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.
French recognition of American independence did not magically make the British hanging of Nathan Hale into a war-crime. The Bosnian Serbs were fighting for the integrity of their homeland—Yugoslavia—just as the ‘secessionists’ from Virginia who formed West Virginia, to oppose secession.
From their point of view, the Bosnian secessionists were traitors. Again, I remind you, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to civil wars.
3016 missing persons, and 350 on voting lists, vs. lots more missing and 9 on voting lists for a different election? (I read the same thing you read and cited in your post to the other thread, the Brunborg et al. report that looked at tht 1997 and 1998 lists, and found only 9 of the missing).
The ‘experts’ employed by the Kangaroo Court for the Former Yugoslavia don’t seem to be able to tell a coherent story. Seeing this is the same ‘august’ body whose case against Milosevic had completely collapsed before his death, I’m suprised you have the timerity to cite them as authoritative.
Equating ‘missing persons’ with murdered (or summarily executed, by your leave) is a neat trick. Missing can be murdered, executed, killed in battle, died of natural causes, fled and living overseas under a new identity, moved to the next village after the war and not speaking up, since your propaganda depends on keeping the number of missing, disingenuously declared murdered, as high as possible.
For precisely that reason, battle casualties are an issue: you want to claim missing = murdered, which is not the case, as even one battle casualty among the missing proves.