Posted on 07/29/2008 10:32:30 AM PDT by Bokababe
Actually, many Orthodox in Bosnia were Catholics who converted to Orthodoxy since the latter was favoured over Roman Catholicism by the Turks.
Famed Bosnian Filmmaker, Emir Kosturica, admitted that his family "was one of those Serb families who gave in to converting to Islam just to survive during the Ottoman days". Kosturica left Sarajevo during the Bosnian war and moved to Paris and then to Serbia, and he converted (back) to Orthodox Christianity just a few years ago.
Correct...just like Alija Izetbegovic's family. They were Serbs from Belgrade who fled during the Serbian rebellions to Bosnia.
There's a statement I think we can ALL agree on.
The only reason I could imagine the Orthodox to be "favored over Catholics" would be that the Turks were already holding the Serbian Orthodox Church hostage, but Catholic Austro-Hungary was a threat to the Turks.
I've never heard of any evidence of what you are talking about, but if it happened, I would have thought it more likely in Hercegovina than in Bosnia.
My own family fled Hercegovina for Montenegro in the 16th century & raised the Serb flag in Herceg Novi. Today, I know of people with my last name — some who are Orthodox, some who are Catholic and some who are Muslim.
You wrote:
“So, in other words, you answer is “no, there was no proven pattern of a program of genocide”,”
No, that is not my answer. If that had been my answer I would have said it. The pattern was there and that’s why they’re on trial.
“...but you expect that your assumption of “they would have done it if they could” is a substitute for NO evidence of your claim. Ridiculous!”
1) My statement was not an assumption but merely a comment based on the facts. There is no reason to think the Serbs would have done other than they had already done. These murders were often massive in scale - those Serbs convicted just today murdered 1,000 men in a warehouse. These massacres took place over several days and many were planned. These were not crazed acts performed by men who had snapped. No, these were methodical massacres. 2) The massacre of over 7,000 is evidence and evidence you cannot refute. Just because I do not know of other large scale massacres does not mean the Serbs did not plan on carrying them out nor does it make those that are known suddenly vanish.
“If I took more than a cursory look at the Sudan, I’d probably know more than Darfur.”
You would? I have no evidence thus far on your part to substantiate that. And besides, my point is proven no matter what. We know of Dafur ONLY. We know, apparently, of only these 7,000 in Srebinica.
“I’ve taken far more than “a cursory look” at the Balkans — and no pattern.”
So say you, but I have no reason to trust your reasoning ability or knowledge. You deny the pattern before your eyes: massacres committed with advance planning over several days IS A PATTERN.
“The ICTY has become a complete joke — ESPECIALLY TO THOSE WHO WISH TO SEE JUSTICE DONE — a crime should be a crime regardless of who commits it, but that is not the case in practice.”
I don’t care about your assessment of the ICTY. Whether or not you agree with them is irrelevant as to anything we are discussing here since we are dealing with facts.
“Based on that “criteria for genocide”, virtually every and any war between nations where one national or ethnic group is killing another, can now be considered “genocide”.”
Again, irrelevant. You can disagree with their definition all you want, but that doesn’t change that I was right about it and you weren’t. I agree with you that there might well be numerous problems from this, but I also recognize that that fact is completely irrelevant to what we’re discussing.
“Yes it is. And since you brought up Nuremberg, you might be interested to hear what Walter J. Rockler, one of the original Nuremburg Prosecutors had to say about it with regard to our policy in the Balkans:”
No, actually I’m not at all interested since it has no bearing on what we’re actually discussing. His opinion is essentially irrelevant since he is not ICTY, nor any one of the people involved with what we’re discussing.
“It is clear that those laws made at Nuremberg could apply to those involved in the 1999 NATO Bombing.”
Irrelevant.
“However it is unclear whether they could apply to the Bosnian Serbs, given that this was a civil war.”
A civil war according to whom? When for instance did the American Revolution cease as a civil war or insurrection and become a war to repel a foreign invader? Or was the American Revolution never anything but a civil war?
“This was not “one state initiating an action against another state”.”
So say you. But it was certainly view as one people vs. another people and that often would go right to the heart of what a state is.
And don’t forget that the Bosnian Muslims voted for independence in 1992 and Srebrenica came in 1995. Was Bosnia and independent state or not then in 1992? Who says so? Were we independent in 1776 or not?
“Wrong. “Crimes” are the result of “criminal actions” —”
Crimes ARE part of criminal behavior. I can’t believe I have to explain that to you. When police investigate criminal behavior they are investigating CRIMES and all that comes with them. You were wrong when you said war caused war crimes and now you are wrong to try and split crimes from criminal behavior as if the two are mutually exclusive.
“... hence “war crimes” are criminal actions that take place in the context of a war.”
And who denied that here? No one. And you were still wrong, however, when you said that war causes war crimes. It doesn’t. People do. Next you’ll blame SUVs for running over people, say that guns kill people, etc. I noticed you didn’t even attempt to refute my analogy about theft and ownership.
“”War crimes” do not happen without “war”. I am not confused, you are.”
No, I’m not confused at all. I know that people commit crimes and not wars. You apparently believe otherwise because you said: “Because war crimes are the result of war, not the cause of it.”
“Wrong again.”
No, actually I’m absolutely right. And you fail to refute what I said - again.
“Simply deciding that a civil war that contains war crimes is automatically “a war of aggression”, without examining the facts surrounding the initiation of hostilities, is “presuming guilt without an investigation or a defense”.”
No. Again, who decides it was a civil war after Bosnian Muslims declared their independence? Did Yugoslavia attack the Bosnians or was it the Serbs? Who decides it was a civil war? Who decides it was an insurrection? Who decides it was a legitimate rebellion for freedom? You?
“This is the same kind of methodology used for political show trials in totalitarian regimes.”
No. 1) These guys are permitted a real defense. 2) They have real lawyers. 3) They are not forced with threat of death to themselves and everyone they know to make false confessions. 4) They were actually given up by their own countrymen in many situations. 5) There is real evidence against these guys (bodies, film, witnesses, etc.). 6) the trial is taking place in the Lowlands - not exactly a hotbed of modern totalitarianism. 7) The trials are moving at a snail’s pace - there’s no rush to judgment. 8) people actually get acquitted on occasion! At least two guys were acquitted today for instance. 9) These trials are not exactly the hottest news items except perhaps in the Balkans. In other words, there’s not much show if these are show trials.
“You can’t hold up a court as some sort of “paragon of justice” and then let it behave like a court under Stalin’s rule.”
Stalin’s rule? Listen, you are sounding completely out of touch with reality. In Stalin’s trials people confessed to things they could NOT have done so their families would not be murdered. In Stalin’s trials no one count mount anything like a real defense. In Stalin’s trials there were few if any acquittals.
Please think.
You wrote:
“Gotovina didn’t murder anyone, nor did he order any murders, nor did anyone under his command murder during Oluja.”
I have no idea. I hope you’re right. The court prosecutors seemed to believe that his men had murdered about 150 people.
Yeah, lots of movements back in forth in that area over time. Most of Montenegro (area around Niksic) was actually part of Hercegovina until 1878 (known as Stara Hercegovina). Most Serbs from Glamoc, Bosansko Grahovo, and the Knin-Vrlika area are those from that part of Stara Hercegovina, the Vlaski kraj.
The problem with the prosecution’s case is that command responsibility already passed out of Gotovina’s hands once he crossed the border into BiH. If we’re to go by command responsibility, then it’s Cermak and Markac, not Gotovina, who was responsible.
You also forgot to mention how silly he was because he didn't have any reason to hide for 5-6 years (right?).
He had an excellent reason to hide out: he was under indictment by a kangaroo court.
RK is on his way to Den Haag...
"A civil war according to whom? When for instance did the American Revolution cease as a civil war or insurrection and become a war to repel a foreign invader?...Again, who decides it was a civil war after Bosnian Muslims declared their independence?"
Comparing Bosnia to the American Revolution? Good grief!
Ding, ding, ding. Bosnian Muslims didn't just "declare their independence", they declared independence for EVERYONE in Bosnia, Bosnian Serbs & Croats included.
Bosnian Serbs are INDIGENOUS to Bosnia. They aren't "invaders from Serbia", the Bosnian Moslems are all Serbs and Croats who converted to Islam during the Ottoman Turkish occupation.
Bosnian Muslims tried to seize the whole of Bosnia with indigenous Serbs and Croats in it and take control of the entire country. This why Croats also fought them and why, by anyone's standard the actions of the Izetbegovic regime should have been judged as "an act of aggression, not just "a declaration of independence". The only reason that this did not happen was that it wasn't politically expedient to the US State Department, who had their own pro-Muslim, head-up-their-butt plans for how the Balkans should work out.
"I don’t care about your assessment of the ICTY. Whether or not you agree with them is irrelevant as to anything we are discussing here since we are dealing with facts."
No, what we are dealing with is your pathetic little spin on the facts. And if you wish to continue to insult me, then ask me if I give a rats ass what your opinion is?
"And since you brought up Nuremberg, you might be interested to hear what Walter J. Rockler, one of the original Nuremburg Prosecutors had to say about it with regard to our policy in the Balkans:”
"No, actually I’m not at all interested since it has no bearing on what we’re actually discussing. His opinion is essentially irrelevant since he is not ICTY, nor any one of the people involved with what we’re discussing."
You clearly have no experience or knowledge of law, because if you did, you would realize that by bringing up "Nuremberg", you opened the door to that discussion re what a Nuremberg prosecutor thought of our actions in the Balkans, regardless of whether you liked what was behind that door or not.
“This is the same kind of methodology used for political show trials in totalitarian regimes.”
"No. 1) These guys are permitted a real defense. 2) They have real lawyers. 3) They are not forced with threat of death to themselves and everyone they know to make false confessions...."
Hello! You are once again trying to twist what I said to try and fit it into a paradigm that you think you have an answer for -- but you don't.
What I said was:
Simply deciding that a civil war that contains war crimes is automatically "a war of aggression", without examining the facts surrounding the initiation of hostilities, is "presuming guilt without an investigation or a defense". This is the same kind of methodology used for political show trials in totalitarian regimes. You can't hold up a court as some sort of "paragon of justice" and then let it behave like a court under Stalin's rule."
While defendants, individually have the right to a defense, the Bosnian Serbs collectively have had no such ability to defend themselves against the prejudged idea that they were and are "the aggressors" on their own land in their own country and that their war of defense was not "an act of aggression". That is a collective "assumption of guilt until proven innocent" and that is clearly what I was referring to. While individuals were proven guilty or innocent, the collective assumption of the court (which the Bosnian Muslim agenda has been pushing) is that "the Serb 's only claim to Bosnia was built on genocide and aggression" -- which is horse shit.
Serbs have been in Bosnia since before there were Bosnian Muslims. If the Bosnian Muslims wanted to secede from Yugoslavia with the land that they owned and which you believe that they had a right to do, then if any fairness or justice existed, the Bosnian Serbs should have had the same right to secede from Muslim Bosnia, as well. Instead, the ICTY is being used to support a case that "Bosnian Serbs have no rights to Bosnia at all". And that political spin is indeed Stalinesque
It is clear that you don't have a clue about the history of the Balkans and you have no background in law. Acting like a pompous ass can't make up for that.
PS Learn a little html while you are at it. You've been around FR long enough.
You're the one spreading it with a poorly constructed argument and playing loose with the facts, not me
I never said they killed each other.
Apparently that went 10 feet over your head and untouched. I am pointing out the fact that there were indeed deaths attributed to muslim infighting proving that they were indeed armed and not unarmed as you are so erroneously trying to espouse.
"No"
Apparently dead Serbian children are not a part to of your equation, how typical of you.
You wrote:
“The more I listen to you, Vlad the more that I realize that you are completely out of your depth on this subject...”
LOL! This coming from the person who thinks wars cause war crimes? Lovely, just lovely.
“... and you are trying to insult my intelligence and knowledge on the subject to cover what you don’t know.”
No, I’m not trying to cover anything. And I was not trying to insult your intelligence. You’re doing fine on your own.
“Comparing Bosnia to the American Revolution? Good grief!”
I did not compare Bosnia to the American Revolution. That would be comparing a place to an action or movement. That wouldn’t make sense and so I didn’t do it. What I did so was point out that you are assuming it was a civil war because your intense pro-Serb bias wants to see it that way. Yugoslavia was dead in 1991 when Slovenia and Croatia broke away. Yet, for events 4 years later, you are still insisting on a civil war when someone could easily make the case that there was no Yugoslavia to have a civil war. That’s why I brought up the American Revolution. And that’s why you couldn’t refute the point I made with my questions. No, instead you must dismiss it all. That’s all you have left, right?
“Ding, ding, ding. Bosnian Muslims didn’t just “declare their independence”, they declared independence for EVERYONE in Bosnia, Bosnian Serbs & Croats included.”
Thus, there was effectively NO Yugoslavia and thus it isn’t a nice, neat little civil war between two sides but a raging mess. Thanks for proving my point.
“Bosnian Serbs are INDIGENOUS to Bosnia.”
True, but once there was no Yugoslavia and only Bosnia and “foreign” states, those Serbs in Bosnia tried to set up their own state and it was clearly little more than a client state of Serbia proper on which it was completely dependent for aid.
“They aren’t “invaders from Serbia”, the Bosnian Moslems are all Serbs and Croats who converted to Islam during the Ottoman Turkish occupation.”
Are they Muslim now or not? Are they not - according to everyone involved - a separate group on some level? Also, do you think the Serbs in Bosnia were not swimming in Serbian supplied equipment provided AFTER the break-up of Yugoslavia? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E5DA1131F933A15752C1A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
“Bosnian Muslims tried to seize the whole of Bosnia with indigenous Serbs and Croats in it and take control of the entire country.”
Maybe they did. How does that excuse Srebrenica? It doesn’t.
“This why Croats also fought them and why, by anyone’s standard the actions of the Izetbegovic regime should have been judged as “an act of aggression, not just “a declaration of independence”.”
Croats sometimes fought them, sometimes didn’t. And in legal terms this point is already moot since in 2007 the ICJ determined the war to be international - i.e. not a civil war. Did you even now that?
Also, in case you didn’t know, on Oct. 24, 1991, the Serbs in Bosnia set up their Assembly of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina Assembly of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That body declared an independent Serbian Republic WITHIN Bosnia on Jan. 9th, 1992.
Already by Oct. 14th, 1991 Serbs like Karadzic in the Bosnian parliament were threatening bloody suffering for the Bosnians if they voted to have a referendum on independence:
“Do not think you will not lead Bosnia and Herzegovina into hell and the Muslim people into possible annihilation, as the Muslim people cannot defend themselves in case of war here.” Throughout his tirade, he clutched the lectern edges, as though about to hurl it at his audience, but then let go of it to stab the air with his forefinger at the word “annihilation.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27hemon.html
The referendum was finished by March 1, 1992. The Serbs boycotted. The Bosnians declared independence on March 5, 1992. The referendum were utilized by the Serb political leadership as a reason to start road blockades in protest.
On Feb. 28th, 1992 - one day before the referendum voting started in Bosnia - the Serbs enacted a new constitution for their own state. They also specifically declared that their new state was a part of Yugoslavia.
“No, what we are dealing with is your pathetic little spin on the facts.”
If there’s something pathetic here it is your continued cheapening of the lives of 7,000 captured Bosnian men. There is no excuse for their murder. Period.
“And if you wish to continue to insult me, then ask me if I give a rats ass what your opinion is?”
Again, I will let you handle that job. You’re doing well enough on your own.
“You clearly have no experience or knowledge of law, because if you did, you would realize that by bringing up “Nuremberg”, you opened the door to that discussion re what a Nuremberg prosecutor thought of our actions in the Balkans, regardless of whether you liked what was behind that door or not.”
Incorrect. By bringing up Nuremberg in a discussion of genocide and war crimes I was clearing making a point about genocide and/or war crimes. I was not in any way discussing a prosecutors own private theories regarding events 5 years AFTER Srebrenica and having essentially nothing directly to do with Bosnia. The 1999 US bombing of Serbia was about Kosovo and not Srebrenica. The US bombing was not genocide and it is a stretch to call it a war crime to say the least.
“Hello! You are once again trying to twist what I said to try and fit it into a paradigm that you think you have an answer for — but you don’t.”
No, you wrote: “This is the same kind of methodology used for political show trials in totalitarian regimes.” Since you brought up show trials and made an obvious allusion to the fact that you think these are little more than show trials in methodology I refuted - step by step - how these are not show trials. You made a point - and not a good or substantiated one. I refuted it extensively. And you respond to that with a false claim I am twisting what you said. Typical.
What I said was:
“Simply deciding that a civil war that contains war crimes is automatically “a war of aggression”, without examining the facts surrounding the initiation of hostilities, is “presuming guilt without an investigation or a defense”. This is the same kind of methodology used for political show trials in totalitarian regimes. You can’t hold up a court as some sort of “paragon of justice” and then let it behave like a court under Stalin’s rule.””
1) Your premise is bad. 2) These trials are NOTHING LIKE Stalin’s trials.
“While defendants, individually have the right to a defense, the Bosnian Serbs collectively have had no such ability to defend themselves against the prejudged idea that they were and are “the aggressors” on their own land in their own country and that their war of defense was not “an act of aggression”.”
Their own country is Serbia if they’re Serbs. If they’re Bosnian Serbs then their own country is Bosnia so why set up a Serb republic and why do it in opposition to the rest of Bosnia? Who was really the aggressor there? Remember these words from FOUR MONTHS before the mutual decisions for independence:
“Do not think you will not lead Bosnia and Herzegovina into hell and the Muslim people into possible annihilation, as the Muslim people cannot defend themselves in case of war here.” Throughout his tirade, he clutched the lectern edges, as though about to hurl it at his audience, but then let go of it to stab the air with his forefinger at the word “annihilation.”
“That is a collective “assumption of guilt until proven innocent” and that is clearly what I was referring to.”
Nonsense. Individuals are on trial. Not nations, not armies, not parties - only individuals.
“While individuals were proven guilty or innocent, the collective assumption of the court (which the Bosnian Muslim agenda has been pushing) is that “the Serb ‘s only claim to Bosnia was built on genocide and aggression” — which is horse shit.”
Individuals are judged for specific crimes. No matter what collective assumptions may exist regarding the beginning of the war that will in no way effect judgments regarding murder, rape, ethnic cleansing and so on. At worst - even if the assumption you mentioned is true and unfounded (and it would seem to be not an assumption but a true reflection of the facts in light of what we know) - only the charge of aggressive war could be at issue. Is anyone going to be charged with ONLY making aggressive war? I seriously doubt it.
“Serbs have been in Bosnia since before there were Bosnian Muslims.”
Sorry, but it doesn’t matter. We’re not talking about the 16th or 17th century or the late 14th century or the 10th of the 8th or whatever. What happened centuries ago in no way excuses Srebrenica.
“If the Bosnian Muslims wanted to secede from Yugoslavia with the land that they owned and which you believe that they had a right to do, then if any fairness or justice existed, the Bosnian Serbs should have had the same right to secede from Muslim Bosnia, as well.”
No, not necessarily. Bosnia was a republic in a federation. There was no Serb federation within Bosnia until the Serbs set one up. The Bosnians certainly had more right as the dominant population in Bosnia to go the way Croatia and Slovenia already had.
“Instead, the ICTY is being used to support a case that “Bosnian Serbs have no rights to Bosnia at all”. And that political spin is indeed Stalinesque.”
Nonsense. There was no recognized right of Serbian sepratism, but there was a recognized Yugoslavian federation and those states were leaving.
“It is clear that you don’t have a clue about the history of the Balkans and you have no background in law. Acting like a pompous ass can’t make up for that.”
I clearly know the history at least better than you do. I also clearly understand law better than you do. You didn’t even seem aware that people are charged with war crimes and not wars themselves.
“PS Learn a little html while you are at it. You’ve been around FR long enough.”
I choose to post this way. You don’t have to like it. I don’t care either way how you feel.
You wrote:
“You’re the one spreading it with a poorly constructed argument and playing loose with the facts, not me”
Actually my arguments are sound and that’s why you won’t deal with them except to use profanity and sneer.
“Apparently that went 10 feet over your head and untouched. I am pointing out the fact that there were indeed deaths attributed to muslim infighting proving that they were indeed armed and not unarmed as you are so erroneously trying to espouse.”
I knew what you were saying and what I said was still correct. I never said they killed each other. Also, your point is still erroneous. The men murdered by the Serbs in massacres were all unarmed. That can be seen by the fact that many of them have their hands died behind their backs. Do these men looked armed to you? http://www.crimesofwar.org/news-srebrenica2.html
Their hands are tied behind their backs. They were murdered soon after this footage was shot. They were murdered with their hands behind their backs. THEY WERE NOT KILLED IN BATTLE AND THEY WERE NOT ARMED WHEN THEY WERE MURDERED.
Look at this photo: http://caledoniyya.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/serb-soldier.jpg
See how their hands are tied behind their backs? They were clearly NOT KILLED IN BATTLE. They were murdered. Murdered by Serbs. And you ignore the evidence.
Hands tied behind their backs: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4567704.stm
“The men have their hands tied behind their backs and show signs of having been severely beaten.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article529329.ece
And just like other deniers: “Much of Serbia is still in denial about the Srebrenica massacre, and a recent poll indicated that more than half those questioned refuse to believe that it took place.” Same link as above.
“Apparently dead Serbian children are not a part to of your equation, how typical of you.”
How many Serbian children were brought back to life by the murder of 7,000 unarmed Bosnians? Right, none.
There is NO EXCUSE for the deliberate murder of 7,000 unarmed men.
"Their own country is Serbia if they’re Serbs".
Being "a Serb" means being a Serbian Orthodox Christian" -- or as it is used in an "ethnic sense", at least being a the descendant of an Orthodox Christian regardless of one's religiosity. It is unrelated to "Serbia" in terms of nationality. Bosnian Serbs were baptized into Serbian Orthodox Christianity on the Bosnian soil where they stood hundreds of years ago, before Islam ever reached Bosnia! Just like not every Jew is an Israeli, not every Serb is related to Serbia, nor is every Serb religious.
And if you don't get that, you don't understand anything, Vlad. Your context beyond this point will be completely flawed, if you can't absorb that simple fact.
"Bosnian Muslims tried to seize the whole of Bosnia with indigenous Serbs and Croats in it and take control of the entire country.”
"Maybe they (Bosnian Muslims) did (start the war). How does that excuse Srebrenica? It doesn’t."
No one is trying to "excuse Srebrenica". You just drug in a red herring of what happened later (Srebrenica in 1995) to destroy the scent of what caused the war in the first place (in 1992). You painted your little story "backwards" from Srebrenica, writing on the players a motive that fit a story you wanted to tell.
That was effectively like taking Abu Ghraib as "a centerpiece" and writing whatever story you want to tell about America & building "America's motives" around it. From a propaganda point of view, this is a very effective ploy, but from the point of view of assessing the real truth, it is just a distraction from the whole picture of what happened.
The "maybe they (Bosnian Muslims) did" (start the war) is the crux of the issue and you are brushing it off like it doesn't matter. "Who started this war" (and why?) is the central issue of the article you are supposed to be commenting on, but you seem to have forgotten that completely. The rest of "the poor Bosnian Muslim story" has been beaten to death. But no one has dealt with what really started it and why -- especially given what we know now that we didn't know then -- and you seem particularly afraid of dealing with that, Vlad.
"Croats sometimes fought them, sometimes didn’t. And in legal terms this point is already moot since in 2007 the ICJ determined the war to be international"
The ICTY was a corrupt kangaroo court from day one, intended to "legally sanction" the BS political decisions made by ruling politicians. It claimed the heritage of "Nuremberg" while rejecting Nuremberg's values, because Nuremberg's values were too cumbersome for a court of political expediency, "Do unto unto others as you would have them do unto you. Judge others by the same standards by which you would be willing to submit to judgement" were Nuremberg's standards. But we, in the US, would never submit to the ICTY's standards -- as an American, I say "Thank God that we don't have to!". As a Christian, "I say, that's not fair or right. I have no right to judge someone by a standard by which I would not wish to be judged".
Instead, the ICTY used the ethnic groups involved as pawns to tell their political story -- with "ethnic quotas" of guilty verdicts to support their BS version of history.
Do we not understand that this is what has happened with every imperialist incursion before? That this is the reason that the all the ethnic groups in this region hate each other? -- because it has been a constant competition among them, for hundreds of years as to who (which ethnic group) will stand up for justice and who will be better at licking the conquerors' boots better than the others and hate themselves (and each other) for it later? The peoples of the Balkans are "a family" -- an extremely dysfunctional, played-against-each-other, screwed-up family, but "a family of peoples" none the less. And all that we have just done is to give them one more run at "lie or die" -- the favorite "game of all conquerors".
"“Do not think you will not lead Bosnia and Herzegovina into hell and the Muslim people into possible annihilation, as the Muslim people cannot defend themselves in case of war here.”
At that time, that was not just a threat, that was a fact (minus the editorializing). The Yugoslav military had one of the best equipped armies in Europe. If it was a case of raw military power in that neighborhood, the Bosnian Muslims were out-manned and out-gunned on an enormous scale and any war on those terms was bound to be "a slaughter of Muslims". Who in the hell could know then that Bosnia could import mujahaddin from the Arab states? Or that NATO was going to use Bosnia as the excuse to continue its existence beyond the Cold War? Lest anyone think that this was just "a real win for the Muslims", stop & think of just how long it took for NATO to ride in on that "white horse" to justify its continued existence and you'll understand how little NATO cares about human life -- theirs, ours, anyone's! Lucky for NATO, that it was dealing with the Islamist Izetbegovic, who was willing to "throw as many of his own Muslims in front of a truck" and pose for the cameras, as it was necessary for his "Allah-willed Islam" to gain a primary beachhead in Europe called "Bosnia".
"Bosnia was a republic in a federation. There was no Serb federation within Bosnia until the Serbs set one up. The Bosnians certainly had more right as the dominant population in Bosnia to go the way Croatia and Slovenia already had."
Again, you still don't get it -- Serbs ARE Bosnians, Serbs WERE Bosnians. That they happened to be Orthodox Christians as opposed to Muslims, did not make them any the less "BOSNIANS". Serbs are the most native Bosnians-- quit trying to use semantics to prove a point which does not exist -- when you say, "Bosnians", you need to include "Bosnian Serbs" and "Bosnian Croats", as these are about 60% of "Bosnians" -- the Muslims are only around 35-40% today.
All anyone needs to know about your real motives about posting on this issue regarding "Serbs" --Serbian Orthodox Christians -- (when you have been noticeably absent on virtually every discussion we have had on the Balkans for the last several years), you have posted on your FR webpage, Vlad, which summarized comes down to "Someone who was an Orthodox Christian once hurt my feelings on a message board, therefore anyone who is an Orthodox Christian is "wrong, evil and a menace" and I will provide you with a Bible quote to prove why I am exempt from having to forgive them".
That's truly sick, Vlad. If I used the religion of every person who has ever hurt my feelings as a self-righteous "excuse to hate them and those of their religion", I am sure that I could come up with a list so long that it would include a few Zoroastrians and Druids! It's a very non-Christian viewpoint to think that you can hide behind God by using the Bible as an excuse.
Do you realize we armed a Nazi? He wrote a book, Islamic Declaration, on how he was going to clean the Balkans of all Christianity? Show me a Serbian book that has such intentions for others.
Believe me, I don't think Izetbegovic was the shining light of Democracy but I'm simply trying to tell how it was with no political ax to grind.
I've never heard of any evidence
And you will not... Turks didn`t favoured nothing exept Islam, let alone orthodox Christianity, not from the creation of turkish secular state from 1920-ies till now, and certainly not during empire.
Bosnia is special case, always throughout history and today. During medieval times state or church were apparently regular, but stil different from the rest of known administrative or clerical european regimes, on east or west. This is the main reason why Bosnia lost their religious and national identity so easily with its consequences up to present days.
I already wrote about that subject shortly here and here:
In Bosnia there was what some historians today describe as heretic church - for that statement I do not have enough proof, but it was certainly unique church under the influence both from Byzant and Rome on substratum of old slavic customs and beliefs. The Orthodox church (in mediavel times also state ideology) in Greece and Serbia was base for preserving cultural and national consciousness of their people and giving hope for later renovation of state.
The point was that during turkish aggresion in Bosnia for centuries, bosnian church failed in preserving religious and ethnical core of most of their people - Serbs and Croat, so many of them converted into Islam surching way out of misery and sufferings, bringing us today what is known as Bosnians - slavic muslims
Although there`s not enough evidence or data to study it in more detailed overview, one can find out something about Bosnian church, about Religion and culture inside Bosnia and that some historians look at it through the prism of Bogomilism, yet specific religious movement or sect as you like. The most beautiful material evidences of bosnian medieval history were the Stechak tombstones.
There was times that I had the look at historical events in Bosnia just like at proceses that took part and ended at that place, but recent developments are showing that bad things are not ended yet and that Bosnia is the dark shire like like Ivo Andrich wrote.
You wrote:
“Yes, you reiterated the the history of the Bosnian wars like a good little parrot (if the parrot had internet access). And yet you proved that you have no understanding of those facts with this major slip:”
I made no slip. The next sentence said this: “If they’re Bosnian Serbs then their own country is Bosnia...”
You conveniently didn’t mention that I wrote that. You also skipped over about 18 statements I made before that because you know you can’t refute any of it. You skipped over, for instance, where I noted that you mistakenly said I compared Bosnia to the American Revolution. When you cannot refute something you avoid it. You avoid quite a bit - 18 paragraphs so far in one post.
“Being “a Serb” means being a Serbian Orthodox Christian” — or as it is used in an “ethnic sense”, at least being a the descendant of an Orthodox Christian regardless of one’s religiosity. It is unrelated to “Serbia” in terms of nationality. Bosnian Serbs were baptized into Serbian Orthodox Christianity on the Bosnian soil where they stood hundreds of years ago, before Islam ever reached Bosnia!”
Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that Islam reached Bosnia late. Srebrenica was not in the 17th century or remote past. It was 1995. The Bosnians were in their home too. The Serbs also had a right to live there - and no one was trying to take that right away from them in 1991-1992.
“Just like not every Jew is an Israeli, not every Serb is related to Serbia, nor is every Serb religious.”
Again, irrelevant.
“And if you don’t get that, you don’t understand anything, Vlad. Your context beyond this point will be completely flawed, if you can’t absorb that simple fact.”
Your point is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what makes a Serb or what a Serb is. What matters is whether or not he is a criminal if he murders thousands of unarmed men with their hands tied behind their backs. No one is on trial for being a Serb. If that were true then many more people would be on trial and no Croat or Bosnian would ever go on trial.
“No one is trying to “excuse Srebrenica”.”
Yeah, actually you are. That’s what I have largely stayed focused on and yet you have danced around it as much as possible.
“You just drug in a red herring of what happened later (Srebrenica in 1995) to destroy the scent of what caused the war in the first place (in 1992).”
Uh, no. First, I didn’t drag in Srebrenica. It is mentioned in the article that YOU POSTED. Srebrenica was also mentioned in post #3 by Citizen Blade. YOU RESPONDED TO THAT POST in post #4 with: “A few thousand is far from “killing off all of its men”, especially during an ongoing war. It would be a war crime, yes, but a genocide?” Thus, BEFORE I EVEN ENTERED THE THREAD (in post #13!!!) Srebrenica was already mentioned and downplayed by you.
You are wrong again.
“You painted your little story “backwards” from Srebrenica, writing on the players a motive that fit a story you wanted to tell.”
No. I stayed focused on the idea that Srebrenica is genocide as understood by international law while you tried to dismiss that and failed. I also - IN MY FIRST POST - made it clear that a war crime was a war crime whether committed by the Serbs or Ante Gotovina.
Then, after several posts from pro-Serbs who downplayed Srebrenica (almost making excuses for it), posts that brought up Operation Storm’s ethnic cleansing as a war crime (I ALREADY DID THAT IN POST 13!), you tried to dismiss the idea of rape as a part of a genocidal action or campaign.
“That was effectively like taking Abu Ghraib as “a centerpiece” and writing whatever story you want to tell about America & building “America’s motives” around it.”
The article YOU POSTED mentioned Srebrenica. You discussed it BEFORE I did by responding to post 3 from Citizen Blade. Stop claiming I brought it up when it was already up there in black and white. Also, stop claiming I built a case around it when all I did was say it was wrong because it was wrong. I mentioned the fact that atrocities or great magnitude can make moot the supposedly just motives of a nation’s going to war. That’s simply a fact. I never said the Serbs were wrong to establish their own republic because of Srebrenica. Such a claim would be irrational since it is anachronistic and therefore impossible for me to claim anyway. I think the Serbs were wrong on the republic for reasons have to do with the establishment of the republic and they were wrong on Srebrenica for what they did at Srebrenica. Period. The two issues are essentially unconnected except the same players are involved.
“From a propaganda point of view, this is a very effective ploy, but from the point of view of assessing the real truth, it is just a distraction from the whole picture of what happened.”
This is a complete failure as propaganda since it is anachronistic. I don’t even see anyone here making that argument. Who is? Post his/her name. Can you?
“The “maybe they (Bosnian Muslims) did” (start the war) is the crux of the issue and you are brushing it off like it doesn’t matter.”
It doesn’t. Srebrenica was in 1995. Who started the war in 1992 is essentially irrelevant. The crimes at Srebrenica took place in 1995 not 1992. You are the one making a connection between the two when you just got done accusing me of linking the two and anachronistically using them. In reality it is you who confuse the issue of the one with the other. The murder of 7,000 men is the issue in Srebrenica.
“”Who started this war” (and why?) is the central issue of the article you are supposed to be commenting on, but you seem to have forgotten that completely.”
The article mentioned Srebrenica. Citizen Blade mentioned Srebrenica. You downplayed it in response to him. I showed up only in post 13 after genocide had been mentioned in one or two more posts even before that.
“The rest of “the poor Bosnian Muslim story” has been beaten to death. But no one has dealt with what really started it and why — especially given what we know now that we didn’t know then — and you seem particularly afraid of dealing with that, Vlad.”
Uh, Citizen Blade mentioned Srebrenica and you downplayed it. It then was mentioned and genocide was mentioned several more times. That was what I responded to. I am not afraid of dealing with anything. There simply is nothing in the foundation of the Serb republic which excuses Srebrenica. Thus, it is irrelevant.
“The ICTY was a corrupt kangaroo court from day one, intended to “legally sanction” the BS political decisions made by ruling politicians.”
Your view of the court is irrelevant.
“It claimed the heritage of “Nuremberg” while rejecting Nuremberg’s values, because Nuremberg’s values were too cumbersome for a court of political expediency, “Do unto unto others as you would have them do unto you. Judge others by the same standards by which you would be willing to submit to judgement” were Nuremberg’s standards.”
No, not really. How many Soviet citizens voluntarily lined up for trial at Nuremberg for their slaughter of millions of Ukrainians and other communist victims? What? None? You mean the soviets didn’t want to be treated as they and they other allies were treating the Germans? No doubt.
“But we, in the US, would never submit to the ICTY’s standards — as an American, I say “Thank God that we don’t have to!”. As a Christian, “I say, that’s not fair or right. I have no right to judge someone by a standard by which I would not wish to be judged”.”
Again, irrelevant. We do not submit to foreign tribunals. What you believe as a Christian in no way excuses Srebrenica. And how you would wish to be judged in no way excuses Srebrenica either.
“Instead, the ICTY used the ethnic groups involved as pawns to tell their political story — with “ethnic quotas” of guilty verdicts to support their BS version of history.”
Thousands of dead men, many with their hands tied behind their backs, is not BS. Men murdered in front of Serbian film journalists is not BS. You go on and on about all these things as if they somehow excuse Srebrenica. They don’t.
“Do we not understand that this is what has happened with every imperialist incursion before? That this is the reason that the all the ethnic groups in this region hate each other? — because it has been a constant competition among them, for hundreds of years as to who (which ethnic group) will stand up for justice and who will be better at licking the conquerors’ boots better than the others and hate themselves (and each other) for it later? The peoples of the Balkans are “a family” — an extremely dysfunctional, played-against-each-other, screwed-up family, but “a family of peoples” none the less. And all that we have just done is to give them one more run at “lie or die” — the favorite “game of all conquerors”.”
All irrelevant. None of that excuses Srebrenica.
“At that time, that was not just a threat, that was a fact (minus the editorializing). The Yugoslav military had one of the best equipped armies in Europe.”
None of that excuses Srebrenica.
“If it was a case of raw military power in that neighborhood, the Bosnian Muslims were out-manned and out-gunned on an enormous scale and any war on those terms was bound to be “a slaughter of Muslims”.”
Only is Serbs chose to slaughter them. Why would they? What is it that made the Bosnians deserve to be slaughtered? What made them deserve to be murdered with their hands tied behind their backs?
“Who in the hell could know then that Bosnia could import mujahaddin from the Arab states? Or that NATO was going to use Bosnia as the excuse to continue its existence beyond the Cold War? Lest anyone think that this was just “a real win for the Muslims”, stop & think of just how long it took for NATO to ride in on that “white horse” to justify its continued existence and you’ll understand how little NATO cares about human life — theirs, ours, anyone’s! Lucky for NATO, that it was dealing with the Islamist Izetbegovic, who was willing to “throw as many of his own Muslims in front of a truck” and pose for the cameras, as it was necessary for his “Allah-willed Islam” to gain a primary beachhead in Europe called “Bosnia”.”
And none of that excuses Srebrenica. Incredible. After falsely claiming that I was anachronistically using Srebrenica to mount an attack against the founding of the Serb republic 3 years earlier you now throw in seemingly every subsequent event in the Balkan war as if they anachronistically legitimize the foundation of that Serb republic and dismiss responsibility for Srebrenica.
“Again, you still don’t get it — Serbs ARE Bosnians, Serbs WERE Bosnians.”
I do get it. I, in fact, said exactly that. Here is the earlier statement that you edited out of your response: “If they’re Bosnian Serbs then their own country is Bosnia...”
Do you see that? I had it right all along, but you edited out of your response and claimed I believed otherwise TWICE.
“That they happened to be Orthodox Christians as opposed to Muslims, did not make them any the less “BOSNIANS”.”
And who here said otherwise? Not me.
“Serbs are the most native Bosnians— quit trying to use semantics to prove a point which does not exist — when you say, “Bosnians”, you need to include “Bosnian Serbs” “
No, I do not. You, for instance, have said Muslims instead of Bosnian Muslims but we all know who you mean. You yourself have also said “Serbs” when you really meant - according to what you just wrote - Bosnian Serbs. I see no reason to say Bosnian Muslims unless I specifically mean ONLY Bosnian Muslims. There were plenty of Bosnians in Sarajevo who were not Muslim but they suffered from Serb attacks anyway. Go ahead. Downplay that now too.
“and “Bosnian Croats”, as these are about 60% of “Bosnians” — the Muslims are only around 35-40% today.”
No matter how many there are or were, Serbs murdered thousands of them, many with their hands tied behind their backs.
“All anyone needs to know about your real motives about posting on this issue regarding “Serbs” —Serbian Orthodox Christians — (when you have been noticeably absent on virtually every discussion we have had on the Balkans for the last several years),”
Actually I have posted in a number of threads about Croatia, Serbia, and the Balkans.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1973821/posts#15
A year ago: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1884611/posts
2006: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1855162/posts
Here I was pinged to a thread by a pro-Serb: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1965482/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1973821/posts
I have posted in many more Balkan threads. What I have never done is signed up for Balkan pings and I have no interest in doing so. You are wrong again.
“... you have posted on your FR webpage, Vlad, which summarized comes down to “Someone who was an Orthodox Christian once hurt my feelings on a message board, therefore anyone who is an Orthodox Christian is “wrong, evil and a menace” and I will provide you with a Bible quote to prove why I am exempt from having to forgive them”.”
1) I never said anything about hurt feelings because my feelings were not hurt. I did say I was surprised that someone would stoop so low as to do what he did. I said that precisely because I was surprised.
2) I never indicted or blamed all Orthdox Christians. I specifically said: “The fact that the person responsible calls himself an Orthodox Christian made it all the more surprising.” Notice I said PERSON? I was very clearly speaking about one PERSON and NOT speaking about all Eastern Orthodox Christians.
3) I did refer to a Bible verse: “You will know them by their fruit.” The use of a Bible verse - which is about recognizing a person by their actions - in no way implies that I did not forgive that person. The verse is not about forgiveness or about not forgiving someone. It is simply about recognizing people by their actions. You have misrepresented what I posted there. What does that tell us? What should we recognize by such an action?
“That’s truly sick, Vlad. If I used the religion of every person who has ever hurt my feelings as a self-righteous “excuse to hate them and those of their religion”, I am sure that I could come up with a list so long that it would include a few Zoroastrians and Druids!”
I don’t hate anyone, and I have NEVER used anyone’s religion as an excuse to hate anyone. Hate is a waste of time and energy to say the least. Also, again, I suffered no hurt feelings. No one here could possibly hurt my feelings because this is merely a message board. I posted the new profile so that people would know what happened to the old one. I have seen no reason to take it down since because it doesn’t really matter enough to me to do so. what is clearly wrong, however, is for you to claim I hate anyone when I have never once made that claim myself in any way. You also have completely misrepresented what I said, why I said it, and how I felt. This misrepresentation is most clearly shown by the fact that you couldn’t even use the statement I actually posted (because it says NOTHING like what you claim it does) and had to create fictional quotes to furnish your misrepresentation. How sad. You are apparently very desperate.
“It’s a very non-Christian viewpoint to think that you can hide behind God by using the Bible as an excuse.”
Again, I didn’t use the Bible verse as an excuse of anything. This is what I wrote: “The fact that the person responsible calls himself an Orthodox Christian made it all the more surprising. You will know them by their fruit.” Where’s the excuse there? There isn’t one. There never was. Clearly I am referring to ONE PERSON. The verse was perfectly appropriate to use as an example of recognizing what someone is really like. You are clearly misrepresenting what I wrote. How sad that you feel the need to do so. You can’t refute any of my arguments. You can’t dispute the facts I have posted. You skipped more than 18 statements and paragraphs I posted because you are unable to deal with them. No, instead, you create a fictional rendering of my profile page to falsely claim that I hate all Orthodox Christians.
And there are still 7,000 dead Bosnians, many with their hands died behind their backs.
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.
