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.
"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.