"I didn't like them when Dubrovnik was bombed in 1991 for no military aim or gain."
You're behind in your reading. Dubrovnik wasn't destroyed. The Croats were burning tires to make it look like destruction. They set themselves up to DRAW Serb fire for the cameras. Professor Peter Maher was in Dubrovnik shortly after the so called 'destruction of Dubrovnik' and found it pretty much intact. I think the only building destroyed was the Serbian Library. Just notice how soon they were advertising for tourists -- chipped roof tiles was the main problem I hear.
posted on 04/07/2004 6:09:13 PM PDT
Did I say Dubrovnik was destroyed? No.
Was Dubrovnik bombed? Yes.
The old city was hit by medium caliber shells and the harbour was hit with small anti-tank missiles.
I didn't read I was simply watching the news in 1991. Small Anti-tank AT-3 Sagger missiles hit the walls doing little damage and hit several boats. Some hit roof tops. It was a waste of wire guided missiles with no military gain.
Were the Croatians drawing fire? Most probably.
In all it was waste of time on the Serb side and the only result was bad publicity for them.
A Macedonian admiral Bocinov in the Yugoslav navy was on a ship near the city of Split in Croatia when he was ordered to bomb it. The order was so stupid that he refused it and got sacked on the spot.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson