[Smilin' Dave]

Well, if I understand him correctly, his arguments are not supposed to present a legal or moral defense of the Serb massacres themselves, rather they are supposed to defend against a one-sided view of the war as a Serb-only aggression and massacre, sometimes accompanied by an unrealistic exaggeration of the Serb crimes, which is prevalent among certain people. The "everyone else did it" is an effective defense against that, particularly in the situations when these one-sided accusations are coming from other participants of the Balkan wars themselves.

I would agree with this intrepretation, except I originally raised the example of the Srebrenica massacre because I_S was already claiming, absurdly, that the Serbs were strictly on the defensive (no ifs, buts or qualifications). The only purpose of this falsehood is to claim some kind of moral high ground (ie. poor Serbs being attacked by Muslims and Croats), and his continual insistence that we pretend Serb forces around Srebrenica were doing nothing but defend themselves (because apparently the UN thought they should set up a safe area somewhere that was perfectly fine, and lets ignore Karadzic's directive too) while contrasting it with aggression by others can only be seen as an attempt to justify the later Serbian war crime. I've questioned him about this and he hasn't even bothered to provide an alternative explanation.

At best he isn't acknowledging it at as a crime. At worst he is trying to justify it. Having had to repeatedly dance around this same stupid argument has naturally worn away at my patience and thus my sympathy.

[Independent_Srpska]

Wow, a non-official document purporting to be a list. Posted on Scribd which anyone could have written, including yourself. Which does not itself cite any sources. Colour me unimpressed. Try again.

Well, what to say....I don't really care about you being impressed or not...you just need to swallow it....however, give me your list of massacred BH-Muslims?

Is not relevant to the point I'm making, and your constantly raising it is nothing more than I diversion or an attempt to justify a massacre.
have made no excuses for the war crimes of others, you however can do nothing but make excuses when Serbs are involved.

You really have issues with understanding things...it's more obvious now (as I didn't have time to read PoFo)...however, I really need your definition of "making an excuse" ....who knows what you are rambling about when you say that....

Another diversion from the point at hand. A besieging force is not defensive in nature. You have said nothing to disprove this, even your 'zero casualties' thing is unsupported by real evidence.

Well, one who was not in the war and speaks about basics of the warfare to a person who was actually in the war - is at least pathetic in his attempt to be a smart-ass

I know the question you asked and it is irrelevant, another pathetic diversion. If the Serbs were on the defensive, why were they under orders from Karadzic to put pressure on the civilians of Srebrenica? Orders which my link show where passed down the chain of command of the Serbian military.

Nope, it's just tough question for you...and you are not programmed to answer it...you need to be withdrawn to the central frame to be reprogrammed....

Well it certainly can't be everything prior to July 11th now can it? That was your claim.

Well, read again....slowly....

Another diversion, word games

.

Nope, it you being clueless on the subject...another "basics of the warfare"

Since you mention it, how many civilians did the Serbs murder in Sarajevo for the beginning of the war to the end?

I don't know...do you know?

You have proven nothing. I'm sure you were not taught this make-believe school of debate in school, maybe you need to go back and review your notes or something.

Which is why you can't seem to mention these war crimes without making some lame brain excuse or diverting the conversation to someone else's crimes.

Unproven, strawman diversion, ad hom. Getting desperate aren't you?

Clearly again your "understanding issue"...

Another fabrication unsupported by the evidence. Serb forces were already in position around Srebrenica prior to July 11th, and had orders to besiege it dating back to at least March of the same year.

and here we go again....however, go see the movie again....you have plenty of evidences said by BH-muslims too....just listen carefully...

You however are really only interested in talking about the 'defensive' phase, because otherwise we would have to go into great detail about how the Serb forces massacred civilians without justification. How the military wing of the Serbian state in Bosnia-Herzegonvina committed war crimes, on the orders from their government. About how demonstrates that the whole seperatist movement was illegitimate, a state unable to exist without murdering people within its self declared borders.

well, why don't you talk about that? I suppose you mean on BH-Muslim/Croat separatist movement and its illegitimacy?

Anyhow, since you love truth so much, let's have a word about something in the news today. The judgement of Momcilo Perisic. I think it's bullshit he didn't get a conviction for events like Srebrenica, since those war crimes wouldn't have been possible without the logisitical support he arranged (think of the people killed with ammo he provided) and the withdrawal of which could have easily prevented said massacres. What do you think?

You see...this is your mind-set....your Serb-hate has been formed prior anything - and you, all the time, just seek excuses for your hate...

However, I don't know where you from ( I suppose one of the NATO-fascist countries)...so, think the same way about your money involved in killing people here....so, why don't you turn yourself in? You are most likely a war criminal....you've been involved in logistical support of the killing machine called NATO....

He has clearly engaged in negationism, which is essentially the same thing as denial as it is denial of the essence of the crime. There isn't any point in remembering and acknowledging these things if we are going to turn around and pretend they were not criminal (go to a court of law and see how well "everyone else did it" flys as a defence). It is clearly not accidental as years later he is using the same trash tactics to negate a massacre of civilians. I_S is clearly more aggreived by having to be reminded of these things than by the events themselves or the political ramifications of same (that an Independent Srpska would have been built not on high minded ideals by the bodies of innocents).

All crimes should be remembered. Not just the ones that are convenient.

Exactly my point, and exactly why this movie is a great thing - to open up the eyes of the kids, like you, stuck in Serbo-phobia .....

So, let's get straight again - you lied that I denied or negated or anything about Srebrenica...Srebrenica is not a holy cow, in fact many things around Srebrenica were fabricated or still are unknown or in fact hidden on purpose....

I can only hope you have learned that things around Srebrenica can not be summed up in one day....no to mention the whole civil war in ex-Yugoslav republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina ...

[Independent_Srpska]

Well, if I understand him correctly, his arguments are not supposed to present a legal or moral defense of the Serb massacres themselves, rather they are supposed to defend against a one-sided view of the war as a Serb-only aggression and massacre, sometimes accompanied by an unrealistic exaggeration of the Serb crimes, which is prevalent among certain people. The "everyone else did it" is an effective defense against that, particularly in the situations when these one-sided accusations are coming from other participants of the Balkan wars themselves.

Absolutely...the whole idea is to get a clear, but complete picture of events...but not taking out only one, suitable to support the position already taken by the CNN-like propaganda....

It must be always aggravating to be reminded of your own transgressions, even if you happen to acknowledge them. Especially for someone like I_S, whose forum personality is built upon the tireless defense of the image of Serbs. Unfortunately, it cannot be denied that given the demographic map of pre-war Bosnia, the only way an entity like Independent Srpska could possibly be created was through a huge ethnic cleansing, inevitably accompanied by a series of massacres.

Well, Pikachu, here is the fact - Republika Srpska was formed on January 9, 1992 - there were no war, there were no massacres, there were no ethnic cleansing....It was an answer of the Serbs, as a constituent people (or, if you wish, a state-making people in ex-Yugoslav republic of B&H), to a harsh violation of constitutions both Yugoslavia and B&H by Croat and BH-Muslim representatives in the parliament of B&H....

So, that's the fact and that's the way how Republika Srpska was created....on the other hand Bosnia and Herzegovina, as an independent state, was actually created in the manner you mention: by a series of massacres and ethnic cleansing (undeniably started by massacring and ethnic-cleansing the Serbs), by the NATO bombing, by the NATO occupation....

[Independent_Srpska]

I would agree with this intrepretation, except I originally raised the example of the Srebrenica massacre because I_S was already claiming, absurdly, that the Serbs were strictly on the defensive (no ifs, buts or qualifications). The only purpose of this falsehood is to claim some kind of moral high ground (ie. poor Serbs being attacked by Muslims and Croats), and his continual insistence that we pretend Serb forces around Srebrenica were doing nothing but defend themselves (because apparently the UN thought they should set up a safe area somewhere that was perfectly fine, and lets ignore Karadzic's directive too) while contrasting it with aggression by others can only be seen as an attempt to justify the later Serbian war crime. I've questioned him about this and he hasn't even bothered to provide an alternative explanation.

At best he isn't acknowledging it at as a crime. At worst he is trying to justify it. Having had to repeatedly dance around this same stupid argument has naturally worn away at my patience and thus my sympathy.

Well, you need to re-read it all again and to watch movie again and again....everything was clearly dissected to you...just be slow and be careful of the time-line ....

[Smilin' Dave]

Skipping over your insults which contribute nothing to the discussion:

So, that's the fact and that's the way how Republika Srpska was created....on the other hand Bosnia and Herzegovina, as an independent state, was actually created in the manner you mention: by a series of massacres and ethnic cleansing (undeniably started by massacring and ethnic-cleansing the Serbs), by the NATO bombing, by the NATO occupation....

I'm glad you were able to show us once again that your massively in denial about ethnic cleansing committed by Serbs. As usual you create an image where Serbs do nothing but everyone else was committing war crimes. How laughably fraudulent.

Well, what to say....I don't really care about you being impressed or not...you just need to swallow it....however, give me your list of massacred BH-Muslims?

It's your job to support evidence that you provide. The fact that you can't after all this time just shows that your whole position is based on bullshit.

Well, one who was not in the war and speaks about basics of the warfare to a person who was actually in the war - is at least pathetic in his attempt to be a smart-ass

Your lack of competance as a soldier is irrelevant to the fact that a besieging force is offensive in nature.

Since you've admitted your potential for bias or expertise, would you like to tell us where you served during the war? Were you at Srebrencia?

I don't know...do you know?

Your the one who claims to know to the last digit how many were killed in specific theatres of the conflict, but suddenly you don't have an overall number?

well, why don't you talk about that? I suppose you mean on BH-Muslim/Croat separatist movement and its illegitimacy?

No I was talking about how Serb state in Bosnia-Herzegovina was responsible for war crimes, it was all right there in the passage you quoted. Your inability even acknowledge the word 'Serb' and 'war crime' in the same sentence while still blaming others for the same thing must be a sign of serious cognitive dissonance.

You see...this is your mind-set....your Serb-hate has been formed prior anything - and you, all the time, just seek excuses for your hate...

Are you denying Perisic is guilty?

However, I don't know where you from ( I suppose one of the NATO-fascist countries)

We've actually discussed this before (since this is a common smear tactic of yours), my country is not a member of NATO.

so, think the same way about your money involved in killing people here....so, why don't you turn yourself in? You are most likely a war criminal

Even if my money had been used in the NATO campaigns against the Serbs, it would still not necessarily be a war crime. Go familiarise yourself with the terms of international law. The massacre at Srebrenica however, is undeniably a war crime.

Exactly my point, and exactly why this movie is a great thing - to open up the eyes of the kids, like you, stuck in Serbo-phobia .....

Let me be blunt: Fuck your movie, it is irrelevant to the reality that Serbs committed war crimes, and that you refuse to acknowledge this.

I'm going to keep rubbing your nose in it till you get it or you leave. Your choice. You can't possibly prove me wrong because if anything your posts are just proving my point about the extent of your denial and negationism.

[Independent_Srpska]

Skipping over your insults which contribute nothing to the discussion:
I'm glad you were able to show us once again that your massively in denial about ethnic cleansing committed by Serbs. As usual you create an image where Serbs do nothing but everyone else was committing war crimes. How laughably fraudulent.

How is stating a fact that Republika Srpska was formed on January 9, 1992 - prior the civil war (which was initiated by the Muslim-Croat massacre of 9 Serbs (age 17 to 72) on March 26, 1992 in Serbian part of village Sijekovac in the municipality Brod near to the Croatian Border), prior all conflicts, prior all ethnic cleansings (committed by all three sides, NATO included ) is in fact a denial of anything except for a non-truth argument said earlier?
What kind of logic is that?
*) It's something like when a person asks:"Were Serbs defensive on Srebrenica?" and gets answer:"Yes, they were before July 11,1995'' then that person starts ridiculously claiming it's a denial of something, basically, he has no clue about? Right? .....I would say it's a twisted logic of a person brainwashed by the CNN....

It's your job to support evidence that you provide. The fact that you can't after all this time just shows that your whole position is based on bullshit.

So, what would like to see on a list with 0 people on it?

...if my position, as a person who actually went through war is based on bullshit, what would you say what is your position based on? A pile of elephant herd dung? Right?

Your lack of competance as a soldier is irrelevant to the fact that a besieging force is offensive in nature.

You do have a herd of elephants.... you do have a lot of fun making "snowballs" of the foundation of your position...

Since you've admitted your potential for bias or expertise, would you like to tell us where you served during the war? Were you at Srebrencia?

that's completely irrelevant to your twisted logic explained by *)....

Your the one who claims to know to the last digit how many were killed in specific theatres of the conflict, but suddenly you don't have an overall number?

Well, correct me if I am wrong , but you were tore apart because of your stupid CNN-attitude towards B&H civil war around Srebrenica....
Why would you suddenly jump on Sarajevo front-lines? Feel free to open a new topic....

No I was talking about how Serb state in Bosnia-Herzegovina was responsible for war crimes, it was all right there in the passage you quoted. Your inability even acknowledge the word 'Serb' and 'war crime' in the same sentence while still blaming others for the same thing must be a sign of serious cognitive dissonance.

Well, actually, you wanted an answer to your question...you got the answer you didn't like....sorry , kiddo, sometimes reality is not in accordance with your wishes...don't bitch because of that....it's a life....

Are you denying Perisic is guilty?

In fact, I'm making fun of your anti-Serb attitude:"....YOU WOULD WISH he got convicted for what you want..." because that would suit your Serb-hating position and that wouldn't hurt your position based on a weak pile of dung...but, as I said, kiddo - sometimes reality is not in accordance with your wishes...

We've actually discussed this before (since this is a common smear tactic of yours), my country is not a member of NATO.

I can't remember, don't be afraid to say where you from ....

Even if my money had been used in the NATO campaigns against the Serbs, it would still not necessarily be a war crime. Go familiarise yourself with the terms of international law. The massacre at Srebrenica however, is undeniably a war crime.

Luckily, I have you to comment on the terms of international law....

Well, yes, all massacres around Srebrenica were war crimes (those committed by BH-Muslims and those committed by Serbs)...FYI, not only those...for instance, the first massacre (already mentioned above) in the BH civil war, was a war crime, too....

Let me be blunt: Fuck your movie, it is irrelevant to the reality that Serbs committed war crimes, and that you refuse to acknowledge this.

Well, if you watch this movie once again - you would notice it pictures unknown side of events around Srebrenica...(at least unknown to outsiders) .....just keep watching it....it might help you to see a broader picture of the BH-civil war....it's interesting because it was made by BH-Muslims too....

I'm going to keep rubbing your nose in it till you get it or you leave. Your choice. You can't possibly prove me wrong because if anything your posts are just proving my point about the extent of your denial and negationism

Oh, please continue.... ...we are both satisfied , trust me .....

[Smilin' Dave]

How is stating a fact that Republika Srpska was formed on January 9, 1992 - prior the civil war

...what? No. Fighting in Croatia, an intrinsic part of the break up of Yugoslavia etc. started in 1990 with the 'Log Revolution' and eventually descending into war.

Once again you pick and choose your dates carefully to make Serbs look like innocents. In this case re-casting the Yugoslav wars to leave out anything that might weaken your claims.

So, what would like to see on a list with 0 people on it?

The list doesn't exist, which is why you cannot produce it.

You do have a herd of elephants.... you do have a lot of fun making "snowballs" of the foundation of your position...

I have no idea what this even means.

that's completely irrelevant to your twisted logic explained by *)....

So your willing to claim expertise on the basis of your military service, but you won't give any details about it. Great...

Perhaps you're are just lying and you never served, like a lot of your 'evidence' it is something that conveniently only you seem to possess and are able to verify (like your 'list'). Or better yet, maybe you were there in Srebrenica massacring those civilians. That might explain why you're so keen to whitewash everything.

Why would you suddenly jump on Sarajevo front-lines? Feel free to open a new topic....

According to you we were already talking about Sarajevo

you were rambling about "defensiveness of Serbs around Srebrenica and Sarajevo"

Sarajevo is of course a relevant comparison, since it was another example of a Serbian siege.

Well, actually, you wanted an answer to your question...you got the answer you didn't like....sorry , kiddo, sometimes reality is not in accordance with your wishes...don't bitch because of that....it's a life....

I suppose I could cover my eyes and block my ears like you do whenever something unpleasant but true is said. Kind of like how you are still avoiding the point.

In fact, I'm making fun of your anti-Serb attitude:"....YOU WOULD WISH he got convicted for what you want..." because that would suit your Serb-hating position and that wouldn't hurt your position based on a weak pile of dung...but, as I said, kiddo - sometimes reality is not in accordance with your wishes...

Just answer the question and stop rambling. Is Perisic guilty or not? It's not a hard question, it's not a question of what I think (I already said what I think), it's a question of what you think. You do have opinions of your own right?

I can't remember, don't be afraid to say where you from ....

I'm living under your house. What difference does it make?

Well, yes, all massacres around Srebrenica were war crimes (those committed by BH-Muslims and those committed by Serbs)...FYI, not only those...for instance, the first massacre (already mentioned above) in the BH civil war, was a war crime, too....

You've probably forgotten already in your blind rush to ignore everything and repeat the same tired shit, but your claim was NATO committed war crimes. I'm still waiting for your to explain this.

Well, if you watch this movie once again - you would notice it pictures unknown side of events around Srebrenica...(at least unknown to outsiders) .....just keep watching it....it might help you to see a broader picture of the BH-civil war....it's interesting because it was made by BH-Muslims too....

What are they paying you to peddle this or something? It's like a broken record "what the movie" "hey going out to dinner? watch the movie" "studying for exams? watch the movie". I've seen it and it is irrelevant to what I'm saying to you: moral equivilency doesn't excuse the massacre of civilians by Serb forces at Srebrenica and Serb forces were not strictly on the defensive on that front.

we are both satisfied , trust me .....

You have a split personality going on there?

[Independent_Srpska]

...what? No. Fighting in Croatia, an intrinsic part of the break up of Yugoslavia etc. started in 1990 with the 'Log Revolution' and eventually descending into war.

Once again you pick and choose your dates carefully to make Serbs look like innocents. In this case re-casting the Yugoslav wars to leave out anything that might weaken your claims.

So, what kind of logic is that?

Let's play some deconstruction...

1. Pikachu said something false about Republika Srpska

2. I corrected it stating undeniable fact: Republika Srpska was formed on January 9, 1992 (it's initial name was Srpska Republika Bosna i Herzegovina) prior all conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina (in fact, I don't take in account the first victims (Aug/Sept 1991) on the soil of B&H who were Serbs to your surprise, because their deaths didn't cause major conflicts (immediately) )

3. You, a rocket scientist, are making fool of yourself, once again, rambling about Croatia

So, how's your rambling related to the incorrect claim Pikachu stated?

Just another red herring or straw-man argument to feed your Serbo-phobia

The list doesn't exist, which is why you cannot produce it.

Wherever you look you have a list with ZERO people on it - even you can produce it....

I have no idea what this even means.

No wonder...

So your willing to claim expertise on the basis of your military service, but you won't give any details about it. Great...

Perhaps you're are just lying and you never served, like a lot of your 'evidence' it is something that conveniently only you seem to possess and are able to verify (like your 'list'). Or better yet, maybe you were there in Srebrenica massacring those civilians. That might explain why you're so keen to whitewash everything.

Perhaps not and maybe not ....

Still, the fact stays: Prior July 11, 1995 Serbs were defensive on Srebrenica (as explained previously)

According to you we were already talking about Sarajevo

Sarajevo is of course a relevant comparison, since it was another example of a Serbian siege.

Feel free to open a topic on Sarajevo...

I suppose I could cover my eyes and block my ears like you do whenever something unpleasant but true is said. Kind of like how you are still avoiding the point.

Nope, you should have just turned your brain on and you should have turned your serbophobia and the cnn-matrix off

Just answer the question and stop rambling. Is Perisic guilty or not? It's not a hard question, it's not a question of what I think (I already said what I think), it's a question of what you think. You do have opinions of your own right?

Well, I didn't read the verdict in detail, but if Perisic is guilty for the "logistical support" I just hope the so called tribunal in the Hague will follow the suit to sent to jail everyone who was logistically supporting conflicts everywhere on the planet....but somehow, it seams, Perisic was innocent until proven he was a Serb....

I'm living under your house. What difference does it make?

OK, be careful, I have a nasty cat....

You've probably forgotten already in your blind rush to ignore everything and repeat the same tired shit, but your claim was NATO committed war crimes. I'm still waiting for your to explain this.

You were speaking about massacres about Srebrenica - I just agreed with you - all massacres around Srebrenica were war crimes....

However, if Perisic is guilty for " a logistical support", why wouldn't be NATO guilty for a logistical support of Muslims and Croats...and why wouldn't be you guilty for giving money to support NATO crimes?

What are they paying you to peddle this or something? It's like a broken record "what the movie" "hey going out to dinner? watch the movie" "studying for exams? watch the movie". I've seen it and it is irrelevant to what I'm saying to you: moral equivilency doesn't excuse the massacre of civilians by Serb forces at Srebrenica and Serb forces were not strictly on the defensive on that front.

I dunno how you were brought up, but there is no such a thing like a moral equivalence in crime....here is where your Serbophobia kicks in...you think your sick and twisted attitude formed , probably, by watching CNN-like bullshits will be fed with hate - if you, as an argument for hating Serbs, just say "what about Srebrenica"....

Srebrenica, in your brain (and all others brainwashed brains) is a paradigm of the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina - which is an utmost idiocy...not to mention all the fabrication that followed creation of that "paradigm" - thus you'll never hear BH-Muslims complain about "siege of Srebrenica" prior July 11, 1995, thus you'll never hear about any BH-Muslim victim during "vicious, 3 years long" Serb "siege".....
Thus your moronic paradigm "were Serbs defensive on Srebrenica" falls apart facing 3000+ Serb victims (as BH-Muslim and followers like to say:"boys, women, men") and 0 (ZERO) BH-Muslim victims during the "3-year-siege of Srebrenica with UN-forces between warring sides"...as simple as that....

You have a split personality going on there?

nope...

[Smilin' Dave]

So, what kind of logic is that?

That you can't seperate what was happening in Bosnia Hezegovina and Croatia. Aside from the direct ties between the various political entities, it set the tone of all the sub-conflicts that followed the disintergration of Yugoslavia.

Wherever you look you have a list with ZERO people on it - even you can produce it....

I'm pretty sure you can't produce an imaginary list.

Perhaps not and maybe not....

I'm sure being a liar and/or war criminal delights you no end.

Prior July 11, 1995 Serbs were defensive on Srebrenica (as explained previously)

Your only evidence for this 'defence' is a list which you insist is official, but apparently you can't produce or reference.

Meanwhile logic suggests that a force laying a siege, and I've provided court testimony showing that the siege was ordered well prior to July 1995, is not defensive in nature.

So in case this is all some misunderstanding rather than you being blind to all inconvenient facts, I have provided evidence. You have not.

Feel free to open a topic on Sarajevo...

Why? We can discuss it here with another famous Serb siege.

Well, I didn't read the verdict in detail, but if Perisic is guilty for the "logistical support" I just hope the so called tribunal in the Hague will follow the suit to sent to jail everyone who was logistically supporting conflicts everywhere on the planet

This presumes that all war is criminal, which it isn't.

However, if Perisic is guilty for " a logistical support", why wouldn't be NATO guilty for a logistical support of Muslims and Croats...

Given those countries were originally placed under an arms embargo, which didn't stop the Serbs from killing them, I don't follow your logic here.

and why wouldn't be you guilty for giving money to support NATO crimes?

Because I don't live in the U.S or Europe, hence my country is not a member of NATO. Further NATO action was authorised to stop more large scale Serb massacres which the UN had failed to prevent. The idea that using force to stop massacres is wrong seems ridiculous. I suppose you wouldn't understand, since you seem to think liquidating a UN safe area is perfectly justified on some weird eye for an eye approach.

I dunno how you were brought up, but there is no such a thing like a moral equivalence in crime...

Which is why you keep dragging up massacres of Serbs and getting all defensive (unlike the troops laying siege to Srebencia) whenever someone mentions a massacre committed by Serbs right?

Srebrenica, in your brain (and all others brainwashed brains) is a paradigm of the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Of course it wasn't, in fact Srebrencia was an all time low for humanity, in a war marked by war crimes on all sides. Maybe your 'Serbs are best at everything' signature needs an extra panel for 'best massacre'.

Thus your moronic paradigm "were Serbs defensive on Srebrenica" falls apart facing 3000+ Serb victims (as BH-Muslim and followers like to say:"boys, women, men") and 0 (ZERO) BH-Muslim victims during the "3-year-siege of Srebrenica with UN-forces between warring sides"...as simple as that....

Prove those figures and you might actually have the beginnings of a point. Instead you just look like a liar.

[Independent_Srpska]

Oh, kiddo, look what an interesting book I have found....

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=25112 ( The SREBRENICA MASSACRE, Evidence, Context, Politics,
Edward S. Herman and Phillip Corwin (Editors) )

So, here we have a few more individuals who dare to think....or as you, and your brainwashed kind, would say:"They (by thinking) "negate and deny" crimes committed against BH-Muslims"...bastards....

Here is a foreword for you....there are a few nice sentences for you and your mindset...

But at the bottom line - the real message would be: TURN YOUR BRAIN ON, kiddo

FOREWORD

Phillip Corwin

On July 11, 1995, the town of Srebrenica fell to the Bosnian Serb
army. At the time, I was the highest ranking United Nations civilian of-
ficial in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

In my book, Dubious Mandate,1 I made
some comments on that tragedy. Beyond that, I decried the distortions
of the international press in their reporting, not only on that event, but
on the wars in Yugoslavia (1992-95) in general. I expressed the wish
that there could have been, and must be, some balance in telling the
story of what actually happened in Srebrenica and in all of former Yu-
goslavia, if we are to learn from our experience.

This book by the Srebrenica Research Group, The Srebrenica Mas-
sacre: Evidence, Context, Politics, answers that call. It presents an alter-
native and well-documented assessment of the tragedy of Srebrenica,
and of the suffering of all the constituent peoples of former Yugoslavia.
It is an invaluable document. Of course, there will be those who will dis-
agree with the authors’ perspective. But if we are to open a discussion
that has been closed to all but the faithful, if we are to prevent similar
tragedies from occurring again, then we must take seriously the accounts
put forward by the bright and discerning contributors to this book. No
honest reader can doubt the credentials of these authors. And no hon-
est reader should doubt the importance of what they have to say. I con-
gratulate them on their scholarship and their courage.

Coincidentally, I have a personal reason for recalling what happened
on July 11, 1995, for not only was that the day Srebrenica fell, but it was
also the day that a Bosnian sniper tried to assassinate me as my vehicle,
white and clearly marked as a UN vehicle, was driving over Mt. Igman
on the way back to Sarajevo from a staff visit to Gorni Vakuf. The sniper
targeted our vehicle as we sped around the hairpin turns of that nar-
row, rutted mountain road, and it was due only to the courageous ef-
forts of Bruno Chaubert, the Corsican warrant officer who was my
driver, that we survived. We knew from the trajectory of the bullet, and
the fact that we had identified ourselves only minutes earlier at a Bosn-
ian army checkpoint, that the sniper who fired on us was in Bosnian
government controlled territory, and that he knew who we were. Actu-
ally, the sniper had targeted the driver, because he knew if the driver
had lost control, then the vehicle and all its passengers would have gone
over the mountain. At the time, however, I chose not to publicize the
event because the Bosnian government would have denied it, and the
UN would not have protested, given its gaping lack of credibility with
the Bosnian government. But the message was clear. The Bosnian gov-
ernment considered the UN to be its enemy.
***
In the years since Srebrenica fell, the name itself has become a buzz-
word for allegations of Serbian genocide. Books have been written, re-
ports have been compiled, and radio and television broadcasts have
saturated the air waves with “evidence” of this crime against humanity.
The United Nations Security Council convened an international tri-
bunal in The Hague to “prove” this pre-trial judgment. It would not be
an exaggeration to say some journalists and aspiring politicians have
made careers out of promoting this allegation.

But the situation is more complicated than the public relations spe-
cialists would have us believe. That there were killings of non-combat-
ants in Srebrenica, as in all war zones, is a certainty. And those who
perpetrated them deserve to be condemned and prosecuted. And
whether it was three or 30 or 300 innocent civilians who were killed, it
was a heinous crime. There can be no equivocation about that. At the
same time, the facts presented in this volume make a very cogent argu-
ment that the figure of 8,000 killed, which is often bandied about in the
international community, is an unsupportable exaggeration. The true
figure may be closer to 800.

The fact that the figure in question has been so distorted, however,
suggests that the issue has been politicized. There is much more shock
value in the death of 8,000 than in the death of 800.

There is also evidence in this book that thousands of Serbs were mas-
sacred, expelled, tortured, raped, and humiliated during the wars within
former Yugoslavia. The international community has not seen fit to
publicize these atrocities with as much vigor as it has those of Srebrenica.
That simple observation does not justify what occurred in Srebrenica.
But it is another piece of the puzzle that explains the anger of the Serbs
when they assaulted Srebrenica. In May 1995, for example, just two
months before Srebrenica fell, the Croatian army captured Western
Slavonia and expelled 90 per cent of the Serb population in that region.
Serbs had lived in Western Slavonia for hundreds of years. But the in-
ternational community said nothing about those expulsions; in fact, it
applauded the Croatian action, as though the Serb civilians deserved
what had happened. To massacre Croatians or Bosnians or Kosovo Al-
banians was genocide. To massacre Serbs was regarded as appropriate
retribution. Clearly, the international community has not seen fit to
consecrate the massacres of Serbs with monuments. Instead, it has issued
arrest warrants for Serb leaders.

What happened in Srebrenica was not a single large massacre of Mus-
lims by Serbs, but rather a series of very bloody attacks and counterat-
tacks over a three-year period, which reached a crescendo in 1995. And
the number of Muslim executed in the last battle of Srebrenica, as for-
mer BBC reporter Jonathan Rooper has pointed out, was most likely in
the hundreds, not in the thousands. Moreover, it is likely that the num-
ber of Muslim dead was probably no more than the number of Serbs
that had been killed in Srebrenica and its environs during the preced-
ing years by Bosnian Commander Naser Oric and his predatory gangs.


The events at Srebrenica in July 1995 did not occur in a political vac-
uum. In fact, they might never have occurred at all if Yugoslavia had not
been forcibly dismembered against the will of 45 percent of its people,
the Serbs. (Serbs were about 31 percent of pre-war Bosnia.) The breakup
of Yugoslavia, in fact, was contrary to the last Yugoslav Constitution
(1974), which invested the right of self-determination in Yugoslavia’s
six constituent “nations” (Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Mus-
lims, Serbs, and Slovenes), and required that all of these nations had to
agree to the dissolution of the federal state for it to be legal. And of
course, the Serbs never agreed. In my book, Dubious Mandate, I report
the following question, which was posed to me by a Bosnian Serb: Why,
after 50 years as a Yugoslav, should I suddenly be told I’m a minority in
a Muslim State, when I was never even given a choice?

People can get very angry when you take away their country.

Today, one can only imagine what might have happened in the
Balkans if diplomacy had been given a better chance, if NATO had not
had the ambition it had to push eastward, up to the borders of the for-
mer Soviet Union, to annex what was then being called the “new Eu-
rope.” It is possible—not certain, but possible—that in due time there
might have been a peaceful breakup of the former Yugoslavia, probably
along different international borders. But the decisions to fracture the
former Yugoslavia were taken precipitously, by minority communities
within Yugoslavia, and were driven by powerful forces outside Yu-
goslavia—namely, those of NATO, especially the newly-reunited Ger-
many.

One of the big lies that we heard during the wars in Yugoslavia was
that NATO had to intervene because there was danger the conflict
would spread. But no group within the former Yugoslavia had ambi-
tions outside of Yugoslavia. It was the nations outside Yugoslavia that
had ambitions inside Yugoslavia.

When the greatest military power of all time has an identity crisis, the
world is in danger. With the end of the Cold War, NATO’s role as a de-
fensive alliance ended. There were those who said that NATO should
have been dissolved, now that there was no more Soviet Union. But
there were also those—many of whom were bureaucrats benefiting from
the existence of such a massive organization—who said NATO should
now be used as a weapon to forge “democracy” around the world—in
other words, it should be used to promote the global economy, and
make the world free for Coca-Cola.

Four of the six constituent republics
within former Yugoslavia agreed to this immediate transition to “democ-
racy.” Serbia did not, and it paid the price. In fact, everyone in the for-
mer Yugoslavia paid the price, and Srebrenica was part of that price.

Post-mortem studies of events in the former Yugoslavia, including
those by the United Nations, have cited the international community’s
inability to recognize “evil” as the main reason for its inability to end the
wars of the 1990s in the Balkans. If such self-delusion were not so tragic,
it would be comic. Wars have never been fought to destroy evil, no mat-
ter what religious zealots may assert. Wars have been fought for eco-
nomic, political, strategic and social reasons. The wars of the 1990s in
the Balkans were no different. It was geopolitics, not original sin, that
drove NATO’s ambitions.
***
There is one more general comment I must make, by way of back-
ground, about the wars in the former Yugoslavia, and that comment in-
volves the concept of historical memory. We allow certain peoples to have
historical memory.

We allow the Jewish people to remember the Holo-
caust. And they should remember it. It was a terrible tragedy.

But we do
not allow the Serbian people to remember their massacre during World
War II at the hands of the Nazis and their Bosnian and Croatian fascist
puppets. This is not to say that all Bosnians and Croatians were Nazi
collaborators; but the Croatian Ustaše regime, which included Bosnia,
was. And why should Serbs not have been suspicious and angry when
they were suddenly told that vast numbers of their people were about
to become minorities in new countries that were led by people who
were their killers during World War II? Especially when the Serbs had
never even been consulted! They would have been crazy not to be anx-
ious. My question is, why did the international community not under-
stand the perplexity, the anger, and the historical memory of the Serbs?

Back to military concerns. It was evident by July 1995 that the Bosn-
ian Serb army could not continue to allow five enemy bases to exist be-
hind its front lines. Mind you, I am not speaking about the
humanitarian issue here, because I have never, and will never, condone
the slaughter of civilians. But it would be irresponsible to ignore the
military aspect of the campaign in eastern Bosnia when discussing Sre-
brenica, just as it would be foolish to ignore the historical process that
led up to the events of July 1995.

Today in Bosnia there is a campaign of disinformation that has all but
buried the facts along with the bodies. To pretend that the events in
Srebrenica were a microcosm of any sort is to take an oversimplified,
fast-food view of history. One isolated event does not explain a process
as complicated as war. History is not a collection of sound bites. His-
tory is a process with several watersheds, and to understand Srebrenica
one must understand the watershed of NATO’s identity crisis.

As part of that campaign of disinformation, the authors of a whole
series of reports about Srebrenica, both inside and outside the UN, have
judiciously avoided interviewing those in-the- know who might not
have told them what they wanted to hear.

For example, the authors of
the first comprehensive United Nations report on Srebrenica, entitled
The Fall of Srebrenica, issued in the fall of 1999, never interviewed me,
and did not list my book in their short bibliography, even though I was
the ranking UN official in Bosnia at the time of the takeover of Sre-
brenica. Nor was I alone in being ignored by the compilers of politically-
correct history.

In my case, my major error was that I dared to defend the United
Nations at a time when it was fighting as hard as possible to be a scape-
goat. UN leadership, which was desperately trying to curry favor with
the United States in order to prevent the world organization from com-
pletely collapsing, could not afford to criticize the world’s only super-
power. The United States, which had been useless in Rwanda,
embarrassed in Somalia, and frustrated in former Yugoslavia, needed a
sacrificial lamb. And because I refused to be part of the UN’s mea max-
ima culpa campaign, I was ignored. There were others too, prominent
intellectuals, who were ignored in the flurry of reports that emerged,
“studies” righteously denouncing the United Nations for not having
recognized the existence of evil. But one day their story, our story, must
be heard if one is ever to understand the history of Srebrenica, of the for-
mer Yugoslavia, of Europe, and of the world. The beginnings of that
untold story, hitherto marginalized by official renditions, are here for all
to read in this report.

Notes

1 Phillip Corwin,Dubious Mandate: A Memoir of the UN in Bosnia, Summer 1995
(Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999).

[Smilin' Dave]

1. For info, your like doesn't work.
2. Next up, your report was sponsored by the Republika Srpska, and as such its impartiality has to be questioned.
3. The figure of 800 deaths during the Srebrenica ignores the extensive forensic evidence supporting a higher figure
Link 1
Link 2
4. The book you've cited compares the alleged 800 deaths with a supposed similar level of Serb deaths prior to the massacre. This is contrary to your earlier claims of 3,600 Serbs dead. This is another example of where you contradict yourself in the rush to accuse others.
5. Your previous statement that the Serbian forces were entirely on the defensive prior to July 1995 also doesn't square well with this court judgement:
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/oric/tjug/e ... 60630e.pdf
Starting from point 97 we read about how artillery was first set up around Srebrenica back in 1992 and the seizure of a number of towns around Srebrenica. Point 100 discusses the April 1992 seizure of Serbrenica by Serb forces, followed by their retreat (point 101). Point 103 covers attacks against outlying villages and the shelling of Srebrencia itself into 1993. Points 112 and 113 discuss the results of the Serb siege. These are clear examples of the Serbian forces being on the offensive well prior to 1995. Once again, you were clearly lying when you said Serb forces were entirely on the defensive.

Before you start in on supposed bias, this judgement relates to Naser Oric, a Bosnian Muslim, which would tend to contradict the idea that the evidence was only presented as part of an anti-Serb agenda.

So, good on you for moving on from that list... but your latest evidence actually shows you were in fact wrong the first time around, and even this evidence isn't particularly accurate or convincing.

[Independent_Srpska]

So, you are again , on purpose, missing the point...

The whole point here is your idiotic logic and you're idiotic stance perfectly mentioned in this foreword ("In the years since Srebrenica fell, the name itself has become a buzz- word for allegations of Serbian genocide"...you think it is enough just to say "Srebrenica" and you can immediately start generally to spit on Serbs!) , and I will deconstruct it again:

1. Your question:"Were Serbs defensive on Srebrenica?"
2. My answer:"Yes, they were, before July 11, 1995"
3. Your idiotic conclusion:"I negate and deny crimes against Muslims"....

So , this is an excellent example of the individuals who suffer from the pre-programmed anti-serb CNN-brainwashing ....

...then...you again prove yourself a blatant liar:"Your previous statement that the Serbian forces were entirely on the defensive prior to July 1995"...so, what's your motivation for lies? Is it so hard admitting that you adopted a false picture dictated by biased media (because you proved yourself that you had no clues about actual events in the field)?

Regarding your ramblings....

so, you have found a web blog .... if your blogger writes something - then it gotta be truth though s/he has, basically, the same rhetorics like you do:"...a group of discredited extremists and deliberate liars ..." are all who dare to say something against the CNN-picture imposed on Serbophobs' fertile soil ....in your case the rhetorics sums up to:"...crime denial..."

Once again, you were clearly lying when you said Serb forces were entirely on the defensive.

Entirely? I mean, what's wrong with you, kiddo? Again understanding issues of what you read?? Or simply - you have to lie?

Look what the highest UN official says:"What happened in Srebrenica was not a single large massacre of Mus-
lims by Serbs, but rather a series of very bloody attacks and counterat-
tacks over a three-year period, which reached a crescendo in 1995. " ....It was not underlined for nothing....

And let me quote what I wrote to you few posts earlier ( Tue Sep 06, 2011 1:37 pm )

So, my boy, the real truth about Srebrenica goes like this:

Most of the time Serbs were defensive on Srebrenica, not because the Serbs wanted to be defensive, but because of the UN forces deployed around Srebrenica, because Srebrenica was declared UN protected zone...it should have been demilitarized zone, but as we all know, and as you can see in the movie BH-Muslims were heavily armed by NATO (from the air) and by UN forces (within convoys with "food") all the time....
During the time Srebrenica was the UN protected zone Serbs were barred from attacking BH-Muslim forces in Srebrenica (therefore Serbs were pretty much defensive - this answers your question about "defensiveness" ), but during the same that time BH-Muslim bunch of murderers (as you say) were not barred from going out of the UN Protected Zone and massacring Serbs (women, kids included) in surrounding Serb villages.. BH-Muslim bunch of murderers were killing Serbs and then they ran back into the UN Zone behind the lines of UN soldier...(this answers the discrepancy in number of victims prior July 11, 1995)....On July 11, 1995 Serbs were offensive on Srebrenica and yes, Serb forces committed serious killings on July 11, 1995 and few days to follow....

So, the real truth is: Serbs were defensive and offensive on Srebrenica.....and saying that Serbs were defensive of Srebrenica prior July 11, 1995, doesn't mean a denial of massacres of BH-Muslims on July 11, 1995, except for a CNN-brainwashed Serb-haters, which is you, of course....

OK, now - concerning your understanding issues related to your reading abilities - go through these lines above a few times then try to adopt what is written there....


If you do the serious thinking, you might have been able to understand that the open discussion about wrong picture imposed to you, and very willingly (due to your irrational Serbophobia) adopted by you, doesn't mean denial of anything, but a wake-up call for you...of course, I understand that every kid prefers dream-world over reality....

[Smilin' Dave]

so, you have found a web blog.... if your blogger writes something - then it gotta be truth

I linked to several official documents as well. Apparently "you are again, on purpose, missing the point..."

You however post a piece of government sponsored propaganda full of logical and factual inconsistencies, and that somehow merits no comment or even a attempt at defence from you. Meanwhile you haven't found anything logically or factually problematic with the blog, apparently your only proof that the original report is incorrect is the source it is reported in? Unlike your bullshit 'list' it referenced its source.

During the time Srebrenica was the UN protected zone Serbs were barred from attacking BH-Muslim forces in Srebrenica (therefore Serbs were pretty much defensive - this answers your question about "defensiveness" )

Let's unpack your claims, again, to show how you mislead and lie to make Serbs look like good guys all in the name of negating a war crime.

Your first 'evidence' of Serbs being on the defensive was that there were supposedly no Muslim casualties:

Definitely! How many Muslims were killed in Srebrenica from March 26, 1992 till July 11, 1995? According to Muslim data - ZERO!

This data yet to be substatiated, and eventually even you couldn't keep dragging up something you couldn't prove, so that's when you raised the claim about safe zones above.

But the Srebrencia safe zone was not established until April 1993, a year and a month after your original date. Here is the resolution for that.
http://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930416a.htm
Now, in the judgement for Oric it quite clearly shows
- That in April 1992, a month after you claim there was no death and the Serbs were being defensive, Serb forces first occupied Srebrencia.
- That Serb offensives, clearing of villages and shelling continued even after they had withdrawn from Srebrenica in 1992
- By March 1993 the Muslim enclave was once again being reduced by a concerted Serb offensive (point 107 of the judgement document). This is a full year after you originally claimed all offensive action had stopped (March 1992).

Apparently you expect me to believe that Serb shells kill no one, and that clearing villages of their population is not an offensive action (except of course when Bosnian Muslims do it to Serbs). Your claims don't even square well with your quoted source:

What happened in Srebrenica was not a single large massacre of Muslims by Serbs, but rather a series of very bloody attacks and counterattacks over a three-year period, which reached a crescendo in 1995.

How do you have attacks and counter-attacks with no casualties? With on side supposedly just being in the defensive?

Even your 'safe areas' logic doesn't follow since the siege effectively continued, and was in anything tightened during the safe area period. This is in accordance with Karadzic's directive seven, which called for making conditions in the pocket intolerable in order to drive people out.

So why don't you get this through your skull:
- I've established factually and logically, on the strength of good sources, that Serb forces were not on the defensive.
- You have yet to show a single one of my sources to be wrong.
- That you've provided no real evidence. You've made unsourced claims and relied on shoddy propaganda instead.
- Even some of the material that is supposed to support your position actually contradicts it.
You claim that I don't believe your nonsense because I'm anti-Serb, but the reality is you're only able to still believe all your bullshit theories is because of massive cognitive dissonance. In other words, it is you living in a fantasy world. One that can't be sustained in the real world with people who don't live in your imaged world.

And I haven't forgotten that you may have lied about military service you claim during the conflict. You've yet to provide any explanation as to why your service supposedly made you qualified to judge Serbian strategy, but you won't actually explain what you did during the war. In fact, you lying about it would probably be the kindest theory as to why you won't elaborate further. Couldn't be modesty, since when it suited you you were more than happen to mention it.

How is this for a suggestion: why don't you go ahead and read some of the links I've posted?

[Independent_Srpska]

You, kiddo, really have issues with reading, right....?

The first issue here is your anti-Serb logic:"Serbs or anybody else can't say anything that ruins established (twisted and false) picture of Srebrenica - if anybody dares to say anything unsuitable for the propaganda war against Serbs - he denies and negates crimes against BH-Muslims...."
(basically, the same reaction we've got from BH-Muslims around the world on the movie from this topic (as I said, some of them even threaten Swedish state if Swedes "dare" to show it)...so, nobody denies anything said in the movie - they just complain in the manner you do:"They deny crimes against Muslims" (that claim is an idiocy par-excellence)...though, one of the Muslims was fair and stupid enough to say publicly something like this:"We can't allow changing the "history" " (but he meant on "history" that suits him, not factual history)

So hear yourself:

Let's unpack your claims, again, to show how you mislead and lie to make Serbs look like good guys all in the name of negating a war crime.

Ain't this an utmost stupidity? So, if I "make" someone looking good - it negates some war crimes? WTH??

So, basically, it's all about looking bad or good, right? Humm, well, this might explain your logic - Serbs look bad (thanks to the western propaganda), so the conclusion is: they were offensive on Srebrenica all the time, right?

Do you realize how stupid is your stance?


So, should we clear it up - do you agree with me: if I say that Serbs were defensive on Srebrenica (prior July 11, 1995), I deny nothing but a false picture of CNN-NATO media propaganda machine which wants to sums up 1200 war days to few days?
(basically the same (summing up) what you try to do with your question:"Were Serbs defensive on Srebrenica" (having in your brainwashed and ignorant mind only few days out of 3.5 years)- thus showing you don't have a clue about Srebrenica )?....

But, you are getting on the right track, accidentally though....

How do you have attacks and counter-attacks with no casualties? With on side supposedly just being in the defensive?

So, we have attacks and counter-attacks (which is undeniable truth, even if you watch the movie, you will hear BH-Muslims bragging about their attacks) - which means the sides are changing in offensiveness and defensiveness - which means Serb side was defensive on Srebrenica prior the date - so, are you clear now?

I know about your reading issues, so I will repeat again:

So, the real truth is: Serbs were defensive and offensive on Srebrenica.....and saying that Serbs were defensive of Srebrenica prior July 11, 1995, doesn't mean a denial of massacres of BH-Muslims on July 11, 1995, except for a CNN-brainwashed Serb-haters, which is you, of course....

OK, can you face your stupidity now? And your Serbophobia?

[Smilin' Dave]

Cutting out your garbled insults and claims of Serbophobia I'll move on to what little actual content their is in your post.

So, basically, it's all about looking bad or good, right?

I'm suggesting that is your motivation, yes. You talk about wanting a balanced interpretation, but you always talk up the crimes of others while trying to talk down or misdirect when it comes to Serb crimes.

So, should we clear it up - do you agree with me: if I say that Serbs were defensive on Srebrenica (prior July 11, 1995)

If you read my fucking posts you would see why I won't agree to such a nonsense. Conflict around Srebrencia included Serb offensives prior to 1995, including an attempt to take an hold Srebrenica itself. Combined with the siege, maintained and intensified by the Serbs, I would in fact go so far as to say that the Serbs were generally on the offensive prior to July 1995, the only thing stopping them from taking Srebrenica was the safe zone, and once it was determined this could be breached atrocities took place.

Since the siege of Srebrencia probably intensified Muslim attacks again Serb villages as a means of acquiring goods (again, this appears in the Oric judgement document), you can't even claim that Serb actions were simply reactions: the Serbs created the situation in the first place.

which means Serb side was defensive on Srebrenica prior the date

No safe zone would have been necessary had the Serbs been on the defensive in the years prior to 1995. It seems my next task will be to twist your arm until you acknowledge that Serb troops actually occupied Srebrenica twice.

[Independent_Srpska]

You lie again...

I'm suggesting that is your motivation, yes. You talk about wanting a balanced interpretation, but you always talk up the crimes of others while trying to talk down or misdirect when it comes to Serb crimes.

I have no issues, (nor I ever had), to talk about crimes committed by Serb forces...

The real issue here, as I mentioned, is your anti-serb attitude summed up in your claims about alleged "denial and negation" of crimes against BH-Muslim...which is nothing new, though...there is a whole bunch of "you" who like to oversimplify things and if anybody dares to touch your easy-to-swallow oversimplification you try to hit back with "denial of crimes" - which is nothing but a lousy ad hominem argument which serves as a positive feedback loop in making Serbs look bad , thus giving another strength to your initial anti-serb sentiment ....

the Serbs created the situation in the first place.

You see, this ^^^ is what i'm talking about....would you be so nice to explain this?....

If you read my fucking posts you would see why I won't agree to such a nonsense. Conflict around Srebrencia included Serb offensives prior to 1995, including an attempt to take an hold Srebrenica itself. Combined with the siege, maintained and intensified by the Serbs, I would in fact go so far as to say that the Serbs were generally on the offensive prior to July 1995, the only thing stopping them from taking Srebrenica was the safe zone, and once it was determined this could be breached atrocities took place.

Since the siege of Srebrencia probably intensified Muslim attacks again Serb villages as a means of acquiring goods (again, this appears in the Oric judgement document), you can't even claim that Serb actions were simply reactions:

well, what to say - sooner or later you are going to admit that your stance about "crime denial" is nothing but a lie and an idiocy par - excellence....give it a time...

However, let me repeat again:

So, the real truth is: Serbs were defensive and offensive on Srebrenica.....and saying that Serbs were defensive of Srebrenica prior July 11, 1995, doesn't mean a denial of massacres of BH-Muslims on July 11, 1995, except for a CNN-brainwashed Serb-haters, which is you, of course....

This is interesting:

Since the siege of Srebrencia probably intensified Muslim attacks again Serb villages as a means of acquiring goods (again, this appears in the Oric judgement document), you can't even claim that Serb actions were simply reactions:

Have you seen this in the Oric judgement documents? -->"The Appeals Chamber underscored that, like the Trial Chamber, it had no doubt that grave crimes were committed against Serbs detained in the two detention facilities in Srebrenica between September 1992 and March 1993.

“However, proof that crimes have occurred is not sufficient to sustain a conviction of an individual for these crimes. Criminal proceedings require evidence establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is individually responsible for a crime before a conviction can be entered,” the Appeals Chamber found."

What goods have BH-Muslims in Srebrenica acquired this way?

However, if you understand Serbian (if you don't I'll be glad to subtitle it that part for you) look this (

) you will hear how this guy (a BH-Muslim, a wartime chief of the police in Srebrenica) admits that BH-Muslim forces went out of the Srebrenica UN-safe zone, killing Serbs in order to help BH-Muslim forces around Sarajevo front-lines....(no acquiring goods involved...)...

But, isn't it interesting how you are full of understanding for intense "reaction" of BH-Muslims against Serbs, and you have no doubts that maybe BH-Muslims actions, in the first place, caused "intense" reactions of Serbs, right? ...why is that?....maybe, because you believe that Serbs are the bad boys, and BH-Muslims are the good guys who wouldn't attack Serbs first, right?

But, what if BH-Muslims had attacked Serbs first, then it would mean that Serbs are not bad guys - which is unbearable, inappropriate and above all it is not acceptable, because it wouldn't be aligned with already accepted anti-serb stance ...therefore, the Serbs are bad boys, no matter if BH-Muslims attacked Serbs first....quite logical, right....?

[Smilin' Dave]

The content to whinge ratio in your posts is dropping quite sharply. You can keep repeating that you haven't previously engaged in negation and denial, but the facts are right there for all to see. Well, anyone that isn't as wilfully blind as you apparently.

You see, this ^^^ is what i'm talking about....would you be so nice to explain this?....

Serbs laid the siege. If you could get it through your skull: laying siege to something is not defensive.

Point 110 of the judgement shows how the siege had no effect on the Bosnian Muslim combatants, it was the civilians who suffered from the siege. But of course, the Serbs wanted to drive out the civilians, that was the objective. This was precisely what they did to the villages surrounding Srebrencia, creating the refuge crisis in Srebrenica in the first place.

Have you seen this in the Oric judgement documents? -->"The Appeals Chamber underscored that, like the Trial Chamber, it had no doubt that grave crimes were committed against Serbs detained in the two detention facilities in Srebrenica between September 1992 and March 1993.

What has that got to do with the discussion? Serb forces were not besieging Srebrencia because of those prisons, after all the Serbs were doing the same shit in their own prisons.

No, what you need to read from the Oric judgement, which proves my point is Point 112, where it talks about the torbari and raids against Serb positions for food. So again, Serb forces created a situation which had no military benefit (as stated above, it didn't stop the Bosnian Muslim attacks) and indeed would have escalated military action against Serbs.

However, if you understand Serbian (if you don't I'll be glad to subtitle it that part for you)

Given your habit of lying and misdirection, including trying to use government-sponsored propaganda as evidence, why would I trust your translation exactly?

killing Serbs in order to help BH-Muslim forces around Sarajevo front-lines....(no acquiring goods involved...).

Were you not telling me before that Sarajevo wasn't relevant to this discussion? Now here you go bringing it up again.

So since you bring it up: why were the Serbs shelling Sarajevo again? Do you intend to blame that on the victims too?

But, isn't it interesting how you are full of understanding for intense "reaction" of BH-Muslims against Serbs

Explanation is not justification. Providing an explanation that shows the fraud of your justifications is just good debating.

If you were a Muslim telling me Naser Oric didn't do anything wrong, I'll be pulling you up for that too. Just like I still think you lied about being a soldier.

But, what if BH-Muslims had attacked Serbs first, then it would mean that Serbs are not bad guys

No it wouldn't. All sides could have engaged in criminal actions, at no stage have I spoken of good guys and bad guys. It is you trying to convince people, year after year, that some offense or other somehow justifies the massacre by Serb forces at Srebrencia. It is you trying to play the numbers game, as though killing more or less makes you a good guy, never mind what the cause was.

[Independent_Srpska]

Oh, gee, look at this liar (Smiling Dave ) here I almost forgot about nonsenses he was rumbling here...

So, have you watched this movie at last?

However, this movie is a must see for everyone who wants to grasp a bit more about civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina...

“Srebrenica: A Town Betrayed” – Finally a Critical Documentary about Srebrenica Tragedy


“If you want to use a word “genocide” (for Srebrenica) – then OK, but we need a new word to replace the old “genocide” word…” (Noam Chomsky)

Srebrenica: A Town Betrayed a Norwegian documentary film directed by Ola Flyum and David Hebditch is now free to watch in Youtube. The film approaches Srebrenica tragedy from a bit different viewpoint than usual in Western mainstream media. Norwegian documentary about Srebrenica challenges generally accepted narratives about the 1995 massacre giving light to the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina from non-biased point of view. It also connects Srebrenica into a wider context that is often ignored by the Western media, showing the crimes committed by the Bosnian army against Serbian civilians and villages in the area. These atrocities may also partly explain why some war crimes happened later in Srebrenica.


Most of the Muslims from Srebrenica were killed while their forces (28th Muslim Division cca 8,000 men) tried to brake-trough from Srebrenica trough 40 miles of Serb-held territory to Muslim-held territory.

Todays picture about Srebrenica is still heavily manipulated. To me its clear that thousands of Muslims were killed in Srebrenica once this place fell to Bosnian Serbian forces as well that some of them were innocent civilians.
It is clear too that thousand(s) Serbs were butchered around Srebrenica during Bosnian War 1992-95 e.g. by the 3rd Corps 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade lead by Bosnian Muslim leader of Srebrenica forces Naser Oric.
To the Brigade mentioned were subordinated foreign Muslim fighters, also known as mujahedeen, who came from Islamic countries and it operated from “demilitarized safe area of Srebrenica”. This created a degree of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region.” One possible scenario is that when the Bosnian Serb Army responded to this terror and atrocities the remaining fighters attempted to escape towards Tuzla, 38 miles to the north. Many were killed while fighting their way through; and many others were taken prisoner and executed by the Serb troops. More in my earlier article Srebrenica again – Hoax or Massacre?.

The documentary film “Srebrenica: A Town Betrayed” can be watched by clicking pictures left or from Here!


Reactions

In April of this year Norwegian State Television (NRK) broadcast film “Srebrenica: A Town Betrayed” followed by the equally amazing “Sarajevo Ricochet.” Swedish State Television soon followed. Bosniaks in Scandinavia have voiced outrage over the airing of documentary. Freedom of speech in Sweden too is now seriously threatened by the intimidating pressure on Swedish Broadcasting Service (SVT) , especially from some extremist circles within the Bosnian Muslim community in Sweden. The Danish public broadcasters initially expressed an interest in purchasing airing rights to one of the two documentaries. After witnessing the uproar in Norway and Sweden, they amended their request, having now decided to broadcast both.

Some highlights

“5.000 Muslim lives for air strikes” (President Clinton)

The film claims that at that first short meeting Clinton suggested to Izetbegovic another holocaust – sacrifice of 5000 Muslims in Srebrenica and that Izetbegovic shared that sinister plan with Srebrenica defenders delegation. So the men of Srebrenica were sacrificed by their own government for a political objective. The actual motive behind these background machinations might be besides Nato intervention also a land-swap deal acceptable to all sides (Bosniaks/Serbs/Croats).

The western mainstream media has demonized Serbs and their action in Bosnia and later also in Kosovo. The atrocities implemented by others have widely ignored. At the start of the 1992-95 Bosnia war, Muslims and Croats were allies against the Bosnian Serb forces, but they fought each other briefly when Croat forces tried to create a separate Croat autonomy in northeastern Bosnia. Now also Bosnian Muslims themselves expose what really happened before, during and after what is been called `the European genocide of our time`.
Among numerous of the film’s revelations is the fact that the humanitarian convoys which the Serbs were allowing to pass to Srebrenica were being intercepted by Bosnian “hero” Naser Oric and sold on the black market.

Interesting detail is also that Mladic had 1600 armed locals but he didn’t trust them since they lacked discipline and would use every opportunity to revenge warlord Oric’s attacks on the villages.


My conclusion

With this film the prevailing black-and-white version (perpetuated by the international community and by Bosnian officialdom) of the Bosnian is questionable. General Mladic arrest and theatre in Hague will bring Srebrenica again front of a stage and more facts what really happened in Srebrenica and before tragedy will came public when both the prosecutor and defense have made their case. This may have its effect in already fragmented and fragile Bosnia-Herzegovina. Probably confrontation between three ethic groups will increase and this could lead to the final dissolution of BiH.

More background information and documents

Srebrenica Historical Project

The fundamental objective of project is to rise above politics and propaganda and to create a contextual record of the Srebrenica tragedy of July 1995 which can serve as a corrective to the distortions of the last decade and a half and as a genuine contribution to future peace.

And here is a small selection of articles, documents and analysis, which are also telling the other side of story:

Srebrenica: The Star Witness by Prof Edward S. Herman

Was Srebrenica a Hoax? Eye-Witness Account of a Former United Nations Military Observer in Bosnia by Carlos Martins Branco

Media Disinformation Frenzy on Srebrenica: The Lynching of Ratko Mladic by Nebojsa Malic

Media Fabrications: The “Srebrenica Massacre” is a Western Myth

What Happened at Srebrenica? Examination of the Forensic Evidence by Stephen Karganovic

Using War as an Excuse for More War: Srebrenica Revisited by Diana Johnstone

The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics by Edward S. Herman and Phillip Corwin

NIOD (Netherlands Institute for War Documentation)/Srebrenica investigationreport

INTELWIRE.com has published over 2.000 pages of of declassified U.S. State Dept. cablesabout Srebrenica

¤ ¤ ¤

P.S:

Fenris film has produced also other interesting documentary movie “Sarajevo Ricochet – The US Green Light” which is is the untold story of how the USA allowed Bosnia to cooperate with al-Qaeda, smuggle arms from Iran and launder terror-money during the brutal civil war from 1992 – 95. Osama bin Laden exploited the conflict for his global jihad – and the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers. It reveals a secret money trail that funded mujihadeen training camps. Co-operation of USA and Iran let Osama bin Laden recruit, import and finance 4.000 mujihadeen fighters into the heart of Europe and Bosnia Herzegovina. In 1996, many of these `holy warriors` moved on to fight in Kosovo, and some became al-Qaeda sponsored terrorists who attacked targets throughout the Western world – including the 9/11 assault on America.

http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2011/09/ ... a-tragedy/

[Smilin' Dave]

Oh, gee, look at this liar (Smiling Dave) hereI almost forgot about nonsenses he was rumbling here...

The only person shown to have lied in this thread is you. You claimed the Serbs are on the defensive outside Srebrenica prior to their massacre (lets ignore your denialist/negationist tactics for a moment), even when the historical records show the state of siege (because you apparently think laying siege to a town is defensive... when Serbs do it) and capture of the town early in the war.

If you haven't got anything new to say, stop wasting time.

[Independent_Srpska]

The only person shown to have lied in this thread is you.

Not really...You would be the one who lied....the only question is:"Were you programmed to lie or you are simply incompetent to accept reality?"...

...Basically, you, just like a real brainwashed person, reacted to this movie just as the BH-Muslim diaspora reacted - they freak out asking a complete state (Sweden) to forbid showing this movie crying their eyes out and lying/screaming about non-existant "negation" ...basically, like a toddler being said Santa Claus doesn't exist...