I don’t know by what logic the slaughter of 2 million Armenians or 30 million Ukranians isn’t a genocide, but the killing of 8000 men, and forced relocation of 25,000 women and children is. Is forced relocation genocide? Does that mean the Pakistani-Indian partition is genocide? How about Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback?” It appears that the term was first applied to the situation by a Bosnian-Serb before the fact, using the term to refer to plans for a forced relocation.
I did read on Wikipedia that in 2003, the Bosnian-Serbian Republic denied the genocide; and the defendants convicted of genocide had pled innocent. If Wikipedia is unreliable on this, at least it makes the point that there is at least significant disagreement. A later 2005 “apology” seems entirely economically motivated.
It seems one must get into conspiracy theories to deny that 6-8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica were killed and buried in mass graves. I suppose any ground for debate as to the scale of the atrocity lies in questioning what portion of these were killed in cold blood, and what portion were killed in battle. It is legitimate in war to kill retreating combatants; the Islamo-fascist insistence on attacking in civilian clothing and from highly populated areas makes complaints about the age range of the dead a little iffy. But again, it seems the larger ground for debate is whether killing the male inhabitants of one city constitutes “genocide.”
And again, I emphasize that I am highly “educable” as to any refutations of any position I’ve taken, and I’m deliberately being skeptical of “majority report “ claims not because I consider any skepticism to be reasonable, but only because of my own acknowledged ignorance and a willingness to hear people out.
When did that happen?
I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying that there are two sides to any story, and reasonable men can disagree. I'm open to being informed upon the subject. Same thing with the Ukrainians. And Cambodians. And Jews. And just about any other historical event, genocide related or not, you can choose to think of.
<yawn>
What seems ridiculous about the article is the notion that because the news media didn’t immediately report the incident it must not have taken place... and that is at the core of the article. Reading the timeline, the obvious reason it wasn’t reported is because, well, the mainstream media wasn’t exactly embedded with the Serbian or Muslim armies. That scattered reports of atrocities and fighting didn’t get characterized immediately as a genocide or massacre is hardly surprising.