombing.
NATO didn't prevent a humanitarian catastrophe by bombing Serbia, NATO caused a humanitarian catastrophe. There was no refugee crisis or ethnic cleansing until NATO started dropping bombs all over the place.
(Frank 78, 30 September 2013 20:43)
Dear, you are confusing correlation with causation. Let's assume you are correct that the refugee crisis started AFTER NATO started the bombing. That does not mean that the refugee crisis started BECAUSE of NATO's bombing.
That's like saying that since the Sun rose AFTER you woke up, then the Sun rose BECAUSE you woke up :)
Anyway, we're flogging a dead horse here since the UN, which Serbs love so much, has already proved beyond reasonable doubt that the NATO bombing was not the reason for the mass displacement of Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo.
NATO violated the Helsinki final act of 1974 when it did not respect the agreement that sovereign countries borders can never be changed without agreement from that country
(Truth, 30 September 2013 14:26)
But according to the most patriotic of Serbs in these forums the borders have not changed because Kosovo is Serbia :)
Oh shut up you old hag, it was right to the US not that it was the right thing to do.
Have you forgotten the sanctuary and help you and your family received during WW2 by the Serbs?
The young Brit, Ian, is just a protege of little Roberto frisco (the wanna be journalist)and Willi from Germany. He was but a wee lad in West Yorkshire in 1999.
Ian is just regurgitating his two friend's verbal trash including their stupid and chronic attempts to associate Serbs with Nazis.
The 3 of them are very predictable.
i'm so glad i've got goldman as my legal representation...
ian you say:
The KLA weren't trying to over through a political group or government. They were fighting a war of independence.
they weren't going through political channels. they went the military route. is it then not part of every soverign nations right to squash internal militarist terrorism? that is what terrorism is after all.
and since illegal and not legal are different, then legal and not illegal are different to. there are 4 quadrents in your two states. a court of law pronouces defendants as guilty or not guilty, but in your court a judge also has not innocent and innocent. so then not guilty means we can't prove you're innocent, and not innocent means we can't prove you're guilt.
so not illegal means we can't prove you're legal, and not legal means we can't prove you're illegal.
since yugoslavbia wasn't a un nation then, it was not illegal to bomb, regardless of what nato's oiwn laws say. since 1244 (oh those little numbers) was signed by jugoslavia, thats a nation that doesn't exist, and it is not illegal at all for serbia (a totally different nation as per your previous logic) invade kosovo which isn't in un.
At the end of the day, the ICTY did not convict any Serb of any crime committed in Kosovo before the NATO bombing.
NATO didn't prevent a humanitarian catastrophe by bombing Serbia, NATO caused a humanitarian catastrophe. There was no refugee crisis or ethnic cleansing until NATO started dropping bombs all over the place.
The chronology of events tells the tale. First NATO starts bombing, then there is ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and a refugee crisis. Looking back, the bombing wasn't just illegal, it was obviously the wrong thing to do.
It may have been Albanians and Serbs who were on the ground killing each other, but NATO was certainly there stirring the pot and pitting them against each other. NATO deserves a lot of blame for what the Serbs and Albanians did to each other in Kosovo.
The only reason Serbia got bombed was because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Clinton needed a diversion on something else so bombing Serbia was perfect timing. Sad but true!
(Spain, 30 September 2013 18:08)
And it had nothing to do with the humanitarian crisis that was happening in Kosovo?
Let me guess, the real reason why Tony Blair wanted soldiers on the ground in Yugoslavia was because the Lewinsky affair was also affecting his public image too and he needed to cause a big distraction to draw attention away from it?
"The one which committed the most horrendous War Crimes since WW2." Before NATO got involved in Kosovo there was 2000 killed in 2 years of military operations, on ALL sides. Does that sound comparable to WW2? After the war was over it was estimated that dead was around 10,000 (again, ALL sides included). In Iraq ALONE your government and its "allies" have killed over 1,000,000... Thats not even counting the death and destruction in the over 40 wars the US and its allies have fought in the name of "democracy".
Ian, please stop lying... nobody is buying it man.
"The one which wanted a greater version of their own country like Nazi Germany."
Milosevic did NOT want GREATER SERBIA... exactly how much bigger would have Serbia been if it "annexed" Kosovo? Have you ever seen a map of Serbia. Kosovo was ALREADY part of Serbia. How can you take over something thats already yours and has been yours for CENTURIES!?
"The one which conducted ethnic cleansing & attempted genocide."
Who conducted ethnic cleansing and genocide? Do you even know the definition of the words? Please POST the definition and then show me an example of WHERE it was used in Kosovo. I for one will say that was media LIES, for proof, just take a look at Serbia today. Is it ETHNICALLY PURE???? Or is it the MOST ETHNICALLY DIVERSE country in ALL the balkans? Feel stupid yet? Don't hold your breath... it gets better. Kosovo is now "multi-ethnic" according to your country.... "multi-ethnic" being 99% Albanian. So who ETHICALLY cleansed who here? Once again... you're just repeating the lies the media was spinning when it was in full propaganda mode. Real life is totally opposite, and the proof is there for all to see today.
"The far right one which bullied ethnic minorities & their neighbours."
We didn't bully anyone, we tried to fight to preserve Yugoslavia as a MULTI-ETHNIC, and proporus state as it was before the "NWO" decided it was time to DIVIDE & CONCOUR. Are those countries better off today than they were back when Yugoslavia was living in peace or harmony? No! They are not buried in debt for i don't know how many generations.
(Truth, 30 September 2013 14:26
Strange name attached to such a work of fiction.
As far as comparing Serbia to Nazi Germany, Hitler started his campaign to rid Jews from the land long before it started invading other lands. Serbia started the campaign to rid Yugoslavia of non Serbs, would the next step have been to invade other lands? probably.
As far as the largest military base always makes me laugh, it is true that the land the US leased would make up the largest size of a base but the truth is it is 85% undeveloped land. The actual base itself is one of the smallest military bases, with temp housing units. Anyone that has been on the base would know that. It does not even have a landing strip, it can only accommodate helicopters not planes.
KLA was labeled terrorists by the CIA because information flowing out of Yugoslavia was sketchy and there was a heavy reliance on info from the govt, it was not until UN staff was allowed in that the truth(real truth) came out.
NATO acted to prevent a recurrence of the travesty that happened in Europe in the 1930's-40's while everyone turned a blind eye.
As far as the popular Serb myths of the minerals, the oil pipeline, the military base, etc being the reason for the invasion, instead of humanitarian reasons one only has to ask why have none of those been the focus for the 14 years following the bombing.
Good, so in that case since Kosovo is not part of the UN or EU, states can invade Kosovo, arrest its leadership, and drive out any resisting elements of the population back to Albania UN approval.
There's nothing keeping them from doing that except their own moral codes, and we can thank Albright for setting the precedent. Cool, right?
(Realpolitik, 30 September 2013 15:48)
I'd like to see Serbia try, look what happened last time!
And Serbian forces aren't allowed in Kosovo per that four digit number (1244) which Serbia used to love to rant about.
The only reason Serbia got bombed was because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Clinton needed a diversion on something else so bombing Serbia was perfect timing. Sad but true!
Ian, UK.
You totally bought into Western propaganda, man.
When Naser Oric kills Serb women and children in Srebrenica, that's not even a crime, when Ratko Mladic kills POW'S and let women and children go that's genocide, etc. etc.
All in the name of equality.
Equality in which Serbs are not even allowed to use their language like in Croatia. When they rebel against discrimination they are ethnically cleansed. Albanians were able to use their language but they wanted independence and they started the war when this "rigth" was denied to them. Rugova didn't even want to talk about autonomy in 1998.
Serbs on the other hand, accepted borders of both Croatia and Bosnia, and demanded autonomy as a way of protecting themselves from very , very hostile governments (whom West supported).
So, those who accepted borders were separatists, but those who wanted only independence were not?
Perhaps you could google BRITISH parliamentary report that concluded most civilian victims in Kosovo prior to bombing were work of KLA.
Or wonder why is it that Serbs in Bosnia signed Cuttiliero plan recognizing independent Bosnia, but Muslims reigned on their signature and started the war with massacre of Serbs in Sijekovac.
Where is equality of which you speak if Albanians are entitled to self-determination, but Serbs are not?
That sure is a position of SUPREMACIST.
The KLA weren't trying to over through a political group or government. They were fighting a war of independence.
Which one is more like the Nazis (National-Socialists)?
The one who's leader which was both a Nationalist & a Socialist aka a National-Socialsm (Nazi).
The one which wanted a greater version of their own country like Nazi Germany.
The one which conducted ethnic cleansing & attempted genocide.
The far right one which bullied ethnic minorities & their neighbours.
The one which committed the most horrendous War Crimes since WW2.
The one that is obsessed with ethnicity & nationalism.
I don't recall Nazi Germany ever trying to stop a humanitarian crisis.
FR Yugoslavia wasn't in the UN in 1999.
FR Yugoslavia wasn't a signatory of the Helsinki Final Act, SFR Yugoslavia was. FRY isn't the successor to SFRY. NATO didn't change a country's boarders. The Helsinki Final Act isn't legally binding either. Had FRY been a signatory of The Helsinki Accords, they'd have violated it for violating articles 7 & 8.
7: "Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief."
8: "Equal rights and self-determination of peoples."
Don't bother ranting to me about NATO as I hate NATO, I wish the UK would pull out of NATO.
However in 1999 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not a member of the United Nations therefore Yugoslavia was outside the UN's mandate. UN approval wasn't required.
This article has totally been taken out of context, to prove a point.
(Ian, UK, 30 September 2013 13:03)
Good, so in that case since Kosovo is not part of the UN or EU, states can invade Kosovo, arrest its leadership, and drive out any resisting elements of the population back to Albania UN approval.
There's nothing keeping them from doing that except their own moral codes, and we can thank Albright for setting the precedent. Cool, right?
Are you saying that NATO a "defensive alliance" (yeah right) was acting in accordance of its own laws when it attacked a sovereign country fighting separatist terrorists within its own borders. (Terrorists are defined as a group that uses violence or intimidation to over through a political group or government) So 100% we can clearly say that the KLA are terrorists. As originally labeled by even the US state department. Serbia did not threaten any other country, was not looking to fight ANYONE, not Albanians (many if which still live in Serbia proper) and certainly not any NATO member state. But Serbia was an easy target for a big bully such as NATO to occupy and create one of the largest military bases in the world in on of the most mineral rich parts of the world. Thankfully times have changed and thanks to Russia your "humanitarian" interventions are no longer possible. To compare Serbia to Nazi Germany is the stupidest comparison I've ever heard when in actuality there are many more similarities between the NATO Alliance and the NAZI Alliance. It even ALL of the original NAZI member state countries in it plus more (it's even BIGGER!)...
"But Serbia was an easy target for a big bully such as NATO to occupy and create one of the largest military bases in the world in on of the most mineral rich parts of the world. .."
Only someone who is too ignorant to do basic internet research could make such a silly statement about either the base or the mineral resources.
How many millions (yes MILLIONS) of people has this alliance killed? (directly or indirectly) How many wars have they engineered, started, escalated??? I lost count. The entire world knows your tricks. Please look at any forums, anywhere. People see what's happening and are not buying your lies any longer. The NWO days are numbered, nobody wants to fight and kill for them anymore. It's only a question of how desperate will they get to fulfill their masters demands.
NATO violated its OWN charter by attacking a country that did not not attack it
NATO violated the UN charter that says ANY war is illegal between countries unless in self defense or with the authorization of the security council
NATO violated the Helsinki final act of 1974 when it did not respect the agreement that sovereign countries borders can never be changed without agreement from that country
Now who sounds more like Nazi Germany here?
I believe IAN is either a liar or extremely naive and ate up all the propaganda spewed by the media those that own it.
Please LIKE my post to prove my point and show the visitors to this site that they aren't fooling anyone.
"Actions of the U.S. in Kosovo, including the bombing campaign against Serbia launched without a UN approval, "were not legal, but were still right.""
@ B92, she said the actions were "not legal" which is very different from your title which says "Ex-official says U.S. actions were illegal".
If something is "not legal", it isn't necessarily "illegal".
She was saying that it wasn't "legal" because it didn't have UN backing/ approval. However in 1999 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not a member of the United Nations therefore Yugoslavia was outside the UN's mandate. UN approval wasn't required.
This article has totally been taken out of context, to prove a point.
What is next? Will you be telling us that the UK's and France's declaration of war on Nazi Germany was illegal because it didn't have League of Nations approval?
How many millions (yes MILLIONS) of people has this alliance killed? (directly or indirectly) How many wars have they engineered, started, escalated??? I lost count. The entire world knows your tricks. Please look at any forums, anywhere. People see what's happening and are not buying your lies any longer. The NWO days are numbered, nobody wants to fight and kill for them anymore. It's only a question of how desperate will they get to fulfill their masters demands.
NATO violated its OWN charter by attacking a country that did not not attack it
NATO violated the UN charter that says ANY war is illegal between countries unless in self defense or with the authorization of the security council
NATO violated the Helsinki final act of 1974 when it did not respect the agreement that sovereign countries borders can never be changed without agreement from that country
Now who sounds more like Nazi Germany here?
I believe IAN is either a liar or extremely naive and ate up all the propaganda spewed by the media those that own it.
Please LIKE my post to prove my point and show the visitors to this site that they aren't fooling anyone.
Are you saying that NATO a "defensive alliance" (yeah right) was acting in accordance of its own laws when it attacked a sovereign country fighting separatist terrorists within its own borders. (Terrorists are defined as a group that uses violence or intimidation to over through a political group or government) So 100% we can clearly say that the KLA are terrorists. As originally labeled by even the US state department. Serbia did not threaten any other country, was not looking to fight ANYONE, not Albanians (many if which still live in Serbia proper) and certainly not any NATO member state. But Serbia was an easy target for a big bully such as NATO to occupy and create one of the largest military bases in the world in on of the most mineral rich parts of the world. Thankfully times have changed and thanks to Russia your "humanitarian" interventions are no longer possible. To compare Serbia to Nazi Germany is the stupidest comparison I've ever heard when in actuality there are many more similarities between the NATO Alliance and the NAZI Alliance. It even ALL of the original NAZI member state countries in it plus more (it's even BIGGER!)...
"Actions of the U.S. in Kosovo, including the bombing campaign against Serbia launched without a UN approval, "were not legal, but were still right.""
@ B92, she said the actions were "not legal" which is very different from your title which says "Ex-official says U.S. actions were illegal".
If something is "not legal", it isn't necessarily "illegal".
She was saying that it wasn't "legal" because it didn't have UN backing/ approval. However in 1999 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not a member of the United Nations therefore Yugoslavia was outside the UN's mandate. UN approval wasn't required.
This article has totally been taken out of context, to prove a point.
What is next? Will you be telling us that the UK's and France's declaration of war on Nazi Germany was illegal because it didn't have League of Nations approval?
Truth- you are absolutely right of course. Less than 10000 casualties, with proportionally far more Serb victims. No mass graves, very few civilian casualties. Can you remember the false flags? It was a very low level civil war, egged on by the US and its allies, for the sole purpose of stealing Kosovo from Serbia. The Kalbs and their ilk have to propagate the lie or the world will see how they were tricked into siding with these scum.
The genocide of Serbs in Kosovo has been going on a long time. Just look at Pristina today. And these evil doers are proud of their deeds.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Iraqis who were killed in the Iraq War (Iraq Civil War) were killed by fellow Iraqis not by the US, UK ect. Yes I'm opposed to the Iraq War, yes I think it was illegal and yes it has ruined the coutry and Bush & Balir should be punished; however it isn't the US and UK ect who are planting bombs and pulling the triggers of guns which are killing civilians in Iraq on almost a daily basis. Iraqis are doing that!
(Ian, UK, 1 October 2013 13:48)
Your posting confuses two periods in Iraqi history.I am talking about the effects the sanctions the West imposed on Iraq in the year 1990-2000 had on Iraqi children and not the Iraqi deaths post 2003 invasion.The sanctions of baby products and medicines resulted in malnutrition of these children and their subsequent deaths.The likes of Clinton,Major and Blair amongst others should've been brought in a type of Nuremberg court and tried for genocide.
Ian, UK.
You totally bought into Western propaganda, man.
When Naser Oric kills Serb women and children in Srebrenica, that's not even a crime, when Ratko Mladic kills POW'S and let women and children go that's genocide, etc. etc.
All in the name of equality.
Equality in which Serbs are not even allowed to use their language like in Croatia. When they rebel against discrimination they are ethnically cleansed. Albanians were able to use their language but they wanted independence and they started the war when this "rigth" was denied to them. Rugova didn't even want to talk about autonomy in 1998.
Serbs on the other hand, accepted borders of both Croatia and Bosnia, and demanded autonomy as a way of protecting themselves from very , very hostile governments (whom West supported).
So, those who accepted borders were separatists, but those who wanted only independence were not?
Perhaps you could google BRITISH parliamentary report that concluded most civilian victims in Kosovo prior to bombing were work of KLA.
Or wonder why is it that Serbs in Bosnia signed Cuttiliero plan recognizing independent Bosnia, but Muslims reigned on their signature and started the war with massacre of Serbs in Sijekovac.
Where is equality of which you speak if Albanians are entitled to self-determination, but Serbs are not?
That sure is a position of SUPREMACIST.
his was heard from former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who spoke for the NPR radio station
This fascist creature was responsible for the genocide of 500000 Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions she and her poodle friends imposed on Iraq.When she was asked if those deaths were acceptable her answer was " they was absolutely worth it".
The KLA weren't trying to over through a political group or government. They were fighting a war of independence.
Which one is more like the Nazis (National-Socialists)?
The one who's leader which was both a Nationalist & a Socialist aka a National-Socialsm (Nazi).
The one which wanted a greater version of their own country like Nazi Germany.
The one which conducted ethnic cleansing & attempted genocide.
The far right one which bullied ethnic minorities & their neighbours.
The one which committed the most horrendous War Crimes since WW2.
The one that is obsessed with ethnicity & nationalism.
I don't recall Nazi Germany ever trying to stop a humanitarian crisis.
FR Yugoslavia wasn't in the UN in 1999.
FR Yugoslavia wasn't a signatory of the Helsinki Final Act, SFR Yugoslavia was. FRY isn't the successor to SFRY. NATO didn't change a country's boarders. The Helsinki Final Act isn't legally binding either. Had FRY been a signatory of The Helsinki Accords, they'd have violated it for violating articles 7 & 8.
7: "Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief."
8: "Equal rights and self-determination of peoples."
Don't bother ranting to me about NATO as I hate NATO, I wish the UK would pull out of NATO.
Ian, please stop lying... nobody is buying it man.
"The one which wanted a greater version of their own country like Nazi Germany."
Milosevic did NOT want GREATER SERBIA... exactly how much bigger would have Serbia been if it "annexed" Kosovo? Have you ever seen a map of Serbia. Kosovo was ALREADY part of Serbia. How can you take over something thats already yours and has been yours for CENTURIES!?
Oh shut up you old hag, it was right to the US not that it was the right thing to do.
Have you forgotten the sanctuary and help you and your family received during WW2 by the Serbs?
icj-are you a simpleton? Nothing is black and white. Prior to the bombing there were some population movements, mostly from areas where the KLA were expelling those seen as friendly to Serbia. When the bombing started this movement increased dramatically. The Army was essentially back to barracks to minimise losses,which they did successfully, so how could they be to blame. Some paramilitaries were taking on the KLA, but greatly outnumbered so I dont know how they had the time or planning to to expel 100000 Kalbs. 2 plus 2 equals 4. NATO bombing was the main cause for the movements. And please dont start on Operation Horseshoe which the head of German intelligence himself called "a red herring".
However in 1999 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not a member of the United Nations therefore Yugoslavia was outside the UN's mandate. UN approval wasn't required.
This article has totally been taken out of context, to prove a point.
(Ian, UK, 30 September 2013 13:03)
Good, so in that case since Kosovo is not part of the UN or EU, states can invade Kosovo, arrest its leadership, and drive out any resisting elements of the population back to Albania UN approval.
There's nothing keeping them from doing that except their own moral codes, and we can thank Albright for setting the precedent. Cool, right?
The only reason Serbia got bombed was because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Clinton needed a diversion on something else so bombing Serbia was perfect timing. Sad but true!
"But Serbia was an easy target for a big bully such as NATO to occupy and create one of the largest military bases in the world in on of the most mineral rich parts of the world. .."
Only someone who is too ignorant to do basic internet research could make such a silly statement about either the base or the mineral resources.
"The one which committed the most horrendous War Crimes since WW2." Before NATO got involved in Kosovo there was 2000 killed in 2 years of military operations, on ALL sides. Does that sound comparable to WW2? After the war was over it was estimated that dead was around 10,000 (again, ALL sides included). In Iraq ALONE your government and its "allies" have killed over 1,000,000... Thats not even counting the death and destruction in the over 40 wars the US and its allies have fought in the name of "democracy".
The young Brit, Ian, is just a protege of little Roberto frisco (the wanna be journalist)and Willi from Germany. He was but a wee lad in West Yorkshire in 1999.
Ian is just regurgitating his two friend's verbal trash including their stupid and chronic attempts to associate Serbs with Nazis.
The 3 of them are very predictable.
as per defintion you provided.
"The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group."
now, we have all been made aware that srebrenica was called genocide. how does less than 20,000 (thats a very generous estimate of those killed by serb forces in srebrenica) consitute an entire national, racial, religious or ethnic group, if the total population of that group numbered into the multiple millions?
perhaps it is you or icj that has trouble understanding what genocide means because according to this definition, and the judgements there is a vast gap between the two meanings...
"The one which conducted ethnic cleansing & attempted genocide."
Who conducted ethnic cleansing and genocide? Do you even know the definition of the words? Please POST the definition and then show me an example of WHERE it was used in Kosovo. I for one will say that was media LIES, for proof, just take a look at Serbia today. Is it ETHNICALLY PURE???? Or is it the MOST ETHNICALLY DIVERSE country in ALL the balkans? Feel stupid yet? Don't hold your breath... it gets better. Kosovo is now "multi-ethnic" according to your country.... "multi-ethnic" being 99% Albanian. So who ETHICALLY cleansed who here? Once again... you're just repeating the lies the media was spinning when it was in full propaganda mode. Real life is totally opposite, and the proof is there for all to see today.
"The far right one which bullied ethnic minorities & their neighbours."
We didn't bully anyone, we tried to fight to preserve Yugoslavia as a MULTI-ETHNIC, and proporus state as it was before the "NWO" decided it was time to DIVIDE & CONCOUR. Are those countries better off today than they were back when Yugoslavia was living in peace or harmony? No! They are not buried in debt for i don't know how many generations.
If I were you I would rather shut up and admit I was wrong than trying to defend the indefensible.The following link just proves my point.Read what Ramsay Clark had to say about the genocide committed in Iraq.
These sanctions would never qualify as "genocide" per the Genocide Convention, even if it is Clark's opinion that it is.
(Ian, UK, 3 October 2013 09:55
I reckon the opinion of the best legal brains like yourself carries more weight than Ransay Clark who's been numerous times in Iraq and warned many times the likes og Bush(senior) and John Major of the thousands of deaths of children the sanctions were causing.These deaths did take place within a time frame of thirteen years(systematic)andwere deliberate because they were targeting children.
Good, so in that case since Kosovo is not part of the UN or EU, states can invade Kosovo, arrest its leadership, and drive out any resisting elements of the population back to Albania UN approval.
There's nothing keeping them from doing that except their own moral codes, and we can thank Albright for setting the precedent. Cool, right?
(Realpolitik, 30 September 2013 15:48)
I'd like to see Serbia try, look what happened last time!
And Serbian forces aren't allowed in Kosovo per that four digit number (1244) which Serbia used to love to rant about.
The only reason Serbia got bombed was because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Clinton needed a diversion on something else so bombing Serbia was perfect timing. Sad but true!
(Spain, 30 September 2013 18:08)
And it had nothing to do with the humanitarian crisis that was happening in Kosovo?
Let me guess, the real reason why Tony Blair wanted soldiers on the ground in Yugoslavia was because the Lewinsky affair was also affecting his public image too and he needed to cause a big distraction to draw attention away from it?
At the end of the day, the ICTY did not convict any Serb of any crime committed in Kosovo before the NATO bombing.
NATO didn't prevent a humanitarian catastrophe by bombing Serbia, NATO caused a humanitarian catastrophe. There was no refugee crisis or ethnic cleansing until NATO started dropping bombs all over the place.
The chronology of events tells the tale. First NATO starts bombing, then there is ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and a refugee crisis. Looking back, the bombing wasn't just illegal, it was obviously the wrong thing to do.
It may have been Albanians and Serbs who were on the ground killing each other, but NATO was certainly there stirring the pot and pitting them against each other. NATO deserves a lot of blame for what the Serbs and Albanians did to each other in Kosovo.
At the end of the day, the ICTY did not convict any Serb of any crime committed in Kosovo before the NATO bombing.
NATO didn't prevent a humanitarian catastrophe by bombing Serbia, NATO caused a humanitarian catastrophe. There was no refugee crisis or ethnic cleansing until NATO started dropping bombs all over the place.
(Frank 78, 30 September 2013 20:43)
Dear, you are confusing correlation with causation. Let's assume you are correct that the refugee crisis started AFTER NATO started the bombing. That does not mean that the refugee crisis started BECAUSE of NATO's bombing.
That's like saying that since the Sun rose AFTER you woke up, then the Sun rose BECAUSE you woke up :)
Anyway, we're flogging a dead horse here since the UN, which Serbs love so much, has already proved beyond reasonable doubt that the NATO bombing was not the reason for the mass displacement of Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo.
Milosevic did NOT want GREATER SERBIA... exactly how much bigger would have Serbia been if it "annexed" Kosovo? Have you ever seen a map of Serbia. Kosovo was ALREADY part of Serbia. How can you take over something thats already yours and has been yours for CENTURIES!?
(Truth, 30 September 2013 20:49)
I was reffering to the client states in Bosnia and Croatia which Belgrade funded.
Hitler's Germany also used to have many client states, which carried out his dirty work.
icj-are you a simpleton? Nothing is black and white. Prior to the bombing there were some population movements, mostly from areas where the KLA were expelling those seen as friendly to Serbia. When the bombing started this movement increased dramatically. The Army was essentially back to barracks to minimise losses,which they did successfully, so how could they be to blame. Some paramilitaries were taking on the KLA, but greatly outnumbered so I dont know how they had the time or planning to to expel 100000 Kalbs. 2 plus 2 equals 4. NATO bombing was the main cause for the movements. And please dont start on Operation Horseshoe which the head of German intelligence himself called "a red herring".
(Stan, 1 October 2013 13:05)
I think you meant that the UN is a simpleton and bla, bla, bla... since I was just quoting Vuk's UN that Serbs love so much.
Again, we are flogging a dead horse here. The UN, ***NOT ME***, has already proven beyond reasonable doubt that "the NATO bombing was not the reason for the mass displacement of Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo". You don't need to convince me; I'm just the messenger. If you disagree, feel free to let the UN know.
now, we have all been made aware that srebrenica was called genocide. how does less than 20,000 (thats a very generous estimate of those killed by serb forces in srebrenica) consitute an entire national, racial, religious or ethnic group, if the total population of that group numbered into the multiple millions?
perhaps it is you or icj that has trouble understanding what genocide means because according to this definition, and the judgements there is a vast gap between the two meanings...
(2cents, 1 October 2013 22:41)
I understand what the UNSC says. But we are flogging another dead horse here. Vuk's UN that Serbs love so much has already proven beyond reasonable doubt that what happened in Srebrenica was genocide. If you disagree, please feel free to complain to the UN.
That is because the UNSC (which Serbs love so much) 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;
- forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
As you can see there is no criteria that the number has to be 100, 1000 or 1 million. It is the intent that matters...
NATO violated the Helsinki final act of 1974 when it did not respect the agreement that sovereign countries borders can never be changed without agreement from that country
(Truth, 30 September 2013 14:26)
But according to the most patriotic of Serbs in these forums the borders have not changed because Kosovo is Serbia :)
thanks icj1...
so as per your definitions (provided by america's un -- lets call a dead horse a dead horse with or without flogging) of genocide, there seems to be a big discrpepency with that provided by ian.
perhaps you and ian can clariy which definition it is that you wish to use.
He managed to raise the consciousness of the world that his own country and its poodles committed in the name of democracy
Which ethnic group, race, religion or nation was being targeted for extermination again?
Iraqi muslims.
The sanctions may have been systematic but there wasn't a systematic extermination of people based on race, ethnicity or religion.
What a stupid statement.A systematic course of sanctions over a period of 13 years resulted in more than half a million children deaths.
If you have proof or evidence that the aim of the sanction
When sanctions target infants food and medicine and results in thousands of deaths what other proof does one need?Do you really expect the US and Britain to admit guilt?
is this just another anti-Western conspiracy theory
Yes it is.So was the sexual torture of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib(you recall the heroin Linsday English),The killing of Iraqi civilians by US helicopter (as per Snowden video),the use of phosphorous bombs in Fallujah which destroyed the city and killed and maimed thousands of people and of course the finger-chopping of Iraqi prisoner by English soldiers for the purpose of souvenirs.
Ramsay Clark was the Attorney General of the United States with vast experience in international Law.One would rather heed to his statements and knowledge than that of a cut and paste semi-illiterate English warmonger.
(Truth, 30 September 2013 14:26
Strange name attached to such a work of fiction.
As far as comparing Serbia to Nazi Germany, Hitler started his campaign to rid Jews from the land long before it started invading other lands. Serbia started the campaign to rid Yugoslavia of non Serbs, would the next step have been to invade other lands? probably.
As far as the largest military base always makes me laugh, it is true that the land the US leased would make up the largest size of a base but the truth is it is 85% undeveloped land. The actual base itself is one of the smallest military bases, with temp housing units. Anyone that has been on the base would know that. It does not even have a landing strip, it can only accommodate helicopters not planes.
KLA was labeled terrorists by the CIA because information flowing out of Yugoslavia was sketchy and there was a heavy reliance on info from the govt, it was not until UN staff was allowed in that the truth(real truth) came out.
NATO acted to prevent a recurrence of the travesty that happened in Europe in the 1930's-40's while everyone turned a blind eye.
As far as the popular Serb myths of the minerals, the oil pipeline, the military base, etc being the reason for the invasion, instead of humanitarian reasons one only has to ask why have none of those been the focus for the 14 years following the bombing.
i'm so glad i've got goldman as my legal representation...
ian you say:
The KLA weren't trying to over through a political group or government. They were fighting a war of independence.
they weren't going through political channels. they went the military route. is it then not part of every soverign nations right to squash internal militarist terrorism? that is what terrorism is after all.
and since illegal and not legal are different, then legal and not illegal are different to. there are 4 quadrents in your two states. a court of law pronouces defendants as guilty or not guilty, but in your court a judge also has not innocent and innocent. so then not guilty means we can't prove you're innocent, and not innocent means we can't prove you're guilt.
so not illegal means we can't prove you're legal, and not legal means we can't prove you're illegal.
since yugoslavbia wasn't a un nation then, it was not illegal to bomb, regardless of what nato's oiwn laws say. since 1244 (oh those little numbers) was signed by jugoslavia, thats a nation that doesn't exist, and it is not illegal at all for serbia (a totally different nation as per your previous logic) invade kosovo which isn't in un.
The UN defines it as "whole or part of" an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.
The UN considers the Srebrenica-Bosniaks to have been subjected to an attempted genocide.
In 1991 Bosniaks/ Muslims comprimised 75.19% of Srebrenica Municipality's population. By 2003, Bosnian-Serbs compromised 95% of the total Municipality population.
A significant amount of the male population were systematically executed in an attempt to exterminate all Bosniaks/ Muslims from the Srebrenica Municipality whilst the women were taken away by force is buses and 296 Bosniak villages in the were Municipality destroyed.
The UN which Serbs seem to love recognises this as a genocide. However nationalists will tell you it isn't a genocide as they only sytematically exterminated the males and they'll back this up by suggesting that they are soldiers (yes, they'll have you believe that every Bosniak male over the age of ten living in Srebrenica was a soldier).
I'm not saying that Albanians weren't fleeing from Serbian security forces. What I am saying is that the NATO bombing put a spiral of violence into motion.
You didn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if you bombed Serbia on account of the Albanians in Kosovo that Serbian forces would retaliate against the Albanians in Kosovo.
Likewise, it doesn't take a prophet to figure out that once the Albanians got the upper hand that they would retaliate against the Serbs.
The NATO bombing set off a spiral of violence. The argument that NATO bombed Yugoslavia to stop war crimes against Albanians in Kosovo doesn't wash because there were no war crimes against Albanians until after the bombing started.
The ICTY couldn't find any evidence of a Serbian plan to displace the Albanians during the Kosovo six trial. According to the judgment, "The Chamber places little stock in the witnesses who testified that there was no common plan, design, or purpose to displace the population or in the lack of any reference to such a common purpose in official meetings of entities such as the VJ Collegium."
If you're convinced by a judgment of conviction that "places little stock" in the total lack of evidence to support a conviction, then you're not very bright.
lets ask where the un is headquartered: america. lets ask which nation pays the lion's share of the funding budget: america. we can pretend all we want, but the oldest rules in the book (he who pays for it owns it, and he who has it owns it) clearly show it is america's un.
and yes i can read. it would seem you missed that i fully akowledged what you wrote (your definition) was provided to you (and all to see) by an arm of the un (thus the un).
the point is there are two very different definitions provided by both icj1 and ian as to what consititutes geonocide.
perhaps once this proposed bih census is complete a similarly drastic decline of serb population in sarajevo will be seen. would then either of the legal gurus proclaim geonicde as per srebrenica precident?
lets face it, two to abombs each killed far more people, in a similarly localized area within a nation that had orders of magnitude remaining population.
another thing that's a bit silly about the srebrenica logic (because it was mostly males that were killed (exterminated, slaugtered, pick what ever word you wish to use), then the act of letting women and children escape a besiged war area might lead to genocide, and as such it would be prudent to act counter to that one long standing unwritten rule of letting women and children escape.
This fascist creature was responsible for the genocide of 500000 Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions she and her poodle friends imposed on Iraq.When she was asked if those deaths were acceptable her answer was " they was absolutely worth it".
(Leonidas, 1 October 2013 09:46)
You obviously don't understand what the word "genocide" means. I'll be honoured to give you a defination:
"The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group."
Placing sanctions on a country is slightly different to a systematic extermination of people. Also which nation/ race/ religion/ ethnic group was she supposedly trying to wipe off the face of the earth? And what was "systematic" about it? Why is she to be held responsible?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Iraqis who were killed in the Iraq War (Iraq Civil War) were killed by fellow Iraqis not by the US, UK ect. Yes I'm opposed to the Iraq War, yes I think it was illegal and yes it has ruined the coutry and Bush & Balir should be punished; however it isn't the US and UK ect who are planting bombs and pulling the triggers of guns which are killing civilians in Iraq on almost a daily basis. Iraqis are doing that!
you know what i'm not surprised that you said that considering albanians have no basic clue, common sense or even a sub-par education ...you people literally bring a whole new meaning to the words moron and idiot ... a country cannot be a terrorist because a country is neither a organization or group .. a country is a state in which a certain group of people live in that share a common national identity
as to milosevic using those tactics you mentioned, i dare you to name me one leader of a country that didnt use fear, intimidation or even manipulation during their rule ... every single leader throughout history even in democratic countries has used all, some or even one these traits to consolidate their power .. the only terrorist organization that was involved during the kososvo war was the kla, with even your biggest allies (i.e. the us, uk, germany and etc) were saying and had the kla listed as a terrorist organization
Accusing the West of "Genocide by Sanctions" is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
1. All the security council would have to support/ not oppose the sanctions for them to be put in place initially.
2. Saddam and the Ba'athists could have stepped down to end the sanction, so one could just as easily blame them for the deaths.
3. Sanctions don't discriminate against race, ethnicity, religion ect.
4. The deaths of the Iraqis may have been linked to the sanctions but they were not CAUSED by the sanctions.
5. Sanctions don't exterminate people, there was no "extermination" of people.
6. There was nothing systematic about the extermination of people which never happened.
7. There was nothing deliberate on the West's behalf regarding the death of the Iraqis.
8. The sanctions were put in place to put pressure on the Ba'athists, not to kill people.
9. The deaths can only be indirectly linked to the west.
10. Look up the following words in a dictionary: "genocide", "systematic", "deliberate" and "extermination".
(yes, they'll have you believe that every Bosniak male over the age of ten living in Srebrenica was a soldier).
(Ian, UK, 2 October 2013 16:29)
I've actually heard and read a few times from Serbian extremists that since the corpses of teenagers found in mass graves with their hands tied behind their backs would have been vulnerable to have been conscripted as child-soldiers, they were all fair game.
Which ethnic group, race, religion or nation was being targeted for extermination again?
The sanctions may have been systematic but there wasn't a systematic extermination of people based on race, ethnicity or religion.
If you have proof or evidence that the aim of the sanctions was to deliberately kill Iraqi children on the grounds of race, ethnicty or religion then I'd inform someone because these are very serious accusations. I'd be taking this to a very senior authority. Or is this just another anti-Western conspiracy theory that the deaths of Iraqi children were deliberate and intentional? I hope you're able to back them up unlike Ramsay Clark who has got nowhere with his genocide claims.
There were sanctions put on Iraq to cause political pressure on Saddam's regime. Many people died in this period, I don't deny that. What poeple like you have done is decided that because people have died, it must have been deliberate and that the reason why the West wanted these people to die was on the grounds of wanting to exterminate a race, relgion or ethnicity. Do you realise how ridiculous and absurd your theory sounds?
The West did not deliberately cause the death of Iraqis on the grounds of wanting to exterminate a race, religion or ethnicty. The West indiscrimianately didn't care who died as a consequence of the sanctions. It wasn't intentional, it is more a case of neglect.
How can a patriotic Serbs rely on the attorney general of US (that Serbs consider the Devil) ?!
(icj1, 4 October 2013 05:37)
In US one has either to be brave enough or a fool to go against the fascist establishment and expose its crimes around the world.Ramsay Clarke had the balls to condemn the Nato bombing on Serbia and expose the genocide of 1.5 million dead Iraqis and 7 million displacements in Iraq.
He also campaigned for the impeachment of the Albanians hero G.W Bush on war crimes but he was unsuccessful(not surprised).If there were few more people like Clarke around the world would've been a better place.
You think the UK & US were trying to exterminate all Iraqi (not an ethnicity) Muslims? Iraq is very multi-cultural society
Iraq is mainly made up by Arabs and Kurds. Since the Kurds managed their own affairs(remember the non-flight zone) those sanctions were directed against the Muslim Arabs.
Yes, putting sanctions on food & medicine caused people to die in Iraq, but it doesn't equate to genocide.
One can kill people with bullets,missiles and sanctions which is probably the worst of them all.
When have I warmongered? I'm anti Iraq War.
No you were not.You were anti-Blair and you try to justify the killing of 1.5 million people just as non-event.When the US military invades a country they follow a plan which they try to execute to the letter.As Clarke says the US hierarchy knew exactly of their actions.
You've also supported the wars in Afganistan,Libya and sided with the Islamists against the legitimate government of Syria.
Genocide comes from the Greek word "Genos" which means race.
Thank you for telling me. I was just about to google it.I was laughing the other day when you asked me to look for the definition of " systematic".Read a bit of Plato and Aristotle and you'll find how the define " systema".
Clark's achievement can be seen in the context of exposing the crimes of US & UK governments around the world.We need Nuremberg trials for the culprits.
(2cents, 1 October 2013 22:41)
Not Ian or icj, but maybe this will help. According to your logic, any actions at any single NAZI concentration camps would not have been genocide as there would be no way it would wipe out an entire population. But it was a part of a systematic plan to do so.
The key is that the individuals were chosen for no other reason than their genetic makeup for extermination. The people killed at Srebrenica were not killed for actual crimes but the fact that they were who they were made the enemies of Serbs.
thanks icj1...
so as per your definitions (provided by america's un
(2cents, 2 October 2013 16:15)
Just a small correction since some people appear to have reading comprehension difficulties. I said that the definition I provided is UNSC's definition. I thank you for equating me with UNSC but I'm not UNSC.
And the UNSC can't be America's; otherwise Serbs would not love it that much!
If I were you I would rather shut up and admit I was wrong than trying to defend the indefensible.The following link just proves my point.Read what Ramsay Clark had to say about the genocide committed in Iraq.
[link]
(Leonidas, 2 October 2013 17:09)
Oh no, not another article revealing the "truth"!
I suppose if Ramsey Clark says it, then it must be true.
There is genocide and there is letting people die, don't confuse the two like Clark has.
I'm still unsure which "national, ethnical, racial or religious group" the West was "Deliberately" trying to "bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" of in the so-called "genocide". Who were we supposedly trying to wipe out?
These sanctions would never qualify as "genocide" per the Genocide Convention, even if it is Clark's opinion that it is.
of course the intervention was the right thing. it stopped the war and brought about relative peace, which is much better than no peace at all. sadly the European left has become contaminated with anti-Americanism, which they confuse for anti-imperialism. i seldom read any objection to Russian meddling in Georgia, Ukraine and any former Soviet Republic. Who here is going to argue that doing nothing in Rwanda was a good idea? this has become my issue with the so called antiwar movement. its not so much anti war as anti-action, they're not pacifists, they're passivists, basically they advocate doing nothing.
Ramsay Clark was the Attorney General of the United States with vast experience in international Law.One would rather heed to his statements and knowledge than that of a cut and paste semi-illiterate English warmonger.
(Leonidas, 3 October 2013 19:45)
Wooooooooooooow, this forum has started to fill in with traitors... How can a patriotic Serbs rely on the attorney general of US (that Serbs consider the Devil) ?!
"(Terrorists are defined as a group that uses violence or intimidation to over through a political group or government) So 100% we can clearly say that the KLA are terrorists"
-- Truth,by this very definition the whole state of Serbia was a terrorist organization. Especially since in the 90's Serbia was thrown out of the UN and as a group it used force and violence to overthrow the elected government of Ibrahim Rrugova. Keeping in mind that the state structures of Serbia were ruled by a dictator, that ruled through fear, violence, intimidation and physical elimination of political rivals; then Serbia , we can say with 100% certainty, was a terrorist organization. That definition fits Serbia.
another thing that's a bit silly about the srebrenica logic (because it was mostly males that were killed (exterminated, slaugtered, pick what ever word you wish to use), then the act of letting women and children escape a besiged war area might lead to genocide, and as such it would be prudent to act counter to that one long standing unwritten rule of letting women and children escape.
(2cents, 3 October 2013 17:55)
This is such a convoluted sentence that I'm not sure what you are trying to say! Anyway, there does not exist such a rule of letting women and children escape. But there are rules that prevent the killing or mistreatment of anybody, regardless of gender or age, except in the course of fighting. Even the killing or mistreatment of a fighter after he/she has been captured is a crime. We're not in the 6th century AD, dear - it's the 21st century in case you are not aware.
These sanctions would never qualify as "genocide" per the Genocide Convention, even if it is Clark's opinion that it is.
(Ian, UK, 3 October 2013 09:55)
Yeah, but our dear friend Leonidas has outsourced the thinking process to Clark. If Clark were to say tomorrow that it is in Leonidas interest to jump into a river, Leonidas would never question the reasoning behind it, but would happily follow Clark's advice :)
Genocide as a term has become blurred as in the case when the US recognised the Holodomor famine as an act of genocide, even though there is no evidence that there was a plan to exterminate the Ukrainian people. Therefor the US potentially leaves itself open to the same charge in relation to Iraq.
Though not genocidal, the Iraqi sanctions killed at least 100,000 people and that was direct US government policy. It was estimated that the US/UK forces killed up to 100,000 2003-04. Iraqi civilians killed in the civil war were in the tens of thousands. As for Ian's false claims that the Iraqis were responsible for the high death toll and not the west, when you invade a country, remove its government, and disband its army and state institutions, which leads to a bloodbath on sectarian anarchy; exactly how are you not responsible?
Its ironic that you are lecturing people about ignorance, coming from a person who thinks Bashar al-Assad was an ally of Saddam Hussein, that the Czech president was a supporter of the Soviet invasion when infact he was persecuted dissident and that Armenians are Orthodox Christians!
And claiming you opposes NATO and the Iraq War (yeah right) I bet you cheered the latter on and only backtracked when it went pear shaped.
lets ask where the un is headquartered: america. lets ask which nation pays the lion's share of the funding budget: america. we can pretend all we want, but the oldest rules in the book (he who pays for it owns it, and he who has it owns it) clearly show it is america's un.
(2cents, 3 October 2013 17:55)
I just go by the fact that America being Serbs' number one enemy and Serbs loving something that is America's, is sort of a paradox. Anyway, I'm fine with either choice of yours - you just can't have both.
----------
and yes i can read. it would seem you missed that i fully akowledged what you wrote (your definition) was provided to you (and all to see) by an arm of the un (thus the un).
(2cents, 3 October 2013 17:55)
Me writing and me defining is not the same thing, but anyway we're finally on the same page that is UNSC's definition.
Clark never got it classed as a genocide because it wasn't one.
You think the UK & US were trying to exterminate all Iraqi (not an ethnicity) Muslims? Iraq is very multi-cultural society. The main ethnic groups are Arabs 75%, Kurds 17%, Turkmen 3%, Assyrians 2%, Persians 2%, Other 1%. The religions in Iraq are Shi'a, Sunni, Christianity, Mandaeism & Atheism. Iraq is a country & a state but it is not a nation as Iraqi isn't an ethnicity. I'm pretty sure that the sanctions were indiscriminate of people's ethnicity & religion in Iraq. But please prove me wrong.
Yes, putting sanctions on food & medicine caused people to die in Iraq, but it doesn't equate to genocide.
Killing lots of people = murder.
Killing people with the intention of exterminating & wiping out their race, religion or ethnicity = genocide.
You need to learn the difference between the two.
I'm semi-illiterate? You don't know what genocide means & you don't know what warmonger means either. When have I warmongered? I'm anti Iraq War.
Genocide comes from the Greek word "Genos" which means race/ nation (you should know) & the Latin word "cidere" which means "to kill".
So for it to be genocide, we need to know which ethnicity/ race the West was deliberately & intentionally (that is something else which you'll have to prove) trying to exterminate & wipe out.
There is a lot of assumption on your behalf.
What specifically has Clark achieved regarding his genocide claims?
"Actions of the U.S. in Kosovo, including the bombing campaign against Serbia launched without a UN approval, "were not legal, but were still right.""
@ B92, she said the actions were "not legal" which is very different from your title which says "Ex-official says U.S. actions were illegal".
If something is "not legal", it isn't necessarily "illegal".
She was saying that it wasn't "legal" because it didn't have UN backing/ approval. However in 1999 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not a member of the United Nations therefore Yugoslavia was outside the UN's mandate. UN approval wasn't required.
This article has totally been taken out of context, to prove a point.
What is next? Will you be telling us that the UK's and France's declaration of war on Nazi Germany was illegal because it didn't have League of Nations approval?
The KLA weren't trying to over through a political group or government. They were fighting a war of independence.
Which one is more like the Nazis (National-Socialists)?
The one who's leader which was both a Nationalist & a Socialist aka a National-Socialsm (Nazi).
The one which wanted a greater version of their own country like Nazi Germany.
The one which conducted ethnic cleansing & attempted genocide.
The far right one which bullied ethnic minorities & their neighbours.
The one which committed the most horrendous War Crimes since WW2.
The one that is obsessed with ethnicity & nationalism.
I don't recall Nazi Germany ever trying to stop a humanitarian crisis.
FR Yugoslavia wasn't in the UN in 1999.
FR Yugoslavia wasn't a signatory of the Helsinki Final Act, SFR Yugoslavia was. FRY isn't the successor to SFRY. NATO didn't change a country's boarders. The Helsinki Final Act isn't legally binding either. Had FRY been a signatory of The Helsinki Accords, they'd have violated it for violating articles 7 & 8.
7: "Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief."
8: "Equal rights and self-determination of peoples."
Don't bother ranting to me about NATO as I hate NATO, I wish the UK would pull out of NATO.
How many millions (yes MILLIONS) of people has this alliance killed? (directly or indirectly) How many wars have they engineered, started, escalated??? I lost count. The entire world knows your tricks. Please look at any forums, anywhere. People see what's happening and are not buying your lies any longer. The NWO days are numbered, nobody wants to fight and kill for them anymore. It's only a question of how desperate will they get to fulfill their masters demands.
NATO violated its OWN charter by attacking a country that did not not attack it
NATO violated the UN charter that says ANY war is illegal between countries unless in self defense or with the authorization of the security council
NATO violated the Helsinki final act of 1974 when it did not respect the agreement that sovereign countries borders can never be changed without agreement from that country
Now who sounds more like Nazi Germany here?
I believe IAN is either a liar or extremely naive and ate up all the propaganda spewed by the media those that own it.
Please LIKE my post to prove my point and show the visitors to this site that they aren't fooling anyone.
"But Serbia was an easy target for a big bully such as NATO to occupy and create one of the largest military bases in the world in on of the most mineral rich parts of the world. .."
Only someone who is too ignorant to do basic internet research could make such a silly statement about either the base or the mineral resources.
Good, so in that case since Kosovo is not part of the UN or EU, states can invade Kosovo, arrest its leadership, and drive out any resisting elements of the population back to Albania UN approval.
There's nothing keeping them from doing that except their own moral codes, and we can thank Albright for setting the precedent. Cool, right?
(Realpolitik, 30 September 2013 15:48)
I'd like to see Serbia try, look what happened last time!
And Serbian forces aren't allowed in Kosovo per that four digit number (1244) which Serbia used to love to rant about.
Milosevic did NOT want GREATER SERBIA... exactly how much bigger would have Serbia been if it "annexed" Kosovo? Have you ever seen a map of Serbia. Kosovo was ALREADY part of Serbia. How can you take over something thats already yours and has been yours for CENTURIES!?
(Truth, 30 September 2013 20:49)
I was reffering to the client states in Bosnia and Croatia which Belgrade funded.
Hitler's Germany also used to have many client states, which carried out his dirty work.
This fascist creature was responsible for the genocide of 500000 Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions she and her poodle friends imposed on Iraq.When she was asked if those deaths were acceptable her answer was " they was absolutely worth it".
(Leonidas, 1 October 2013 09:46)
You obviously don't understand what the word "genocide" means. I'll be honoured to give you a defination:
"The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group."
Placing sanctions on a country is slightly different to a systematic extermination of people. Also which nation/ race/ religion/ ethnic group was she supposedly trying to wipe off the face of the earth? And what was "systematic" about it? Why is she to be held responsible?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Iraqis who were killed in the Iraq War (Iraq Civil War) were killed by fellow Iraqis not by the US, UK ect. Yes I'm opposed to the Iraq War, yes I think it was illegal and yes it has ruined the coutry and Bush & Balir should be punished; however it isn't the US and UK ect who are planting bombs and pulling the triggers of guns which are killing civilians in Iraq on almost a daily basis. Iraqis are doing that!
Are you saying that NATO a "defensive alliance" (yeah right) was acting in accordance of its own laws when it attacked a sovereign country fighting separatist terrorists within its own borders. (Terrorists are defined as a group that uses violence or intimidation to over through a political group or government) So 100% we can clearly say that the KLA are terrorists. As originally labeled by even the US state department. Serbia did not threaten any other country, was not looking to fight ANYONE, not Albanians (many if which still live in Serbia proper) and certainly not any NATO member state. But Serbia was an easy target for a big bully such as NATO to occupy and create one of the largest military bases in the world in on of the most mineral rich parts of the world. Thankfully times have changed and thanks to Russia your "humanitarian" interventions are no longer possible. To compare Serbia to Nazi Germany is the stupidest comparison I've ever heard when in actuality there are many more similarities between the NATO Alliance and the NAZI Alliance. It even ALL of the original NAZI member state countries in it plus more (it's even BIGGER!)...
now, we have all been made aware that srebrenica was called genocide. how does less than 20,000 (thats a very generous estimate of those killed by serb forces in srebrenica) consitute an entire national, racial, religious or ethnic group, if the total population of that group numbered into the multiple millions?
perhaps it is you or icj that has trouble understanding what genocide means because according to this definition, and the judgements there is a vast gap between the two meanings...
(2cents, 1 October 2013 22:41)
I understand what the UNSC says. But we are flogging another dead horse here. Vuk's UN that Serbs love so much has already proven beyond reasonable doubt that what happened in Srebrenica was genocide. If you disagree, please feel free to complain to the UN.
That is because the UNSC (which Serbs love so much) 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;
- forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
As you can see there is no criteria that the number has to be 100, 1000 or 1 million. It is the intent that matters...
However in 1999 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not a member of the United Nations therefore Yugoslavia was outside the UN's mandate. UN approval wasn't required.
This article has totally been taken out of context, to prove a point.
(Ian, UK, 30 September 2013 13:03)
Good, so in that case since Kosovo is not part of the UN or EU, states can invade Kosovo, arrest its leadership, and drive out any resisting elements of the population back to Albania UN approval.
There's nothing keeping them from doing that except their own moral codes, and we can thank Albright for setting the precedent. Cool, right?
NATO violated the Helsinki final act of 1974 when it did not respect the agreement that sovereign countries borders can never be changed without agreement from that country
(Truth, 30 September 2013 14:26)
But according to the most patriotic of Serbs in these forums the borders have not changed because Kosovo is Serbia :)
At the end of the day, the ICTY did not convict any Serb of any crime committed in Kosovo before the NATO bombing.
NATO didn't prevent a humanitarian catastrophe by bombing Serbia, NATO caused a humanitarian catastrophe. There was no refugee crisis or ethnic cleansing until NATO started dropping bombs all over the place.
(Frank 78, 30 September 2013 20:43)
Dear, you are confusing correlation with causation. Let's assume you are correct that the refugee crisis started AFTER NATO started the bombing. That does not mean that the refugee crisis started BECAUSE of NATO's bombing.
That's like saying that since the Sun rose AFTER you woke up, then the Sun rose BECAUSE you woke up :)
Anyway, we're flogging a dead horse here since the UN, which Serbs love so much, has already proved beyond reasonable doubt that the NATO bombing was not the reason for the mass displacement of Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo.
icj-are you a simpleton? Nothing is black and white. Prior to the bombing there were some population movements, mostly from areas where the KLA were expelling those seen as friendly to Serbia. When the bombing started this movement increased dramatically. The Army was essentially back to barracks to minimise losses,which they did successfully, so how could they be to blame. Some paramilitaries were taking on the KLA, but greatly outnumbered so I dont know how they had the time or planning to to expel 100000 Kalbs. 2 plus 2 equals 4. NATO bombing was the main cause for the movements. And please dont start on Operation Horseshoe which the head of German intelligence himself called "a red herring".
(Stan, 1 October 2013 13:05)
I think you meant that the UN is a simpleton and bla, bla, bla... since I was just quoting Vuk's UN that Serbs love so much.
Again, we are flogging a dead horse here. The UN, ***NOT ME***, has already proven beyond reasonable doubt that "the NATO bombing was not the reason for the mass displacement of Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo". You don't need to convince me; I'm just the messenger. If you disagree, feel free to let the UN know.
The UN defines it as "whole or part of" an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.
The UN considers the Srebrenica-Bosniaks to have been subjected to an attempted genocide.
In 1991 Bosniaks/ Muslims comprimised 75.19% of Srebrenica Municipality's population. By 2003, Bosnian-Serbs compromised 95% of the total Municipality population.
A significant amount of the male population were systematically executed in an attempt to exterminate all Bosniaks/ Muslims from the Srebrenica Municipality whilst the women were taken away by force is buses and 296 Bosniak villages in the were Municipality destroyed.
The UN which Serbs seem to love recognises this as a genocide. However nationalists will tell you it isn't a genocide as they only sytematically exterminated the males and they'll back this up by suggesting that they are soldiers (yes, they'll have you believe that every Bosniak male over the age of ten living in Srebrenica was a soldier).
of course the intervention was the right thing. it stopped the war and brought about relative peace, which is much better than no peace at all. sadly the European left has become contaminated with anti-Americanism, which they confuse for anti-imperialism. i seldom read any objection to Russian meddling in Georgia, Ukraine and any former Soviet Republic. Who here is going to argue that doing nothing in Rwanda was a good idea? this has become my issue with the so called antiwar movement. its not so much anti war as anti-action, they're not pacifists, they're passivists, basically they advocate doing nothing.
If I were you I would rather shut up and admit I was wrong than trying to defend the indefensible.The following link just proves my point.Read what Ramsay Clark had to say about the genocide committed in Iraq.
[link]
(Leonidas, 2 October 2013 17:09)
Oh no, not another article revealing the "truth"!
I suppose if Ramsey Clark says it, then it must be true.
There is genocide and there is letting people die, don't confuse the two like Clark has.
I'm still unsure which "national, ethnical, racial or religious group" the West was "Deliberately" trying to "bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" of in the so-called "genocide". Who were we supposedly trying to wipe out?
These sanctions would never qualify as "genocide" per the Genocide Convention, even if it is Clark's opinion that it is.
Ian, please stop lying... nobody is buying it man.
"The one which wanted a greater version of their own country like Nazi Germany."
Milosevic did NOT want GREATER SERBIA... exactly how much bigger would have Serbia been if it "annexed" Kosovo? Have you ever seen a map of Serbia. Kosovo was ALREADY part of Serbia. How can you take over something thats already yours and has been yours for CENTURIES!?
"(Terrorists are defined as a group that uses violence or intimidation to over through a political group or government) So 100% we can clearly say that the KLA are terrorists"
-- Truth,by this very definition the whole state of Serbia was a terrorist organization. Especially since in the 90's Serbia was thrown out of the UN and as a group it used force and violence to overthrow the elected government of Ibrahim Rrugova. Keeping in mind that the state structures of Serbia were ruled by a dictator, that ruled through fear, violence, intimidation and physical elimination of political rivals; then Serbia , we can say with 100% certainty, was a terrorist organization. That definition fits Serbia.
(yes, they'll have you believe that every Bosniak male over the age of ten living in Srebrenica was a soldier).
(Ian, UK, 2 October 2013 16:29)
I've actually heard and read a few times from Serbian extremists that since the corpses of teenagers found in mass graves with their hands tied behind their backs would have been vulnerable to have been conscripted as child-soldiers, they were all fair game.
Which ethnic group, race, religion or nation was being targeted for extermination again?
The sanctions may have been systematic but there wasn't a systematic extermination of people based on race, ethnicity or religion.
If you have proof or evidence that the aim of the sanctions was to deliberately kill Iraqi children on the grounds of race, ethnicty or religion then I'd inform someone because these are very serious accusations. I'd be taking this to a very senior authority. Or is this just another anti-Western conspiracy theory that the deaths of Iraqi children were deliberate and intentional? I hope you're able to back them up unlike Ramsay Clark who has got nowhere with his genocide claims.
There were sanctions put on Iraq to cause political pressure on Saddam's regime. Many people died in this period, I don't deny that. What poeple like you have done is decided that because people have died, it must have been deliberate and that the reason why the West wanted these people to die was on the grounds of wanting to exterminate a race, relgion or ethnicity. Do you realise how ridiculous and absurd your theory sounds?
The West did not deliberately cause the death of Iraqis on the grounds of wanting to exterminate a race, religion or ethnicty. The West indiscrimianately didn't care who died as a consequence of the sanctions. It wasn't intentional, it is more a case of neglect.
The only reason Serbia got bombed was because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Clinton needed a diversion on something else so bombing Serbia was perfect timing. Sad but true!
(Spain, 30 September 2013 18:08)
And it had nothing to do with the humanitarian crisis that was happening in Kosovo?
Let me guess, the real reason why Tony Blair wanted soldiers on the ground in Yugoslavia was because the Lewinsky affair was also affecting his public image too and he needed to cause a big distraction to draw attention away from it?
At the end of the day, the ICTY did not convict any Serb of any crime committed in Kosovo before the NATO bombing.
NATO didn't prevent a humanitarian catastrophe by bombing Serbia, NATO caused a humanitarian catastrophe. There was no refugee crisis or ethnic cleansing until NATO started dropping bombs all over the place.
The chronology of events tells the tale. First NATO starts bombing, then there is ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and a refugee crisis. Looking back, the bombing wasn't just illegal, it was obviously the wrong thing to do.
It may have been Albanians and Serbs who were on the ground killing each other, but NATO was certainly there stirring the pot and pitting them against each other. NATO deserves a lot of blame for what the Serbs and Albanians did to each other in Kosovo.
"The one which committed the most horrendous War Crimes since WW2." Before NATO got involved in Kosovo there was 2000 killed in 2 years of military operations, on ALL sides. Does that sound comparable to WW2? After the war was over it was estimated that dead was around 10,000 (again, ALL sides included). In Iraq ALONE your government and its "allies" have killed over 1,000,000... Thats not even counting the death and destruction in the over 40 wars the US and its allies have fought in the name of "democracy".
The only reason Serbia got bombed was because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Clinton needed a diversion on something else so bombing Serbia was perfect timing. Sad but true!
his was heard from former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who spoke for the NPR radio station
This fascist creature was responsible for the genocide of 500000 Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions she and her poodle friends imposed on Iraq.When she was asked if those deaths were acceptable her answer was " they was absolutely worth it".
(2cents, 1 October 2013 22:41)
Not Ian or icj, but maybe this will help. According to your logic, any actions at any single NAZI concentration camps would not have been genocide as there would be no way it would wipe out an entire population. But it was a part of a systematic plan to do so.
The key is that the individuals were chosen for no other reason than their genetic makeup for extermination. The people killed at Srebrenica were not killed for actual crimes but the fact that they were who they were made the enemies of Serbs.
thanks icj1...
so as per your definitions (provided by america's un
(2cents, 2 October 2013 16:15)
Just a small correction since some people appear to have reading comprehension difficulties. I said that the definition I provided is UNSC's definition. I thank you for equating me with UNSC but I'm not UNSC.
And the UNSC can't be America's; otherwise Serbs would not love it that much!
Ian, UK.
You totally bought into Western propaganda, man.
When Naser Oric kills Serb women and children in Srebrenica, that's not even a crime, when Ratko Mladic kills POW'S and let women and children go that's genocide, etc. etc.
All in the name of equality.
Equality in which Serbs are not even allowed to use their language like in Croatia. When they rebel against discrimination they are ethnically cleansed. Albanians were able to use their language but they wanted independence and they started the war when this "rigth" was denied to them. Rugova didn't even want to talk about autonomy in 1998.
Serbs on the other hand, accepted borders of both Croatia and Bosnia, and demanded autonomy as a way of protecting themselves from very , very hostile governments (whom West supported).
So, those who accepted borders were separatists, but those who wanted only independence were not?
Perhaps you could google BRITISH parliamentary report that concluded most civilian victims in Kosovo prior to bombing were work of KLA.
Or wonder why is it that Serbs in Bosnia signed Cuttiliero plan recognizing independent Bosnia, but Muslims reigned on their signature and started the war with massacre of Serbs in Sijekovac.
Where is equality of which you speak if Albanians are entitled to self-determination, but Serbs are not?
That sure is a position of SUPREMACIST.
i'm so glad i've got goldman as my legal representation...
ian you say:
The KLA weren't trying to over through a political group or government. They were fighting a war of independence.
they weren't going through political channels. they went the military route. is it then not part of every soverign nations right to squash internal militarist terrorism? that is what terrorism is after all.
and since illegal and not legal are different, then legal and not illegal are different to. there are 4 quadrents in your two states. a court of law pronouces defendants as guilty or not guilty, but in your court a judge also has not innocent and innocent. so then not guilty means we can't prove you're innocent, and not innocent means we can't prove you're guilt.
so not illegal means we can't prove you're legal, and not legal means we can't prove you're illegal.
since yugoslavbia wasn't a un nation then, it was not illegal to bomb, regardless of what nato's oiwn laws say. since 1244 (oh those little numbers) was signed by jugoslavia, thats a nation that doesn't exist, and it is not illegal at all for serbia (a totally different nation as per your previous logic) invade kosovo which isn't in un.
The young Brit, Ian, is just a protege of little Roberto frisco (the wanna be journalist)and Willi from Germany. He was but a wee lad in West Yorkshire in 1999.
Ian is just regurgitating his two friend's verbal trash including their stupid and chronic attempts to associate Serbs with Nazis.
The 3 of them are very predictable.
Accusing the West of "Genocide by Sanctions" is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
1. All the security council would have to support/ not oppose the sanctions for them to be put in place initially.
2. Saddam and the Ba'athists could have stepped down to end the sanction, so one could just as easily blame them for the deaths.
3. Sanctions don't discriminate against race, ethnicity, religion ect.
4. The deaths of the Iraqis may have been linked to the sanctions but they were not CAUSED by the sanctions.
5. Sanctions don't exterminate people, there was no "extermination" of people.
6. There was nothing systematic about the extermination of people which never happened.
7. There was nothing deliberate on the West's behalf regarding the death of the Iraqis.
8. The sanctions were put in place to put pressure on the Ba'athists, not to kill people.
9. The deaths can only be indirectly linked to the west.
10. Look up the following words in a dictionary: "genocide", "systematic", "deliberate" and "extermination".
These sanctions would never qualify as "genocide" per the Genocide Convention, even if it is Clark's opinion that it is.
(Ian, UK, 3 October 2013 09:55)
Yeah, but our dear friend Leonidas has outsourced the thinking process to Clark. If Clark were to say tomorrow that it is in Leonidas interest to jump into a river, Leonidas would never question the reasoning behind it, but would happily follow Clark's advice :)
(Truth, 30 September 2013 14:26
Strange name attached to such a work of fiction.
As far as comparing Serbia to Nazi Germany, Hitler started his campaign to rid Jews from the land long before it started invading other lands. Serbia started the campaign to rid Yugoslavia of non Serbs, would the next step have been to invade other lands? probably.
As far as the largest military base always makes me laugh, it is true that the land the US leased would make up the largest size of a base but the truth is it is 85% undeveloped land. The actual base itself is one of the smallest military bases, with temp housing units. Anyone that has been on the base would know that. It does not even have a landing strip, it can only accommodate helicopters not planes.
KLA was labeled terrorists by the CIA because information flowing out of Yugoslavia was sketchy and there was a heavy reliance on info from the govt, it was not until UN staff was allowed in that the truth(real truth) came out.
NATO acted to prevent a recurrence of the travesty that happened in Europe in the 1930's-40's while everyone turned a blind eye.
As far as the popular Serb myths of the minerals, the oil pipeline, the military base, etc being the reason for the invasion, instead of humanitarian reasons one only has to ask why have none of those been the focus for the 14 years following the bombing.
Oh shut up you old hag, it was right to the US not that it was the right thing to do.
Have you forgotten the sanctuary and help you and your family received during WW2 by the Serbs?
thanks icj1...
so as per your definitions (provided by america's un -- lets call a dead horse a dead horse with or without flogging) of genocide, there seems to be a big discrpepency with that provided by ian.
perhaps you and ian can clariy which definition it is that you wish to use.
lets ask where the un is headquartered: america. lets ask which nation pays the lion's share of the funding budget: america. we can pretend all we want, but the oldest rules in the book (he who pays for it owns it, and he who has it owns it) clearly show it is america's un.
(2cents, 3 October 2013 17:55)
I just go by the fact that America being Serbs' number one enemy and Serbs loving something that is America's, is sort of a paradox. Anyway, I'm fine with either choice of yours - you just can't have both.
----------
and yes i can read. it would seem you missed that i fully akowledged what you wrote (your definition) was provided to you (and all to see) by an arm of the un (thus the un).
(2cents, 3 October 2013 17:55)
Me writing and me defining is not the same thing, but anyway we're finally on the same page that is UNSC's definition.
another thing that's a bit silly about the srebrenica logic (because it was mostly males that were killed (exterminated, slaugtered, pick what ever word you wish to use), then the act of letting women and children escape a besiged war area might lead to genocide, and as such it would be prudent to act counter to that one long standing unwritten rule of letting women and children escape.
(2cents, 3 October 2013 17:55)
This is such a convoluted sentence that I'm not sure what you are trying to say! Anyway, there does not exist such a rule of letting women and children escape. But there are rules that prevent the killing or mistreatment of anybody, regardless of gender or age, except in the course of fighting. Even the killing or mistreatment of a fighter after he/she has been captured is a crime. We're not in the 6th century AD, dear - it's the 21st century in case you are not aware.
Ramsay Clark was the Attorney General of the United States with vast experience in international Law.One would rather heed to his statements and knowledge than that of a cut and paste semi-illiterate English warmonger.
(Leonidas, 3 October 2013 19:45)
Wooooooooooooow, this forum has started to fill in with traitors... How can a patriotic Serbs rely on the attorney general of US (that Serbs consider the Devil) ?!
Clark never got it classed as a genocide because it wasn't one.
You think the UK & US were trying to exterminate all Iraqi (not an ethnicity) Muslims? Iraq is very multi-cultural society. The main ethnic groups are Arabs 75%, Kurds 17%, Turkmen 3%, Assyrians 2%, Persians 2%, Other 1%. The religions in Iraq are Shi'a, Sunni, Christianity, Mandaeism & Atheism. Iraq is a country & a state but it is not a nation as Iraqi isn't an ethnicity. I'm pretty sure that the sanctions were indiscriminate of people's ethnicity & religion in Iraq. But please prove me wrong.
Yes, putting sanctions on food & medicine caused people to die in Iraq, but it doesn't equate to genocide.
Killing lots of people = murder.
Killing people with the intention of exterminating & wiping out their race, religion or ethnicity = genocide.
You need to learn the difference between the two.
I'm semi-illiterate? You don't know what genocide means & you don't know what warmonger means either. When have I warmongered? I'm anti Iraq War.
Genocide comes from the Greek word "Genos" which means race/ nation (you should know) & the Latin word "cidere" which means "to kill".
So for it to be genocide, we need to know which ethnicity/ race the West was deliberately & intentionally (that is something else which you'll have to prove) trying to exterminate & wipe out.
There is a lot of assumption on your behalf.
What specifically has Clark achieved regarding his genocide claims?
"The one which conducted ethnic cleansing & attempted genocide."
Who conducted ethnic cleansing and genocide? Do you even know the definition of the words? Please POST the definition and then show me an example of WHERE it was used in Kosovo. I for one will say that was media LIES, for proof, just take a look at Serbia today. Is it ETHNICALLY PURE???? Or is it the MOST ETHNICALLY DIVERSE country in ALL the balkans? Feel stupid yet? Don't hold your breath... it gets better. Kosovo is now "multi-ethnic" according to your country.... "multi-ethnic" being 99% Albanian. So who ETHICALLY cleansed who here? Once again... you're just repeating the lies the media was spinning when it was in full propaganda mode. Real life is totally opposite, and the proof is there for all to see today.
"The far right one which bullied ethnic minorities & their neighbours."
We didn't bully anyone, we tried to fight to preserve Yugoslavia as a MULTI-ETHNIC, and proporus state as it was before the "NWO" decided it was time to DIVIDE & CONCOUR. Are those countries better off today than they were back when Yugoslavia was living in peace or harmony? No! They are not buried in debt for i don't know how many generations.
Truth- you are absolutely right of course. Less than 10000 casualties, with proportionally far more Serb victims. No mass graves, very few civilian casualties. Can you remember the false flags? It was a very low level civil war, egged on by the US and its allies, for the sole purpose of stealing Kosovo from Serbia. The Kalbs and their ilk have to propagate the lie or the world will see how they were tricked into siding with these scum.
The genocide of Serbs in Kosovo has been going on a long time. Just look at Pristina today. And these evil doers are proud of their deeds.
icj-are you a simpleton? Nothing is black and white. Prior to the bombing there were some population movements, mostly from areas where the KLA were expelling those seen as friendly to Serbia. When the bombing started this movement increased dramatically. The Army was essentially back to barracks to minimise losses,which they did successfully, so how could they be to blame. Some paramilitaries were taking on the KLA, but greatly outnumbered so I dont know how they had the time or planning to to expel 100000 Kalbs. 2 plus 2 equals 4. NATO bombing was the main cause for the movements. And please dont start on Operation Horseshoe which the head of German intelligence himself called "a red herring".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Iraqis who were killed in the Iraq War (Iraq Civil War) were killed by fellow Iraqis not by the US, UK ect. Yes I'm opposed to the Iraq War, yes I think it was illegal and yes it has ruined the coutry and Bush & Balir should be punished; however it isn't the US and UK ect who are planting bombs and pulling the triggers of guns which are killing civilians in Iraq on almost a daily basis. Iraqis are doing that!
(Ian, UK, 1 October 2013 13:48)
Your posting confuses two periods in Iraqi history.I am talking about the effects the sanctions the West imposed on Iraq in the year 1990-2000 had on Iraqi children and not the Iraqi deaths post 2003 invasion.The sanctions of baby products and medicines resulted in malnutrition of these children and their subsequent deaths.The likes of Clinton,Major and Blair amongst others should've been brought in a type of Nuremberg court and tried for genocide.
you know what i'm not surprised that you said that considering albanians have no basic clue, common sense or even a sub-par education ...you people literally bring a whole new meaning to the words moron and idiot ... a country cannot be a terrorist because a country is neither a organization or group .. a country is a state in which a certain group of people live in that share a common national identity
as to milosevic using those tactics you mentioned, i dare you to name me one leader of a country that didnt use fear, intimidation or even manipulation during their rule ... every single leader throughout history even in democratic countries has used all, some or even one these traits to consolidate their power .. the only terrorist organization that was involved during the kososvo war was the kla, with even your biggest allies (i.e. the us, uk, germany and etc) were saying and had the kla listed as a terrorist organization
as per defintion you provided.
"The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group."
now, we have all been made aware that srebrenica was called genocide. how does less than 20,000 (thats a very generous estimate of those killed by serb forces in srebrenica) consitute an entire national, racial, religious or ethnic group, if the total population of that group numbered into the multiple millions?
perhaps it is you or icj that has trouble understanding what genocide means because according to this definition, and the judgements there is a vast gap between the two meanings...
If I were you I would rather shut up and admit I was wrong than trying to defend the indefensible.The following link just proves my point.Read what Ramsay Clark had to say about the genocide committed in Iraq.
These sanctions would never qualify as "genocide" per the Genocide Convention, even if it is Clark's opinion that it is.
(Ian, UK, 3 October 2013 09:55
I reckon the opinion of the best legal brains like yourself carries more weight than Ransay Clark who's been numerous times in Iraq and warned many times the likes og Bush(senior) and John Major of the thousands of deaths of children the sanctions were causing.These deaths did take place within a time frame of thirteen years(systematic)andwere deliberate because they were targeting children.
He managed to raise the consciousness of the world that his own country and its poodles committed in the name of democracy
Which ethnic group, race, religion or nation was being targeted for extermination again?
Iraqi muslims.
The sanctions may have been systematic but there wasn't a systematic extermination of people based on race, ethnicity or religion.
What a stupid statement.A systematic course of sanctions over a period of 13 years resulted in more than half a million children deaths.
If you have proof or evidence that the aim of the sanction
When sanctions target infants food and medicine and results in thousands of deaths what other proof does one need?Do you really expect the US and Britain to admit guilt?
is this just another anti-Western conspiracy theory
Yes it is.So was the sexual torture of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib(you recall the heroin Linsday English),The killing of Iraqi civilians by US helicopter (as per Snowden video),the use of phosphorous bombs in Fallujah which destroyed the city and killed and maimed thousands of people and of course the finger-chopping of Iraqi prisoner by English soldiers for the purpose of souvenirs.
Ramsay Clark was the Attorney General of the United States with vast experience in international Law.One would rather heed to his statements and knowledge than that of a cut and paste semi-illiterate English warmonger.
You think the UK & US were trying to exterminate all Iraqi (not an ethnicity) Muslims? Iraq is very multi-cultural society
Iraq is mainly made up by Arabs and Kurds. Since the Kurds managed their own affairs(remember the non-flight zone) those sanctions were directed against the Muslim Arabs.
Yes, putting sanctions on food & medicine caused people to die in Iraq, but it doesn't equate to genocide.
One can kill people with bullets,missiles and sanctions which is probably the worst of them all.
When have I warmongered? I'm anti Iraq War.
No you were not.You were anti-Blair and you try to justify the killing of 1.5 million people just as non-event.When the US military invades a country they follow a plan which they try to execute to the letter.As Clarke says the US hierarchy knew exactly of their actions.
You've also supported the wars in Afganistan,Libya and sided with the Islamists against the legitimate government of Syria.
Genocide comes from the Greek word "Genos" which means race.
Thank you for telling me. I was just about to google it.I was laughing the other day when you asked me to look for the definition of " systematic".Read a bit of Plato and Aristotle and you'll find how the define " systema".
Clark's achievement can be seen in the context of exposing the crimes of US & UK governments around the world.We need Nuremberg trials for the culprits.
I'm not saying that Albanians weren't fleeing from Serbian security forces. What I am saying is that the NATO bombing put a spiral of violence into motion.
You didn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if you bombed Serbia on account of the Albanians in Kosovo that Serbian forces would retaliate against the Albanians in Kosovo.
Likewise, it doesn't take a prophet to figure out that once the Albanians got the upper hand that they would retaliate against the Serbs.
The NATO bombing set off a spiral of violence. The argument that NATO bombed Yugoslavia to stop war crimes against Albanians in Kosovo doesn't wash because there were no war crimes against Albanians until after the bombing started.
The ICTY couldn't find any evidence of a Serbian plan to displace the Albanians during the Kosovo six trial. According to the judgment, "The Chamber places little stock in the witnesses who testified that there was no common plan, design, or purpose to displace the population or in the lack of any reference to such a common purpose in official meetings of entities such as the VJ Collegium."
If you're convinced by a judgment of conviction that "places little stock" in the total lack of evidence to support a conviction, then you're not very bright.
How can a patriotic Serbs rely on the attorney general of US (that Serbs consider the Devil) ?!
(icj1, 4 October 2013 05:37)
In US one has either to be brave enough or a fool to go against the fascist establishment and expose its crimes around the world.Ramsay Clarke had the balls to condemn the Nato bombing on Serbia and expose the genocide of 1.5 million dead Iraqis and 7 million displacements in Iraq.
He also campaigned for the impeachment of the Albanians hero G.W Bush on war crimes but he was unsuccessful(not surprised).If there were few more people like Clarke around the world would've been a better place.
Genocide as a term has become blurred as in the case when the US recognised the Holodomor famine as an act of genocide, even though there is no evidence that there was a plan to exterminate the Ukrainian people. Therefor the US potentially leaves itself open to the same charge in relation to Iraq.
Though not genocidal, the Iraqi sanctions killed at least 100,000 people and that was direct US government policy. It was estimated that the US/UK forces killed up to 100,000 2003-04. Iraqi civilians killed in the civil war were in the tens of thousands. As for Ian's false claims that the Iraqis were responsible for the high death toll and not the west, when you invade a country, remove its government, and disband its army and state institutions, which leads to a bloodbath on sectarian anarchy; exactly how are you not responsible?
Its ironic that you are lecturing people about ignorance, coming from a person who thinks Bashar al-Assad was an ally of Saddam Hussein, that the Czech president was a supporter of the Soviet invasion when infact he was persecuted dissident and that Armenians are Orthodox Christians!
And claiming you opposes NATO and the Iraq War (yeah right) I bet you cheered the latter on and only backtracked when it went pear shaped.
lets ask where the un is headquartered: america. lets ask which nation pays the lion's share of the funding budget: america. we can pretend all we want, but the oldest rules in the book (he who pays for it owns it, and he who has it owns it) clearly show it is america's un.
and yes i can read. it would seem you missed that i fully akowledged what you wrote (your definition) was provided to you (and all to see) by an arm of the un (thus the un).
the point is there are two very different definitions provided by both icj1 and ian as to what consititutes geonocide.
perhaps once this proposed bih census is complete a similarly drastic decline of serb population in sarajevo will be seen. would then either of the legal gurus proclaim geonicde as per srebrenica precident?
lets face it, two to abombs each killed far more people, in a similarly localized area within a nation that had orders of magnitude remaining population.
another thing that's a bit silly about the srebrenica logic (because it was mostly males that were killed (exterminated, slaugtered, pick what ever word you wish to use), then the act of letting women and children escape a besiged war area might lead to genocide, and as such it would be prudent to act counter to that one long standing unwritten rule of letting women and children escape.
IMAGE SOURCE
62 Komentari
Sortiraj po: