Replies

I'm talking about why the war was forced on the bosnian serbs, having in mind the events of World War II and the genocide commited against the serbs in this area and yes, I am talking about constitutional rights that were breached. Denying the right to self-determination to the Bosnian and Krajina Serbs,and at the same time consisting on those rights by the muslims for themselves, was and still is a historical crime having in consideration the events and the outcome of both World Wars. That's why the war was inevitable and I'm trying to explain why.

And it was an ugly war. Here we agree, I guess. But speaking of mass murder, how many dead did we have in this war? How many dead serbs, croats and bosnian muslims in particular?

How many Sarajevo serbs, were amongst the victims of the muslim staged 'Markale' massacre?

What came first, the breach of the bosnian constitution or the break out of the war? There is cause and effect in this scenario as well and you are trying to smear it. That's what I call, leading someone by the nose, and no amount of argument is going to vindicate you on this matter.

Neither Markale shelling was 'staged'. Mortar shells killed civilians on each occasion. In both instances, Bosnian Serbs immediately started spinning wild stories to absolve themselves of any possibility that one of the over a million shells that they fired during their siege actually performed its intended task. I refer you to the trial of Stanislav Galic for information refuting the Serb position on the February 1994 incident and would be happy to hear your proof as to Serb claims for the 1995 incident. (Clue - I've heard all the old stories before, so try to come up with something new, ok?)

As to your question, since the Serbs instituted SAOs (can you say 'breach of constitution'?) and started arming themselves for war in Bosnia back in 1991, it is moot to start with and is further answered by the rapidity of the Serb takeover, starting in April of '92, which came from a well thought out bloody plan consisting of the use of terror to both drive out non-Serbs and prevent the ethic communities from ever living side by side again. You presume to defend the indifensible. Spare yourself the aggravation.

I've already been vindicated, DEI. That you cannot accurately judge your own history is not my problem.

It is yours.