Remember Srebrenica — a.k.a. ‘So what if we globalized al Qaeda!’

Jewish World Review ^ | July 11th 2005. | Julia Gorin

[kronos77]

here's a reason for the conspicuous three-year near silence by all major media on this oh-so-momentous Second Nuremberg, as it was billed — a silence broken only one or two days a year, when they're finally able to offer up a damning piece of evidence that will perpetuate the version of events we've been sold from the beginning.

What even the most sporadic trial observer would know is that the Court has spent the last three years discovering what many of us knew in 1999: Milosevic was "a thug whose brutality played into the terrorists' hands," as former Boston Herald and JWR columnist Don Feder has repeatedly explained, but he was no exterminator. Working backwards to make the crime fit the punishment, however, the ICTY has had to redefine "genocide." Thus, Milosevic faces charges of genocide even while the extermination of more than 100,000 black Muslim and Christian men, women and children by Arabic Muslims in Sudan still hasn't been granted the label. But then, the exterminators there aren't white Christian Serbs.

The 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 7,000 Muslim males was inexcusable, but it wasn't genocide. If you would, imagine a scenario in which a single event is manipulated to lend credence to an ocean of lies. Imagine Srebrenica. Here it is in April 1993, from someone who was there. Haris Nezirovic was a Bosnian journalist writing for the weekly "Slobodna Bosna" ("Free Bosnia"), and this for the UK Independent:

[Cicero]

Funny how the Muslim population in Kosovo grew from 50% to 90% while they were being exterminated.

Clinton fought that war on the Wrong Side(TM), because he feels a natural brotherhood with drug-running Muslim thugs.

[GAB-1955]

Good point. Srebrenica was a war crime, but not a systematic attempt to kill Bosnians. The Serbs didn't want that as much as want to control a very small independent Bosnia.

[kronos77]

Got a point there.

[kronos77]

Some US troops torchured prisoners in Iraq, but USA is not bad side in Iraq. US Troops may kill number of Iraqis in combat but there are no genocide in Iraq.



Crime is commited by individuals and those acts cannot overshadow greatness of the army in general.

[Alter Kaker]

You can call the murder of 7000 or 8000 in cold blood at Srebrenica anything you'd like, but it's still a horrific crime. And it's one for which Gen. Mladic and Mr. Milosevic are directly responsible for. Hang 'em.

[Alter Kaker]

US Troops may kill number of Iraqis in combat but there are no genocide in Iraq.

You're saying the US lined up 7 or 8 thousand Iraqis against a wall and shot them in cold blood? That's a gross slur.

[kronos77]

Sofar, no relations Milosevic with Srebrenica was established.




-------

Netherlands and UN blamed over Srebrenica massacre

Staff and agencies
Wednesday April 10, 2002

The Dutch government and the UN have been criticised for their role in the events leading to the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in a report released today.

Some 7,500 Bosnian Muslims were systematically killed by Serb troops who overran the so-called safe enclave, where the UN had pledged its protection to any Muslim who sought sanctuary.

The report, commissioned by the Dutch government from the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, blames Dutch army officers for handing over Bosnian Muslim civilians to Serb forces despite fears of widespread killing, and the UN for failing to give the troops the support they needed to defend the local population.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,2763,681868,00.html

The Guardian

[kronos77]

But he said there was no evidence to link the massacre to political leaders in Belgrade.

------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,2763,681868,00.html#article_continue

[Alter Kaker]

So let me understand you correctly: You blame the Dutch, not the Serbs, for Srebrenica, because the Dutch didn't do enough to stop the Serbs from committing war crimes?

Huh?

[kronos77]

I didn`t wrote erticle.

That was conclusion of Dutch goverment investigation, after that Ditch goverment resigned.

Report found no evidence of Milosevic`s implication in Srebrenica.

Google it around.

And Serb forces fighting in Srebrenica were local forces, and their relatives were massacred my Srebrenica`s Muslim forces, some 3,000 Christians.

Muslims used Srebrenica as safeheaven forr attacks on Serbs.

[kronos77]

http://www.srebrenica.nl/en/

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/Bosnia/Srebrenica/Dutch-report.html

Use ite my friend, use it well.

[edcoil]

Muslims are killing folks around the world. What are they up to in Africa 40,000? Last I heard they had also burned down 200 churches and are replacing them with Mosks (sp).

[kronos77]

One russian guy is guarantee of my safety:
Mr. Kalashnikhov

World can hate me. Islam can burst like a baloon.

My adress:
Christianity street
AK-47

[Alter Kaker]

That was conclusion of Dutch goverment investigation

But amazingly, the Dutch government failed to find any evidence that anybody other than Serbs committed the massacre. The Dutch certainly didn't shoot any one.

Actually, the evidence tying Mr. Milosevic in is pretty damning. Milosevic was in direct contact with General Mladic. At Dayton, Milosevic made clear he was in absolute control of the Bosnian Serbs and was able to negotiate on their behalf. But at Srebrenica? Whoops. What could the man do?

[Alter Kaker]

Up the thorazine.

[joan]

"At Dayton, Milosevic made clear he was in absolute control of the Bosnian Serbs and was able to negotiate on their behalf."

It was the U.S. which insisted and wanted him there much to the consternation of the Bosnian Serb leaders who believed Milosevic gave away too much in compromise. During the war even Milosevic pulled out the Yugoslav army and even participated in some of the sanctions and blockades (fuel for example) against the Bosnian Serbs due to severe western pressure and threats.

One of the reasons the U.S. had to have Milosevic there as well was to get compromises from Serbia, including information on the army in Kosovo. The U.S. was preparing for Kosovo and moving assets to that theatre (Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania), as it was wrapping up Bosnia, and to help start up the KLA.

No coincidence that the KLA started to kill after the Bosnian war was wrapped up.

[Alter Kaker]

It was the U.S. which insisted and wanted him there much to the consternation of the Bosnian Serb leaders who believed Milosevic gave away too much in compromise.

But how could he have given away anything if he wasn't in overall control of the situation? Why would Mladic listen to Milosevic?

One of the reasons the U.S. had to have Milosevic there as well was to get compromises from Serbia, including information on the army in Kosovo

Evidence?

and to help start up the KLA. No coincidence that the KLA started to kill after the Bosnian war was wrapped up.

Out of curiosity, why would the US want this?

[joan]

This is some on the compromising information and access to Serbia the U.S. got through the Dayton Accords. This is from an interview with (at the time 2000) General Pavkovic. Read what is bolded:

http://www.truthinmedia.org/truthinmedia/Kosovo/Peace/ps36.html

Nevertheless, here are some additional excerpts from that NT interview, in an English translation:

"NT: Immediately prior to the beginning of the war, you were given command of our largest and most powerful army, the Third Army of the Yugoslav Army, the one which was supposed to have endured the chief burden of opposing the aggressor. Were you aware of this upon assuming command?

PAVKOVIC: I didn't expect this kind of war to happen nor to engage in battle against NATO. We soldiers didn't have the slightest idea that something like that might occur. However, we knew there were going to be problems in the region of Kosovo and Metohija because after the signing of the agreement with Holbrooke and the arrival of the OSCE mission to Kosovo things again grew more complicated.

But, the aggression had been in preparation for at least four-five years. Since Dayton. According to that agreement, we were obliged to provide them with full information regarding the deployment of our troops and our combat systems, which they later inspected in accordance with the same agreement. They had the coordinates of practically all of our garrisons, our training camps, our warehouses and other military facilities.

…

[zagor-te-nej]

SARAJEVO, Dec. 6, 2005 (IPS/GIN) -- The death toll in the wars of the 1990s in Bosnia stands at about half the usually stated figure of 200,000, new research shows.
Head of the Sarajevo-based Investigation and Documentation Center (IDC) Mirsad Tokaca told local media that his inquiries show that the number "stands at 93,000 dead now and that it should rise to 100,000 victims.

Every story they told you about war in former Bosnia was lie – Srebrenica is biggest of them all. That is way – 10 years – after end of war we still don’t have census in Bosnia.