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.
"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.