Skip to comments.We bombed the wrong side?
Posted on 04/06/2004 4:54:40 PM PDT by DTA
click here to read article
Here are ethnographic maps based on the 1981 census:
NB the relatively small ethnodistributional changes recorded b/w 81 and 91. The data does not rely merely on land title or cadastral records, but looks at population by district, since land title alone is not a comprehensive indicator of how many people live in a region, which is one you and your boy Malcolm can put away in the no duh file. Recently I saw an internaut trying to argue that since most land in Israel belongs to the state, and since Arabs own 3% of the land and Jews 2%, therefore the Arabs are the latifundia of Israel, and the idea that theyve been dispossessed and driven off their land is a myth. Maybe you and he can hook up. He also shares your charming trait of branding anyone who disagrees with him a négationniste, btw, so you should make a cute couple.
If you have data which can withstand any serious scrutiny and which shows that those Slobo-hugging Serbophiles of the State Dept and the CIA had it wrong about fatalities in the Bosnian war in the spring of 1995, before the biggest U.S.-supported onslaughts against the BSA and Serb civilians were to take place, and which show it to be a one-sided slaughter of Muslims running into the 100s of 1000s, its fine with me if you share it with the whole class. Id be interested, MacKenzie would be interested. Former Yugoslav desk officer for the State Dept George Kenney would be interested, since as he explained:
From contacts in the U.S. intelligence community, I am positive the US government doesn't have proof of any genocide. And anyone reading the press critically can see the paucity of evidence, despite interminably repeated claims and bloodcurdling speculation. Last April 23 I published some of my research on fatalities in The New York Times Magazine, in which I challenged allegations of 250,000 dead: my estimate was 25,000 to 60,000 deaths for civilian and military on all sides in Bosnia, from the start of the war to the date of the article. One Pulitzer Prize winning correspondent harangued me for not giving up my sources, but never bothered retracing my steps, which he could have easily done. I have yet to see a written rebuttal, and I don't expect to, because a careful search through press reports shows unambiguously that estimates for huge numbers of fatalities came originally from the Bosnian government without documentation: journalists repeated them without corroboration, or even attribution, until the charges stuck. Reporters covering the Yugoslav war as NPR's Sylvia Poggioli put it (Nieman Reports. Fall 1993) " have been better at pulling emotional strings than at analyzing facts.
By Kenneys own admission, his job was to gin up stories of one-sided massacring and ethnic cleansing by Serbs, which makes him a better man than you, since he at least admits he was a propagandist, and kinda feels bad about it.
And veteran NYT Balkans reporter David Binder would be interested too, since as he pointed out, even if one smacks together all the post-war calculations of humanitarian agencies on dead and missing, and not even counting for all apocryphal and double entries, the figure cant surpass 70,000. But if consigning everyone from the State Dept to the USIA to Kenney to Binder etc to your grab-bag of purveyors of Serb fairy tales was some advertised plea for you not to be taken seriously, Id say: Mission accomplished. Im sorry if you cant fit the fact that all sides prepared for war, raising party- and ethnic-based armies before the independence declaration, that all sides had backers elsewhere, that civilians on all sides took it in the teeth, that the Croatian regular forces were massacring Serb civilians by the dozens in Bosnia in early April of 1992, that the first massacre of the war was the slaughtering of Serbs at Sijekovac in late March.. etc into your comic-book rendition of good guys and bad guys. But thats your problem.
Id vowed not to stoop to responding to your risible suggestion that MacKenzies take on Bosnia is the product of some Serb money pipeline, but since you cart out Rieff and Malcolm, it perhaps bears mentioning that countless Western policy wonks, academics and journalists have much more successfully manicured their résumés and turned much greater personal profit pumping out product supporting the élite line of punitive one-sided intervention in the Yugoslav conflicts and lopsided blaming of Serbia and Serbs for any and all wrongs than MacKenzie ever has inadvertently or otherwise from Serb pressure groups. This shouldve been obvious, but if it hasnt occurred to you yet, you need to get out more.
As to your random Dallaire excerpt - are the Tutsis now supposed to have carried out a slaughter of Hutus at the outset of the genocide? How Bosniac of them.
You actually end up getting it almost right just by accident. But as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. As a matter of fact there *was* a murderous invasion of Rwanda by a Tutsi army, hl. A textbook act of aggression by the Nuremburg laws. It was launched by Paul Kagames RPF-RPA, which was a total creation of the Ugandan army, in which the Tutsi emigration in Uganda had a major presence. It was Tutsi-officered and Tutsi-staffed. Kagame had been Ugandas deputy chief of military intelligence. The raids began from Ugandan soil in 1989, prompting USAID to issue a report (ignored) objecting to U.S. military assistance to Uganda on the girly grounds that it had launched an aggressive war against its neighbour. A more robust invasion was launched in Oct. 1990. The aggression claimed 10s of 1000s of lives, overwhelmingly civilian and overwhelmingly Hutu, and created a million internal refugees (overwhelmingly Hutu) by 1993. Perhaps you were napping at the time.
One RPF/RPA offensive alone in early 1993 claimed about 40,000 lives, again overwhelmingly Hutu and overwhelmingly civilian. This alone probably represents more than all the lives lost on any one side in the Bosnian war. I realize this doesnt matter to you, though I can well imagine your heartfelt concern were this to be visited on another people whom youve adopted as your human rights hobbyhorse. The countrys richest agricultural region, which supported a population of over 800,000, was essentially depopulated to 1800 souls by RPF terror. I believe this is whats known as voting with your feet. A couple million more Rwandans voted with their feet when Kagame and the RPF, Dallaires buds, finally conquered power.
3 yrs after the RPF/RPA launched their war, and 100,000 mostly Hutu dead Rwandans and a million mostly Hutu internal refugees later, a peace accord was hatched at Arusha in summer 93, which provided for a multi-party transition government in which the murderers of the RPF could participate, and leading a 22-month transition to free multi-party elections. There was just one problem with that as far as Kagame and RPF were concerned, which was that they didnt stand a chance in Hades of getting elected by the population theyd been terrorizing and slaughtering. A telling curtain-raiser were the free multiparty elections held in the zone tampon the demilitarized zone in 1993, which the RPF lost resoundingly, not electing a single representative and harvesting about 1% of the vote as I recall, while the governing party candidates won handily. Turns out that slaughtering people by the 10s of 1000s and driving them into flight by the 100s of 1000s isnt a vote-getter. Go figure.
So the logic of Arusha, namely elections, had to be circumvented at any cost, and the RPF/RPA at least enjoyed a serious military advantage and could *decide* things that way, with no small assistance from their friend Dallaire. Their own intelligence, along with U.S. intelligence, predicted that if the Rwandan president was assassinated, it would provoke mass killings which would claim up to half a million lives. They actually evoked this scenario, and attached that figure, as now declassified docs show. They also knew the ensuing power vacuum and the mass terror would provide them with both the opportunity and the rationale for seizing power militarily. Sure the Rwandan Tutsi community, and lots of Hutus would be decimated by murderous mobs and militias, cuz the RPA had made so many friends over the years through their good deeds, but they werent Kagames principal support base. This was an invading army of the Tutsi emigration in Uganda with its own agenda, and any real scenario of majority rule + peace would make them toast.
And so on Kagames direct orders, an RPA hit squad shot down the plane carrying the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, killing them both and the French crew. And the mass slaughter predicted by RPF and U.S. intelligence unfolded pretty much as predicted. The RPF promptly lied and accused their adversaries of the assassination, taking lots of the credulous Hoplites of the world along for the ride, and they along with their backer Clinton did everything they could to resist the demands from various countries for an inquiry into the affair, countries who apparently had the utterly girly notion that an assassination of 2 heads of state might warrant a criminal investigation. An investigation finally did take place under UN/ICTR auspices, and the then-ICTR president, Louise Arbour, to borrow your term, put the kaibosh on it and ordered its findings shelved when the lead investigator, Australian Michael Hourigan, made it clear the evidence pointed directly to Kagame and the RPF. But he and the informants assisting that inquiry the ones Kagame didnt have bumped off then went on to assist French magistrate J-L Bruguière in his 6-yr long criminal investigation into the killings, which had been prompted by the girly demands of some French nationals to find out whod killed their loved ones in the plane. Bruguière came to the same conclusion as Hourigans team in the kaiboshed ICTR inquiry, and the report was leaked to Le Monde a few weeks back, but perhaps you were napping through that one too.
Apropos the infamous 100-day slaughter in the spring/summer of 1994, its interesting to note that researchers are now finding that there was intensive killing even in the areas which the RPF claimed to control before the plane crash, and those who claim to have developed the most comprehensive data base on the 100 days, using Rwandan govt and survivor group data, now think that even in *this* period, which all agree saw the apogee of organized killing of Tutsis, a majority of the victims may have been Hutu. ( http://www.urhome.umd.edu/newsdesk/sociss/release.cfm?ArticleID=898 ). But that doesnt even count the 10s of 1000s of Rwandans killed by the RPA before the April 94 downing of Habyrarimanas plane, nor the millions of Congolese and 100s of 1000s of Rwandans, mostly Hutu, slaughtered by the Rwandan and Ugandan armies since their Clinton-backed invasion of Zaire/Congo (Bubba was nice enough to have U.S. Special Forces there to help right from the get-go). The last UN info I saw on the Kagame/Museveni killing spree in Zaire/DRC put the death toll in the vicinity of 5 million 5 times the top-end estimates of those killed in the 100-days of 94 and used the term genocide.
What to do when the truth which has a stubborn way of surfacing shows that the self-appointed gate-keeper of Rwanda holocaust remembrance turns out to be first-rank génocidaire and whats more, the author of the very act which *everybody* for the last 10 yrs agrees was the catalyst of the 100-day killings of 94, the lit match put to the powderkeg? Gérard Prunier of CNRS, whose 95 book became the gold-standard for the Rwanda genocide industry, has now run afoul of Kagame and been denounced by the latter as a revisionist (sound familiar?) for putting forth the apparently offensive formulation of a double-genocide. But what else is a poor scientifique de service to do in the face of the simple and overwhelming math establishing that over the last decade and a half Kagames U.S.-backed wars have killed millions, and that considerably more Rwandan Hutus and Congolese have been snuffed in the conflicts in the Great Lakes region than have Rwandan Tutsis? Even apologetics has its limits (but not for Dallaire see below). Faustin Twagimamungu, one of Kagames and Bubbas showpiece moderate Hutu and the first prime minister appointed to Kagames govt in July 94 following the RPF conquest, has denounced Kagame as a génocidaire and assassin who has the blood of millions of Congolese and 100s of 1000s of Rwandans on his hands. When Camerounian journalist Charles Onana wrote a book implicating Kagame in the presidential assassination and various war crimes, Kagame tried to sue Onana in France, but dropped his case when Onana didnt back down, since he knew hed get his a** whupped. Sometimes its lonely at the top, and maybe its because the noose of truth is tightening around Kagame that there werent as many high-level types on hand for the last genocide commemoration. Its getting a little uh awkward.
But your boy Dallaire doesnt disguise his affection and admiration for Kagame (an extraordinary man), and he mendaciously refers to the assassination of the Rwandan president in 1994 as an accident or « écrasement ». Hes also a little fuzzy to put it kindly on all the slaughter and RPF ethnic cleansing in the 1990-93 period, since one shouldnt be rude to friends. Kagame and the Clinton administration pushed hard for the complete removal of the UN peacekeeping mission once the 100-day killfest began, but that doesnt dampen Dallaires admiration either. He was very chummy with RPF milieux in his time there, frequently crashing for the night, if youll pardon the expression, at the RPA HQ, and hanging out with the Québécois wife of a Tutsi minister who didnt disguise her enthusiasm for an RPF victory, (« si Dieux le veut, on va gagner!! » ) which could only be achieved militarily, given their, er, PR problems vis-à-vis the ethnic vote (of the countrys 90% majority ethnics ). He was happy to share MINUAR military intelligence with the RPA, which he talks about in the English, but not the French, edition of his book, curiously enough. The first big peacekeeping assignment Dallaire and his mission were tasked with was to escort 600 armed RPA killers sorry soldiers into downtown Kigali where they set up their base at the Parliament building. Kigali residents, including many whod been driven off their land and lost everything to RPF terror, were able to watch this brave and honourable act and draw their own conclusions about Dallaires and MINUARs neutrality. But perhaps Dallaires and MINUARs noblest of all act of peacekeeping was to accede abjectly to the RPAs demand to close Kigali airport for all but *incoming* air traffic, the better that the RPA hit squad could get a clear and unfettered bead on the Rwandan president so they could shoot down his plane and kill him. As an inspired act of peacekeeping, Id rank that right up there with whoever got the idea of passing out the matches for the Reichstag Fire.
Im sorry that the drunkard you put on such a pedestal got sliced to ribbons on the stand at Arusha, but I cant say Im surprised, nor is it clear how the quote is more random than yours of MacKenzie, since it speaks directly to the mans integrity. Guess it was expecting too much for him to be truthful under oath in a criminal trial after all its not his life thats on the line here. If you want a straight shooter who presents well as a witness, well, Id try to call Lew MacKenzie. A week before Kagame had the Rwandan president assassinated, Dallaire briefed foreign ambassadors to the effect that he found it doubtful that there was a master plan by the Rwandan government to provoke a confrontation, genocide, etc. He expressed the same doubts in an interview with Radio-Canada immediately upon his return from Rwanda, which doesnt seem to have stopped his mythical transformation into some maligned, prophetic predictor of the genocide.
Its interesting to ponder how many lives would have been saved by Dallaire and MINUAR doing their job and providing proper security at the airport and for Rwandas governing officials (the RPA hit squad operated from a district for which Dallaire had direct responsibility). Doubtless many more lives than woulda be saved by raiding the puny arms cache. Probably safe to say that if Izetbegovic hadnt reneged, with U.S. encouragement, on the Cutilheiro plan, which wouldve averted war in Bosnia, more lives woulda been saved by that too.
Yes, that was talked about in the documentary, "Yugoslavia the avoidable war."
Needless to say, that documentary was never shown on CBC, they only run pro-Albanian stuff, and those are rerun often.
Your response on the land ownership issue rests upon one link which directly supports Judah's correction of Gen Boyd's take on the issue
Ethnic distribution of the privately-owned land:
Owned by Croats: 3.112 square kilometers, 13% of private, 6.08% of total
Owned by Muslims: 10.710 square kilometers, 45% of private, 20.92% of total
Owned by Serbs: 9.989 square kilometers, 42% of private, 19.51% of total.
and another link which leads to a colored map, which has been referenced here on FR previously, though at a location which also had the Croat and Bosnian Muslim populations maps to go alongside the Serb one. The site you pulled the map from doesn't seem to bother with them - how unsurprising.
But nevertheless, one can find maps of greater granularity which rely upon the same source data.
Go ahead, click the map and you can get maps for various of the Bosnian Opstinas, which have all the ethnicities represented, and then you can key in on those Opstinas which fell under the thrall of Karadzic et al, and imagine all the green, blue, and black circles disappearing courtesy of ethnic cleansing. For example you could look at the map of Bijeljina, and notice that through the magic of "Serbs own farmland", not only do the residents of the city of Bijeljina get a one way ticket to either a shallow grave or some squalid refugee camp somewhere, the farmers in Janja get the boot too. Neat trick that - and it would be even neater if you could justify it through some legitimate means.
But as it stands, you can't. And the Serbs got bombed for their troubles and those that now reside in the RS are living in a third world cesspit of corruption for all their misguided sacrifice. The connection, as I have implied, appears to be beyond your grasp.
Consider it placed in the "no duh" file.
As to the number of casualties in the Bosnian war, considering Sarajevo suffered around 10,000 deaths and Srebrenica accounts for an additional 7,500, Kenney's lower bound is either some form of rude comedy on his part, or the three sides suffered a mere 7,500 casualties in 3 years of fighting exclusive of Sarajevo and Srebrenica in July of '95.
The civilian population bore the brunt of the war in Bosnia. The number of casualties is a matter of debate. the figure 200,000 (or more) dead, injured, and missing was frequently cited in media reports on the war in Bosnia as late as 1994. the October 1995 bulletin of the Bosnian Institute of Public Health of the Republic Committee for Health and Social Welfare gave the numbers as 146,340 killed, and 174,914 wounded on the territory under the control of the Bosnian army. Mustafa Imamovic gave a figure of 144,248 perished (including those who died from hunger or exposure), mainly Muslims. The Red Cross and the UNHCR have not, to the best of our knowledge, produced data on the number of persons killed and injured in the course of the war. A November 1995 unclassified CIA memorandum estimated 156,500 civilian deaths in the country (all but 10,000 of them in Muslim- or Croat-held territories), not including the 8,000 to 10,000 then still missing from the Srebrenica and Zepa enclaves. This figure for civilian deaths far exceeded the estimate in the same report of 81,500 troops killed (45,000 Bosnian government, 6,500 Bosnian Croat, and 30,000 Bosnian Serb)
These data were challened by George Kenney, in an article appearing in spring 1995. Kenney asserted that the Red Cross and other international agencies estimated the number of casualties in the tens of thousands. Kenney himself argued for a figure of between 25,000 and 60,000. The yearbook of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute gave the figure of 25,000 to 55,000 total deaths in the fighting, excluding casualties in the fighting between the Bosnian Serb army and the Bosnian Croat army. According to a Bosnian Serb publication as disseminated by electronic mail in early 1997, the Bosnian Serb republic suffered 18,392 deaths in the military, and 36,543 wounded. This figure apparently does not include Serbs from outside of Bosnia who died in the fighting in Bosnia. On the basis of these data, not only the Kenney and Stockholm Peace Institute estimates, but the CIA estimate of casualties from the war, appear too low.
Source: The War In Bosnia Herzegovina Burg & Shoup, pp 169-170.
What this all comes down to, sjy, is all those non-red circles on the map that wound up on the Serb side of the Bosnian front line, and whether people like you can downplay the fate of those who didn't live to tell the tale or turn Milosevic's wars into something they weren't, being wars fought by equally odious combatants.
I say you cannot, and America has twice emphasized that fact with military force. You can get all the Mackenzies and Kenneys you want, sjy, but if their statements don't line up with the facts, they become irrelevant to anybody save those who look to further a discredited worldview, such as yourself, and merely cause for more confusion when, contrary to the worldview supported in part by their misrepresentation of the facts, you and yours get yourselves bombed again.
My book says quite clearly that we will never know who did the breadline massacre. People say I am accusing the Bosnians of doing it to themselves. And I say, no, absolutely not! - Lewis Mackenzie, 1998
My bad - he did correct himself, 6 years after the fact.
Whatever. We're talking past each other, and that's too bad. Serbia and her expatriate offspring have a choice between the carrot or the stick, and continue to shun the carrot.
Perhaps if we told them that 70+% of the carrot was grown on a Serbian farm they'd seize the opportunity.
Funny you should link to David Rieff in Foreign Affairs and his correction of Boyd. It was Rieff who, scarcely a year into the war, began speaking of 200,000-> a quarter of a million fatalities on the Bosnian govt side alone, taking his acritical cue from the Bosnian govt, whod rifled up the fatality estimate about tenfold within the space of weeks without publicly disclosing a scintilla of proof. How fitting then for Rieff to be counseling others about care with facts. Oh yes, Mr. Rieff, lets all be careful, shall we? Did it cross your mind that the highball CIA estimate to which you make reference accords more with those of Boyd and Kenney than it does with Rieffs and Siladzics apocryphal utterances from early in the war? And how fitting also that you dismiss the USIA study, I gather on the grounds that Serbs are genetically wired to lie and exaggerate, unlike all the studys other participants?
Funny you should cart out Tim Judah also. Cast a glance if you will at page 159 of his book, The Serbs: History, Myth, and the Destruction of Yugoslavia (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1997) and the ethnographic map entitled 1991: Ethnic Yugoslavia Before the War. NB the small and decidedly minoritarian portion of Bosnia shaded as having a Bosniac Muslim plurality or majority, and the much larger area shaded as having a Serb plurality or majority, but most importantly the quite large area shown in plain white where others (viz., groups other than Serbs/Croats/Muslims!) were a demographic plurality or majority. That others thus defined formed a plurality or majority in this large area is of course a mathematical impossibility over the regions so designated obviously one of Serbs/Croats/Muslims were minimally a plurality, though Judah doesnt tell us who they are. The political motivation for this fudging of the demographic reality, if it isnt already obvious in this revisionist work, becomes obvious 50 pages later, in another map representing maximum extent of Serb control, 1991-95, with which, thanks to the willfully incomplete map of 50 pages earlier, we have no meaningful demographic baseline to compare. This is reaching deep into the dregs of Natophile advocacy journalism hl, but Ill at least give Judah points for having the sophistication as a journeyman serbophobe to grasp that if youre going to practise revisionism, you must extend it back decades to include the NDH Holocaust perpetrated against Serbs, which Judah does with alacrity, embracing the late revisionist demographer Zerjavic, an admirer of the négationniste Tudjman. Otherwise, Serbs wouldve been entitled to take the same umbrage to living under and pledging loyalty to the chequerboard flag as would Polish Jews to living under and pledging loyalty to the Swastika. And we cant have that, of course.
In the NYT Magazine in the spring of 1995 George Kenney estimated total fatalities on all sides in the Bosnian conflict at 25k-60k. At that time his sources in U.S. intelligence were putting the number in the 10s of 1000s and British intelligence was putting the figure at 50-60k, thus highballing in the same vicinity as Kenney interestingly enough. Perhaps this has less to do with a rude comedy on Kenneys part than with the fact that unlike you in your last post, he was situating events on a temporal axis, and these estimates of his were published months before both the fall of Srebrenica and the large-scale co-ordinated offensives by the Croatian and Bosniac armies against Serb-inhabited areas of Croatia and Bosnia enjoying massive NATO/US air support. Its not entirely balmy to surmise that these operations may have claimed as many if not more Serb lives than lives from any other group. Which brings us to Binders post-war reckoning based on comparing fatality figures across humanitarian organizations, yielding a total of less than 70k. Its interesting how this figure meshes plausibly with both Kenneys and UK intelligence estimates from spring 95, and also with Boyds and how different researchers, in a different space of time and using different sources and methods, arrived at such similar findings. And its interesting to compare their methods to yours, which consist of announcing a priori the only correct and serious verdict on the matter permitted to freepers and then string-searching your way to the appropriate footnotes, using such unassailably above-the-fray sources as the Bosnian Congress USA and their pal Dr. Francis Boyle, and Mr. David Rieff of the American Committee to Save Bosnia. Yes, no parti pris pressure groups SVP. Were trying to have a serious discussion here.
You textbite for us from the UN Commission of Experts but spare us such trivia as their methodology, perhaps because to paraphrase a famous quote, this commission had no methodology, only interests. :
It is unsurprising that there are such vast discrepancies in the casualty figures cited by different sides in the war; however international sources on the numbers of victims in the war also vary greatly. The most commonly cited figure in the media is between 200,000 and 250,000 Bosnians killed, which the journalist Nick Gowing has traced back to Bosnian government officials. Whilst articles in the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) yearbooks contain the figures of 140,000 and 200,000 as the total number of Croats, Muslims and Serbs killed, research published in the SIPRI yearbooks suggests that between 30,000 to 50,000 have been killed (see SIPRI, 1995; 1996). The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Commission on Missing Persons believe there are currently about 20,000 missing persons according to the ICRC tracing requests, although in a press conference in Washington on 7 November 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Senator Robert Dole, who heads the Commission, cited the figure of about 40,000 missing persons. The divergence of the figures reflects their status as estimates. There has been a lack of investigation to back up many of the figures cited. In fact, many of the figures contained in international reports are based on local sources and have not been independently verified.
There has been uneven documentation of human rights abuses, which has been reflected in the major international reports. For example, the UN Commission of Experts, upon whose evidence the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia was set up, did little independent research and only invited submissions and considered existing reports. Areas which have come under the spotlight of the international media and human rights organisations have received attention and witnesses have been sought and interviewed, whilst other areas ignored by the media and NGOs have been neglected.
The earlier dominant position of the Serbs led to a view of the war as Serbian aggression and a tendency to overlook Serbian losses. There were heavier Croatian and Muslim losses in the earlier period of the war but as the Croatian and Bosnian armies became established they were able to inflict losses on the Serbs. However, the early view of the war has persisted.
The international media coverage, mainly from one side in the conflict, has created a certain dynamic in that subsequent investigations chose their remit based on issues already being highlighted. For example, the remit of the EU Investigative Mission into the Treatment of Muslim Women in the Former Yugoslavia led by Dame Ann Warburton included investigations of Muslim and (unofficially) Croatian rape victims, but did not include Serbian women. The EU team was itself critical of this fact, but the limited scope of investigations was repeated in other international commissions looking into atrocities. For example, the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia did not initially feel it needed to set up an investigation of crimes against the Serbs because its first field investigations were selected on the basis of the material and evidence of the UN Commission of Experts, which had not highlighted Serbian victims (see ICTY, 1994: 27-28).
Most of the early international reports, for example the EU Mission report, based their estimates of victims on a limited number of interviews and domestic documentation. The conclusions of these international reports were then cited in local reports as further substantiated proof. During the war, there tended to be a circular substantiation of evidence and repetition of estimated figures rather than a scientific gathering of additional evidence through independent research.
Why MacKenzie wouldnt be entitled to skepticism about the 92 breadline massacre is a little unclear. Leaks to the press of allegedly classified UN reports to force commander Nambiar claimed to point to Bosnian govt complicity. Even Serb-basher journalist Carol Off acknowledges theres no proof of Serb culpability- she just wants to believe it nonetheless. Markale I (94) produced an initial verdict of: dont know, with informants in the peacekeeping forces claiming it was an inside job, and Markale II (95) a verdict of Serb responsibility over the strenuous objections of expert dissenters, as Binder pointed out. Then theres the homicidal little show put on for Douglas Hurds visit in July 1992, and as witnessed at close hand and written about directly by Canadian peacekeepers, in which the Bosniac territorial defence force mortared and killed several of its own civilians. Skepticism about the official conclusions or to put it better, non-conclusions or kaiboshed conclusions is vastly better founded in these cases than is Dallaires risible lie, in print and unretracted to this day, about the assassination of the Rwandan and Burundian presidents by his pals in the RPA, operating a hit squad from territory for which Dallaire was directly responsible, being an accident. How long after the fact is this drunk entitled to that sickening charade, or does he just get a pass cuz hes on the DL while MacKenzies still high-functioning? Not to mention his disgusting negligence in the death of the Belgian peacekeepers, about which the UN mission head of the time Jacques Roger Booh Booh has gone public in the European press.
The question of who had the most guns at a given moment or who, in the final reckoning, lost the most lives in a conflict rarely tells us much about the inherent rightfulness or wrongfulness of the sides causes nor whether its a civil war or not, nor about the legitimacy of each sides fears and concerns, unless were approaching the matter from the intellectual level of a nine-year-old. If you think sides getting outside sustenance in a civil war means it isnt a civil war, then theres a big set of civil war history books youd have to rewrite, incl those about most of the civil wars recorded in Africa and Europe. Try Marxs The Civil War in France for starters. John R. Lampe in Yugoslavia as History: Twice there was a Country (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000), believes that of the war dead in Bosnia, about 50% were Muslims, and 30-35% Serbs. This would put Serb fatalities in a range proportionate or even disproportionate to their presence in the pre-war population, 31.4% by the 91 census. But these figures arent definitive or the last word, since Lampe notes the no. of dead/displaced is still disputed, but seems to think the unproven Bosnian govt number seems likely if we include the missing which is open to endless interpretation, and esp since from very early on, as Pupavac points out, those among the internationals measuring victimhood and loss oriented their efforts overwhelmingly to the non-Serb side, since they were the designated good guys.
How unfortunate for you that one can actually access the antebellum 1990's vintage CIA World Factbooks at the Project Gutenberg site.
Lemme guess - you're referring to some CIA factbook who's contents can't be verified, right?
How unfortunate for you that Dallaire is still capable of speech and still given to write. As the French would say, "A suivre..."
It would be only the decent thing to do to resume bombing Kosova any time we are ready to admit our huge mistake.
Massive muslim disinformation and manufactured evidence and flat out lies. That culture thinks nothing of making up the most childish and transparent fabrications in all seriousness.
That we, as a country, swallowed it hook line and sinker doesn't say much for our vigilance toward the party animals in the White House at the time. Or for our collective intelligence.
It is never too late, however, to set things right.
We didn't learn squat. The killers of the Duke were muslims. D'OH!
Footnote 14: See, for example, the "Ethnic Majorities" maps in The Former Yugoslavia: A Map Folio, Central Intelligence Agency, CPAS 93-10003, April 1993, p.3
viz. a wartime CIA map but using antebellum data from the '91 census, to be precise.
What idiot would beleive the Al Qaeda backed KLA Muslims to begin with???!@?
Now that that is settled what idiot would support statehood for Taliban mark II???!@???!??!?!???!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.