Skip to comments.Was 'Srebrenica genocide' a hoax? (Muslim soldiers who died in earlier battles used to up count)
Posted on 05/01/2007 4:11:39 AM PDT by joan
click here to read article
Bill Clinton Lied us into war in Bosnia, against Christians, to help Muslims take over a country that wasn’t theirs.
The media is silent even though the proof has been available for a long time. We had no business in Bosnia, there was no genocide, it was a civil war, or more accurately, an invasion by a neighboring country that included stirring up locals against the ruling government.
Now, we are talking about stripping a country of part of it’s land and giving it to radical muslim extremists.
"Let us never forget a quarter of a million men, women and children have been shelled, shot and tortured to death. 10 tortured to death, 20 shot, and 249,970 personally heard, or knew someone who had heard, an artillary shell explode and it scared them.
And now, in 2007, we Republicans have delivered the solution Clinton said was the best way, and the democrats and media attack us for it and call it a failure.
Iraq today as a government respects the rights of it's people, and is ready to live in peace with it's neighbors. And it is a new government, without Saddam or his cronies.
We SUCCEEDED. Unfortunately, there are many who want to defeat Iraq, they have invaded the country and stirred up opposition to the government.
And the democrats think we should surrender to them and go home.
As I said to a "pull-out now" person yesterday. Lets assume (without evidence) that there is an actual civil war in Iraq, and not just a few thousand malcontents willing to kill innocent civilians but NOT to actually fight a war against the military of their country.
There are still two sides to that civil war. One side is a democratically-elected government, a friend and ally of our country, a government committed to peace in the region, to fighting terrorists, to giving it's people peace and prosperity.
The other side is a radical muslim opposition, who hate us, want to side with Iran our enemy, oppose democracy, want to suppress those in their country who disagree with them, will blow up innocent women and children to make their point, who are sponsored by terrorists, who blow up our troops, and are a threat to the region.
Which side SHOULD we be supporting? According to the Democrats, we have no business favoring one side over another in this battle. But it's hard to think of a "civil war" where the right side to support has been clearer.
Masters if propaganda.
It is getting to the point that if a Muslim said the sun rose in the East...I’d want independent verification.
The researchers estimate the number of killed civilian Muslims and Croats to be around 38,000, while the number of killed civilian Serbians was about 16,700.
So the total for BOTH Muslim and Croat civilians is 38,000. Those groups had their own intense war between each other (late 1992 until a U.S. brokered peacedeal ended their fighting in late Feb. 1994) separate from the main war they had against the Serbs - this took place where Serb forces were gone and most, if not all Serb civilians too.
The numbers of Croat and Muslim civilians killed during the Muslim-Croat war within the general Bosnian war is not separated out of the general total. There were also a lot of foreign mercenaries who were going around killing Bosnian civilians of all ethnicities. The foreign mercenaries including many from Germany and Britain (non-Muslims who fought for the Muslim or Croats) in addition to thousands of Muslims from the Middle East, Africa, Europe, etc.
The Mujahadeen were based in Central Bosnia where there were many Croats. A Scottish mercenary, John MacPhee, fighting for the Croats was witness to (and wrote a book on the mayhem these Muslims did on Bosnian Croat civilians, including babies and children.
Good post. Here’s something that most all of America seems to have forgotten. It has been U.S. law since 1998 to overthrow the Hussein regime and to establish a democratic government.
The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998.
Basically the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 calls for an all out proxy war fully supported by the US with money and military logistics in order to oust Saddam and establish Democracy.
Thanks for the info!
My opinion on Iraq is that it was the right war, but the wrong method we choose to go about fighting it.
What Bush should have done...
(If all events up until our liberation of Iraq were the same)
2003 March - Invade and oust Saddam.
2003 Dec. 15, 2003 - Capture and Execution of Saddam
2004 Jan 1 - Declare victory and leave.
Repeat as necessary. They will get the message.
And now the democrats argue that Iraq didn't want freedom, that they are incapable of having a democratic government, that it is unattainable because of their sectarian makeup.
And they wish Bill Clinton was President again.
I almost forgot.
March 2003 - Congress declares war.
Ya know, I showed this liberal woman friend of mine the two things I just showed you and aksed her to comment in email. First she ignored those emails and I kept asking her if she would comment on them. Finally she replies back that Clinton is very “clear” in those messages. I write back and ask her what does that mean and she goes on a rant about Bush lying and that Bush bullied America.
In other words, she went into full moonbat mode and made no sense whatsoever when confronted with facts.
I had a liberal male “friend” I made on the internet based on our love of the Prius automobile and ecological issues. We used to have drag-out e-mail fights over everything, but I respected him because he argued with logic.
We had to stop because his wife wrote me and told me to stop writing to him because I upset him too much and she didn’t “feel” I understood how bad I was for the country.
LOL!! You are bad for the country? LOL!
I just wrote that liberal woman friend of mine and asked why Al Gore lies in his movie that sea levels will rise 20 feet in the 21st century when the new IPCC report says only about 15 inches? I'll get some incoherent reply that I don't understand the "principles" of global warming, or some other nonsense.
This causes about as much surprise as it does concern - Ivanisevic is attempting to do for Srebrenica what David Irving has done for Auschwitz, and like Irving, will find enough empty heads to fill with his garbage to convince himself it’s worth his time.
If 2 million of the Jews killed by the Nazis had been reported by the ICRC as having fled to Sweden, and 2.9 million of the Jews killed by the Nazis had voted in the first election (or ‘election’ in the case of Communist lands) held after the liberation, and the Jews of Europe had fought pitched battles with the Nazis, Holocaust denial, not in the sense of questioning whether the Nazis killed Jews, but in the sense of questioning the reported death toll of 6 million as mass murder, would not be a disreputable enterprise in racist historical revisionism, and some additional scorn quotes would have been appropriate above. None of those circumstances applied to the Shoah.
Scaled down the the purported death-toll of 7500, all of the analogous facts apply to Srebrenica: 2500 of the ‘victims’ had left according to ICRC reports, 3600 of the ‘victims’ voted in the 1996 elections, and there was a pitched battle between the Muslims holed up in Srebrenica and the Serbs.
When accepted history is a lie, historical revisionism is a good thing.
Been there, done that, and your revisionism is just recycled garbage.
Sorry, but you’re playing fast and loose with the facts. Brunborg et al. found only 9 ‘victims’ on the voter lists for the 1997 and 1998 elections. Examination of the 1997 and 1998 lists cannot possibly debunk the claim that a much larger number of names of the Srebrenica ‘missing’ showed up on the 1996 municipal election lists, which is the only claim which was made.
Those lists were locked away by the OSCE and requests from both the BBC and the Serbs did not result in their being released, nor are they refered to in Brunborg et al.’s report, only the lists for later elections, compiled after the Serb objection to the 1996 lists, were examined.
Your claim is just more of the smoke and mirrors by which Muslim apologists have tried to trump up letting the women and children go, fighting a pitched battle, and, probably, summarily executing fighters who were arguably traitors in the context of a civil war into a charge of genocide.
I note you do not rebut the ICRC’s report of 2500 Muslim fighters leaving the enclave before the battle, this still lowers the possible number of summary executions by 1/3 even without counting the battle deaths in a fight-to-the-death defense.
And the Bosnian Serb Government, who addressed the issue of the missing in their 2004 report, are in on it too - right?
I note you do not rebut the ICRCs report of 2500 Muslim fighters leaving the enclave before the battle, this still lowers the possible number of summary executions by 1/3 even without counting the battle deaths in a fight-to-the-death defense.
Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? The fact that members of the 28th Division headed the escaping column is irrelevant to the matter of how many prisoners the Bosnian Serbs executed - it's the execution of prisoners which is the crime, not any combat which may have occurred prior to prisoners being collected, and the overwhelming evidence of those executions is far beyond the abilities of some know nothing revisionist wannabe such as yourself to even *hope* to overcome.
In short, you're embarrassing yourself.
Having read one of your sources and found it did not say what you claimed, unless you provide a link to the Bosnian Serb Government’s report, rather than your own claim to its content, I will not deign to answer.
Mathematics evidently isn’t your long suit: the reports at the time when Srebrenica was surrounded put 7500 Muslim fighters, both men and boys, in the city, the same number cited as casualties of the ‘atrocity, if 2500 left, that leaves 5000, some of whom were battle casualties.
Nor, last I checked is summary execution of traitors a crime, much less an act genocide, however it may be painted by those who want to apply the Geneva Conventions to a civil war. I’m sure when the dhimmis rise up in some Muslim country, and sharia law is applied, you’ll remember that fact of international law, and use it to defend the mass beheadings.
Well read this then:
Q. Okay. Let's go to the next challenge.
Could you again, I think, just read it and --
"On the list of 3.016 missing persons
officially recorded in the registers of the
International Red Cross, the names of 350 persons whose
identity has been established with certainty appear on
the electoral list of September 1996."
Q. So they are saying that the voters'
registration -- in their comparison of the voters'
registration to the ICRC, they come up with 350
matches. Can you explain that?
A. Well, as I indicated, there was no voters'
register in 1996. The voters' register was this census
of 1991. So it is not at all surprising that people
who went missing in 1995 were on the lists recorded in
1991. They should be there.
Source Brunborg testimony, Krstic trial, ICTY.
Now be specific - what did you read that did not say what I said it did?
Further, here is the report produced by the RS Government commission charged with reporting on the events around Srebrenica (7/10-7/19, '95), and here is the addendum to the report which discusses the lists of missing, and concludes with the following on page 18:
Based on the comparative process and analyses of the available lists, documents and other sources, the data on missing persons in the event in and around Srebrenica in July 1995 varies from 7,000 to 8,000
Mathematics evidently isnt your long suit: the reports at the time when Srebrenica was surrounded put 7500 Muslim fighters, both men and boys, in the city, the same number cited as casualties of the atrocity, if 2500 left, that leaves 5000, some of whom were battle casualties.
Wrong answer. The issue isn't battle casualties, but the execution of prisoners which better liars/revisionists than yourself have already failed to try and pass off as battle casualties.
Nor, last I checked is summary execution of traitors a crime, much less an act genocide, however it may be painted by those who want to apply the Geneva Conventions to a civil war.
Well since Bosnia-Herzegovina was internationally recognized in April of 1992, the traitors in Bosnia were those rebelling against the Sarajevo government, and you would have been doing Naser Oric a favor with your ignorance-based misanalysis of international law had his trial not already taken place.
Way to go there, sport.
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.