Posted on 11/22/2005 4:21:00 PM PST by joan
OSLO/SARAJEVO: The confirmed death toll in the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia appears to be closer to 100,000 dead than the often-quoted figure of 200,000, a Norwegian news agency reported yesterday, quoting the head of the Sarajevo-based Research and Documentation Centre.
“In October we had 93,000 names on our lists and the numbers are increasing slightly. But the final tally will likely be around 100,000,” Mirsad Tokaca was quoted as saying.
The centre was set up in April 2004 “to investigate and gather facts, documents and data on genocide, war crimes and human rights violations, regardless of the ethnic, political, religious, social, or racial affiliation of the victims”.
A similar estimate has also been used by population statisticians at the UN war crimes tribunal for former Yugoslavia.
The estimate published by researchers Ewa Tabeau and Jacub Biljak was 102,000.
All of the casualties listed by Tokaca and his co-researchers are identified by name. Tokaca said the number of 250,000 dead has “never been based on research”.
Still in recent days, U.S. officials and reports are using the 250,000 and 300,000 number.
Also, there is no separation of the Muslim-Croat war statistics - the war within the war which didn't involve Serbs. The war was intense in central and southern Bosnia and lasted from late 1992 until the end of February 1994.
"crickets"
Have we found the mass graves that Clinton cited to justify bombing the country back to the Stone Age?
Many of the graves found are claimed as being Muslim before the identities are known. And I wouldn't be surprised if WWII and WWI mass graves - because the death toll was even higher for those wars and, comparitively, there wasn't much effort and time finding and digging up those - are being discovered and claimed to be Muslims, before knowing the identities.
Yes, we did!
But we found them in Iraq.
And they were full of dead Kurds and Arabs.
My point was that Clinton cited intelligence sources that there was ethnic cleansing to justify our action in Bosnia. If I recall, we have uncovered only a few thousand such graves, not the hundred thousand or more that Clinton claimed.
Thank you Bill Clinton.
Yes, it was much smaller than Rwanda, which in 100 days killed over 8 times the entire Bosnian war, and was almost purely peaceful civilians (Tutsis) who didn't have an armed force and were not separatists. Rwanda was pure genocide and not a civil war like these Balkan wars which are given so much attention (including bombing attention).
Sie Spaken Mine Language.
Clinton's are the MSM/DNC/CPUSA baby...nothing will come out of it to implicate them. Mr. Melosovich was a patsy for the Clinton tail wagging the dog. Clinton opened up that part of the region for murderous islam to go into the rest of the world. Have we forgotten already about the France fires? Chiracs commie policies didn't help, either...
...and if you mess with the Clinton's, you end up dead in a park, or commit suicide with three bullets in your head...
Gee, not too many people--MSM/Reps--really got into investigating the Killer Clinton's, did they?
And the pictures of the dead Kurds weren't any evidence of ethnic cleansing from Saddam...everything seems backwards.
Bush didn't start a war because of a blow-job, either. I hate the Clinton's.
In 2002, BBC puts the statistic at 40,000 on all sides. David Binder, a Balkan expert and a former NYT journalist puts the statistic between 40,000 and 75,000. George Kenney, former State Department foreign service officer, puts the statistic at just about the same number.
And now this.
What a job they did on the American people.
There have been others who have said it is overinflated, but they do claim to have 93,000 names. Would some be fake, would some be people dying of old age or non-war related causes, would some be alive...? They say they tried to weed out non-war related deaths, but how honest they are, what the quality of the information they have is, are they engaging in guesswork when evidence is unclear, and how error-free they are we do not know. It would be impossible for most people to scrutinize that - to get a list of the names, do a thorough investigation on each one. This is supposed to be the job of those people, and the group doing this is supposedly neutral - their claims - but can they who are paid by the ICTY, which biased against Serbs, truly be neutral?
We were in France at the time and first footage coming on one of the channels showed a large fresh graveyard and women weeping over their lost families. It was powerful stuff and the reporters described the victims as muslims being slaughtered. Problem with that was the early footage showed the zillions of graves, all crosses. Oops. Subsequent footage no longer showed the graves with crosses.
Too late at least some of us saw it.
Stella Jatras had a similar story, again from French TV. The French were probably so eager to rush the anti-Serb reports on the air, that they forgot to clip out signs that the victims were Orthodox Christians:
She told me:
"I saw France 2 for myself. They showed the funeral of the babies that had been killed by a sniper on a bus and officiating at the funeral was a Serbian Orthodox priest. However, for American consumption, the priest was conveiently cropped from the film so that Americans would continue to believe that they were Muslim babies killed by a Serb sniper.
"Also, at the cemetery, the graves had Orthodox crosses on them."
So, really the question becomes, why should people believe the media when they report on Serb crimes, when they've stooped so dishonestly and evil as to use film (and photos) of Serb victims of Muslims - even children - to fuel intense hatred against the Serbs?
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.