Srebrenica: Genocide, or just War Crimes?

[Caustic Logic]

An issue I myself don't know a ton about, even with the 20th anniversary revival and constant cited parallels in current events ... but an interesting news item, from a couple months ago now, and some intriguing thoughts:

War crimes, 'not genocide' in Srebrenica says Serbian President
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...erbian-president/story-e6frfkui-1226381158292

SERBIAN President Tomislav Nikolic said the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 8000 Muslims was not genocide but "grave war crimes" in comments Bosnia immediately said would cause "new tension".

"There was no genocide in Srebrenica," Nikolic said in an interview with Montenegrin state television published on its website Friday, in statements that harked back to his days as an ultra-nationalist leader during the 1990s wars which tore apart the former Yugoslavia.

"In Srebrenica, grave war crimes were committed by some Serbs, who should be found, prosecuted and punished," he added in the interview taped earlier this week.

Why must this cause "tension?" They're not (tellingly) defensive about it, are they?

What marks the distinction between war crimes and genocide, and why does the distinction matter in a case like this, where a NATO humanitarian mission was essential to their nation's creation and founding?

Nikolic's view is not an extremist position, it seems, considering existing doubts that it was barely even a war crime and only 1/4 the accepted size.
Media Fabrications: The "Srebrenica Massacre” is a Western Myth
Review of Alexander Dorin's book
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17836

In his latest book titled “Srebrenica — The History of Salon Racism” (Srebrenica — die Geschichte eines salonfahigen Rassismus) published this month in Berlin, Dorin focuses on manipulations with the number of Muslims who lost their lives in Srebrenica.

“Regarding the events in Srebrenica in 1995, the media manipulations still reign in the West, claiming that after the town fell to Serbian hands some 7,000 to 8,000 of Muslim fighters and male civilians were killed. However, the researchers around the world have shown this bears no relation to the truth,” Dorin told Srna News Agency.

According to data he had gathered, Dorin discovered that at least 2,000 Muslim fighters were killed in battle for Srebrenica. He added the facts are showing that neither civilian nor military leadership of Republic of Srpska (Serb Republic in Bosnia-Herzegovina) ever ordered execution of the Muslim fighters and POWs.

“2,000 is approximately the number of bodies Hague investigators were able to find up to this day. To that number the Muslim side added several hundred Muslim fighters, most of whom came from abroad, who were killed in battle a few years before the fall of Srebrenica, in Han Pijesak and Konjević Polje,” Dorin said, adding that this is evidenced even by the Muslim documents captured by the Bosnian Serb Army.

I look forward to a five page discussion (which I'll sit out) on what's wrong with that site or that author. Anyone commenting on content I'll try to engage as time allows.

 

[Dcdrac]

It was Genocide which in terms of internatioanl Law is a war crime too

 

[Caustic Logic]

Well, maybe so. But I was hoping for some detailed discussion of why that's so.

Emphasis, by the way, on the first link. The second is there for context and is fair game, but I don't want it to distract from the separate question of definitions just within what's accepted as happening.

 

[Virus]

Back again to defend another mass-murderer with a fresh batch of truther sites and pseudo-research?

 

[Dcdrac]

Genocide as a crime was first stated as a principle of Law at the Nuremberg War crime tribunals that is how it became designated as a war crime.

Genocide
Raphael Lemkin


http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/americanscholar1946.htm

http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/About+the+Court/Frequently+asked+Questions/

What is genocide?

According to the Rome Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:

•killing members of the group;
•causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
•deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
•imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
•forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Genocide as a crime was first stated as a principle of Law at the Nuremberg War crime tribunals that is how it became designated as a war crime.

Genocide
Raphael Lemkin


http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/americanscholar1946.htm

http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/About+the+Court/Frequently+asked+Questions/

What is genocide?

According to the Rome Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:

•killing members of the group;
•causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
•deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
•imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
•forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

That all sounds pretty familiar and about right, but more vague than I thought. If members of a group are killed -or even mentally harmed-it's genocide? By that, this clearly qualifies then, as does a lot of other violence that kills people who belong to a (geno-type) group anywhere, and even "hate speech" or less, depending on what causes "mental harm" to "members of the group.")

I guess I'm wondering if it rises to the more stringest standards of trying to wipe out the group -killing lots of kids, sterilizing people, killing a significant number of people to really impede reproductive rates, targeting institutions essential to the community's future, etc.

 

[timhau]

What marks the distinction between war crimes and genocide, and why does the distinction matter in a case like this, where a NATO humanitarian mission was essential to their nation's creation and founding?

Beats me.

Nikolic's view is not an extremist position, it seems, considering existing doubts that it was barely even a war crime and only 1/4 the accepted size.
Media Fabrications: The "Srebrenica Massacre” is a Western Myth

You mean nationalist crackpots come up with nationalist crackpottery? How surprising. Is there any other reason to bring this up than to smuggle it into the discussion?

BTW, what I find odd about the Srebrenica massacre is the fact that it's always described as the killing of 8000 Bosniaks, when they specifically targeted Bosniak men and boys. Would the gender discrepancy be overlooked if they had killed 8000 Bosniak women and girls?

 

[Dcdrac]

And tyes the masacre at Srebencia is well documented

 

[Toontown]

Back again to defend another mass-murderer with a fresh batch of truther sites and pseudo-research?

That is uncharitable of you, Virus. He works very hard to dig up...well, what JJ calls "documentation". So hard it made him sick for a while.

But he's feeling better now.

It's the buzzing...

 

[timhau]

And tyes the masacre at Srebencia is well documented

Yeah, by NATO lackeys. You know what that means.

Good historical documentation has never bothered denier crackpots before, why should it bother them in connection with Srebrenica?

 

[IDB87]

BTW, what I find odd about the Srebrenica massacre is the fact that it's always described as the killing of 8000 Bosniaks, when they specifically targeted Bosniak men and boys. Would the gender discrepancy be overlooked if they had killed 8000 Bosniak women and girls?

There is a gender discrepancy because women and girls were also killed - not in the same numbers, obviously, but still dozens of females were executed. I'm sure we can go through the published lists of the dead and missing (though the lists are incomplete I believe) and pick out the females.

I agree with what you're implying, however, that if these were women being killed instead of men that it would have been referred to as some sort of Srebrenica Female Massacre. There is a form of sexist logic to this - men are typically thought of as soldiers, where women for the most part are not. The Serbs killing the Bosniak men can have a potential military result (while still being genocide/warcrime), where if the women were not known to be fighting at all, their deaths could be seen as sheer brutality and pointless - killing for the sake of killing - and their massacre would be emphasized by their sex.

I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I believe you are 100% right.

 

[Ryokan]

BTW, what I find odd about the Srebrenica massacre is the fact that it's always described as the killing of 8000 Bosniaks, when they specifically targeted Bosniak men and boys. Would the gender discrepancy be overlooked if they had killed 8000 Bosniak women and girls?

The women and girls were 'only' raped. Rape was used as a weapon on a massive scale by the Serbs.

Though, as IDB87 says, girls and women were killed at Srebrenica as well. But the males were the main target, as part of a long term strategy of eliminating the Muslims from Bosnia. Kill all the boys and men, and fighting them in the future will be easier. Impregnate their women with 'half breeds', and it becomes even easier.

As someone who was in Bosnia as a NATO soldier, I dismiss the question the OP asks. There's no 'just war crime' about what happened in Srebrenica. And it certainly was part of the overall Serb strategy of a Muslim genocide. I'd add terrorism, and I'm sure it would have had it happened post-9/11, when the word terrorism gained global popularity.

 

[JihadJane]

... when the word terrorism gained global popularity.

And became meaningless.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Yes, I'm feeling a bit better/getting used to it, but I don't think it's research what done it so much as years of sub-standard dental care. Increased workload elsewhere still sucks, shouldn't be starting new threads really.

Okay, so we've heard, collectively, that 8,000 men and boys were massacred, that dozens of women and girls also were killed, and that they weren't killed, only raped. Okay, were killed and raped, to produce half-breeds. Killed and/or raped.

Though, as IDB87 says, girls and women were killed at Srebrenica as well. But the males were the main target, as part of a long term strategy of eliminating the Muslims from Bosnia. Kill all the boys and men, and fighting them in the future will be easier. Impregnate their women with 'half breeds', and it becomes even easier.

That all sounds like genocide-level stuff in my own thinking. Something really aiming seriously for a "cide" or killing of a "geno"or people. This is all proven as the intent, or can be reasonably inferred from well-established evidence of such a widespread policy, right? We're not still locked in "activists say" mode 20 years later, are we? I'll presume not, that this has been professionally investigated long ago and is as solid as most presume. But still, I advocate double-checking. I've been seeing some vary shady re-branding of events the last year or so, and I for one am open-minded that the whole episode could be other than we've heard.

But, on the more relevant issue of genocide, and how dare anyone try to open a discussion by suggesting maybe it wasn't... I guess this clearly counts. The nationalist kook is warped, and for mentally harming the Bosniaks by suggesting this was only a heinous war crime, should be tried for genocide. This is no simple war crime - members of a group were killed, others among them harmed mentally and material by, if nothing else, the loss of those killed. That's triple genocide, serious ****.

Just about everything else that makes the news is genocide too, by the way. Syrian rebels are already genociding Syrian Alawites and Christains, and the government is totally genociding the Sunnis, plus also the Libyans and others who are visiting, and whatever other groups have members caught in the crossfire, or "mentally harmed" in any way. The United States, my homeland, has waged massive genocide on Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites, all the Afghan and Pakistani peoples, Libyans, Serbs, any country that's even been sanctioned by them, Native Americans (to this day mind you), every group from which a person was executed or even jailed in this country, and many many others. Ditto for other countries and groups, etc.

That question is answered, and stopping genocide is something we're damn serious about, so of course whatever was done was more than justified.

Amiright?

 

[timhau]

I was wondering how long it will take to get to the "If the 1990s Serbs and Assads regime are evil, then the US is mega-mega-evil" part of this thread.

 

[Border Reiver]

But, on the more relevant issue of genocide, and how dare anyone try to open a discussion by suggesting maybe it wasn't... I guess this clearly counts. The nationalist kook is warped, and for mentally harming the Bosniaks by suggesting this was only a heinous war crime, should be tried for genocide. This is no simple war crime - members of a group were killed, others among them harmed mentally and material by, if nothing else, the loss of those killed. That's triple genocide, serious ****.

You are being deliberately obtuse - as is the person making the claim that "It wasn't genocide, it was just a war crime."

Genocide is a war crime, contrary to the Laws of Armed Conflict included with the Hague and Geneva conventions and as established in the Nuremberg Tribunals. Now if the matter wasn't genocide, what war crime was it? Given that the Bosniaks were unarmed, it can hardly be the killing of PWs or detained persons. Given that persons of other ethnic backgrounds weren't being targeted in this action what would you call it?

Just about everything else that makes the news is genocide too, by the way. Syrian rebels are already genociding Syrian Alawites and Christains, and the government is totally genociding the Sunnis, plus also the Libyans and others who are visiting, and whatever other groups have members caught in the crossfire, or "mentally harmed" in any way. The United States, my homeland, has waged massive genocide on Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites, all the Afghan and Pakistani peoples, Libyans, Serbs, any country that's even been sanctioned by them, Native Americans (to this day mind you), every group from which a person was executed or even jailed in this country, and many many others. Ditto for other countries and groups, etc.

That question is answered, and stopping genocide is something we're damn serious about, so of course whatever was done was more than justified.

Amiright?

Your characterizations of the US actions in Iraq, etc. as genocide is wrong (the definition of the US actions against the American first Nations, might fit the bill, that at least can be debated). Genocide requires that the underlying intent is to eliminate that particular ethnic or religious group - wartime casualties do not count as genocide if the intent is not to wipe out etc that particular group. Unless your contention is that the US and their allies are deliberately wiping out all non-military elements of the forenamed ethnic/religious groups, in which case I would contend that you're not looking at these matters like a rational individual.

The civilian casualties in recent operations are non-deliberate, and are the result of persons being killed because the enemy forces or other legitimate targets are embedded within the civilian population.

 

[JihadJane]

The civilian casualties in recent operations are non-deliberate, and are the result of persons being killed because the enemy forces or other legitimate targets are embedded within the civilian population.

I.e.: Sorry for bombing the funeral and the first responders. We were aiming at the militants. The rest of you dead brown people were accidentally blown to bits. Not deliberate at all!

 

[Toontown]

I was wondering how long it will take to get to the "If the 1990s Serbs and Assads regime are evil, then the US is mega-mega-evil" part of this thread.

They're taking their time, letting the suspense build.

 

[Toontown]

deleted

 

[Ryokan]

I.e.: Sorry for bombing the funeral and the first responders. We were aiming at the militants. The rest of you dead brown people were accidentally blown to bits. Not deliberate at all!

I'm sort of with you on this one, JJ. I think the drone strikes are ethically questionable. However, it's not genocide.