You do understand the difference between a proof and a counter-claim, yes?
There are always dissenting opinions about historical events. There are still those who claim the Holocaust never happened, for instance. So it doesn't surprise me that there is a school of thought which wants to cast doubt on the occurrence of a massacre at Srebrenica. But proof? That's another level.
Your Kosovo reference escapes me. The men quoted in the article were quizzed about Srebrenica, no?
Last I heard you had to do more then aledge murder you had to prove it.
The yammering of a bunch of Islamic terrorists isn't proof in my book.
Asking the (Christian I might add) Serbs to proove the didn't kill a bunch of Muslims who's bodies can't even be found, and charging them with war crimes if they can't is nothing like justice.
So you want us to prove a negative in light of the fact that the alleged massacre cannot be proved?