Srebrenica: Genocide, or just War Crimes?

[MG1962]

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.

As I understand the Nuremberg principles, if those 8000 were rounded up and killed specifically because they were Muslims, then yes the charge of genocide stands. If they were rounded up as part of a wider purge of local population then it is better defined as a war crime.

We can see the distinction in Poland during WW2 - Jews were specifically targeted and their 3 million deaths are considered genocide. about 2 million Catholics were also killed, but not because they were Catholic, so their deaths are seen as war crimes.

 

[MG1962]

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!

The problem is the idea has never been tested at the international court as far as I am aware.

It was like the situation the last time the Palestinians and Israel got into it. Palestinian anti aircraft units were deliberately setting up in schools, and firing on Israeli aircraft. If the Israelis had fired on those targets and killed children as a consequence, how do you decide fault?

 

[Ryokan]

The problem is the idea has never been tested at the international court as far as I am aware.

It was like the situation the last time the Palestinians and Israel got into it. Palestinian anti aircraft units were deliberately setting up in schools, and firing on Israeli aircraft. If the Israelis had fired on those targets and killed children as a consequence, how do you decide fault?

I don't see how that situation is comparable to bombing funerals or first responders.

In any case, it's off topic for the topic at hand.

 

[MG1962]

I don't see how that situation is comparable to bombing funerals or first responders.

In any case, it's off topic for the topic at hand.

I mention it because it is a fairly common tactic in conflicts around the world. A ruling in a case like that would suggest who has the obligation to ensure the safety of civilians.

How far does the obligation of the attacker extend to limiting casualties among civilians. Basically is it okay or not to kill 50 innocent people to take out a terrorists?

 

[Toontown]

I had to check to see what the thread was about. But I suppose it really doesn't matter what it used to be about. It's about the alleged funeral bombing now.

I'm with the terrorist enablers. Terrorists should be able to hide among civilians with complete impunity, so that they can survive and strike at will at the agents of Western imperialism. Especially the agents of imperialism who hang around in markets and girls' schools.

"Civilian" should be defined as anyone in civilian dress.

And no sending in special forces to strike terrorists in their homes either. Send police to arrest the terrorists, take them "downtown", book them, and formally charge them with specific crimes.

It's the new way of fighting wars. I'm pretty sure it will work as intended by it's advocates.

 

[Ryokan]

Strawman.

Such a shame that a topic like this is getting derailed.

 

[A'isha]

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.

Or maybe all these things happened at different times to different groups of Bosnians, as part of the Serbians' long term genocidal goals during a lengthy war, and your sarcastic attempts at genocide apologetics aren't funny or clever in the least.

Amiright?

No.

No you're not.

 

[Caustic Logic]

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

I was being obtuse, but not deliberately. Somehow skipped to the bullet point list, missing the "with the intent..." part implicitly attached to all of them. Imagine an appropriate correction and less snark on my part. That makes enough sense. And most of my examples fall apart.

Hey, you put the e in JREF, good job.

As for president Nikolic, depends what he was saying. I don't know if that intent is a scientific fact.

As I understand the Nuremberg principles, if those 8000 were rounded up and killed specifically because they were Muslims, then yes the charge of genocide stands. If they were rounded up as part of a wider purge of local population then it is better defined as a war crime.

We can see the distinction in Poland during WW2 - Jews were specifically targeted and their 3 million deaths are considered genocide. about 2 million Catholics were also killed, but not because they were Catholic, so their deaths are seen as war crimes.

That also sounds reasonable. I guess it's been decided they were killed for their religion, not just fighting or whatever. I don't know how sound that decision was, but can't critique it yet.

 

[Border Reiver]

I was being obtuse, but not deliberately. Somehow skipped to the bullet point list, missing the "with the intent..." part implicitly attached to all of them. Imagine an appropriate correction and less snark on my part. That makes enough sense.

And based on this I withdraw the "deliberately" part of the statement.

 

[Ryokan]

That also sounds reasonable. I guess it's been decided they were killed for their religion, not just fighting or whatever. I don't know how sound that decision was, but can't critique it yet.

It hasn't been 'decided', it was the stated goal of the Serbs. What do you think the Bosnian war was all about?

 

[Caustic Logic]

It hasn't been 'decided', it was the stated goal of the Serbs. What do you think the Bosnian war was all about?

Personally, I thought preventing further separation was the main reason, preserving unity against the outsider-supported separatists. A house divided and all that. But as I've said, I'm no expert here, and might've missed Milosevic's Mein Kampf type clues.

 

[Ryokan]

Personally, I thought preventing further separation was the main reason, preserving unity against the outsider-supported separatists. A house divided and all that. But as I've said, I'm no expert here, and might've missed Milosevic's Mein Kampf type clues.

I think you've missed a lot, really. Milosevic was the president of Serbia at the time, the people you should look at are Radovan Karadžić, the president of the Bosnian Republika Srpska, and Ratko Mladic, Chief of Staff of the Republika Srpska army.

You see, Bosnia was already seperated from Yugoslavia at this point in time, so 'preventing further seperation' might've been a little late. The stated goal of Karadžić and his ilk was to 'purify' Bosnia of all non-Serbs then seek unification with Serbia. Milosevic had little to do with the war beyond supporting the Bosnian Serbs materially. The main crimes that got Milosevic in Hague were the Serbian war crimes in Kosovo, a few years later.

All this is nothing new, even though you pretend it is, even obfuscating the facts around Srebrenica, to make make it seem like it was a battle there, that the Muslim inhabitants were fighting the Serbs as soldiers or something.

Please read up on some basic history of the war.

ETA: Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre

 

[Virus]

It's an old strategy. Deny the genocide but put it in the form of a question so it doesn't look like you're doing it. Plausible denial denial.

 

[MG1962]

Personally, I thought preventing further separation was the main reason, preserving unity against the outsider-supported separatists. A house divided and all that. But as I've said, I'm no expert here, and might've missed Milosevic's Mein Kampf type clues.

The key to the situation is the knowledge that Yugoslavia was an artificial construct to begin with. Ethnically it was a Frankenstein's monster pretty much only held together by Titos personality cult. Once he died, it was really only a matter of time before the stitching busted loose

 

[MG1962]

You see, Bosnia was already seperated from Yugoslavia at this point in time, so 'preventing further seperation' might've been a little late. The stated goal of Karadžić and his ilk was to 'purify' Bosnia of all non-Serbs then seek unification with Serbia. Milosevic had little to do with the war beyond supporting the Bosnian Serbs materially. The main crimes that got Milosevic in Hague were the Serbian war crimes in Kosovo, a few years later.

However, and I only realized this as a consequence of this thread, Milošević was indeed charged at the Hague with genocide.

 

[Ryokan]

However, and I only realized this as a consequence of this thread, Milošević was indeed charged at the Hague with genocide.

It can be debated how much responsibility of the war in Bosnia can be placed on Milosevic, but what can't be debated is that he is responsible for war crimes and genocide in Kosovo - and that was what ultimately landed him in the Hague.

 

[Dcdrac]

It can be debated how much responsibility of the war in Bosnia can be placed on Milosevic, but what can't be debated is that he is responsible for war crimes and genocide in Kosovo - and that was what ultimately landed him in the Hague.

Thats right and Assad is more than likely heading the same way unless of course the Saudis give him shleter like they did or Idi Amin, it took the the Tanazians to get rid of him.

 

[Virus]

Thats right and Assad is more than likely heading the same way unless of course the Saudis give him shleter like they did or Idi Amin, it took the the Tanazians to get rid of him.

The Saudis wouldn't piss on him.

 

[timhau]

Thats right and Assad is more than likely heading the same way unless of course the Saudis give him shleter like they did or Idi Amin, it took the the Tanazians to get rid of him.

Somehow, I doubt Assad survives the regime change.

 

[ddt]

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.

If you have proof that challenges the accepted historiography of Srebrenica, why don't you pass it on to lieutenant-colonel Thom Karremans, "the pianoplayer", the Dutch commander of the Dutchbat troops at Srebrenica, who will likely be indicted for his role? Or the NIOD, the Dutch institute of war documentation, that produced a thorough report in 2002 on what happened? Or Mr. Kok, the former Dutch PM who resigned with his whole cabinet in 2002 as a result? They'd all be happy to know they were fooled all the time. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of all research after and fall-out of Srebrenica.

As I understand the Nuremberg principles, if those 8000 were rounded up and killed specifically because they were Muslims, then yes the charge of genocide stands. If they were rounded up as part of a wider purge of local population then it is better defined as a war crime.

Yes.

We can see the distinction in Poland during WW2 - Jews were specifically targeted and their 3 million deaths are considered genocide. about 2 million Catholics were also killed, but not because they were Catholic, so their deaths are seen as war crimes.

Calling them "non-Jewish" would be better than calling them "Catholic" as for them, their faith didn't come into play - neither with the Jews, whom the Nazis understood ethnically and not religiously. However, Hitler's intentions with the non-Jewish Poles were only slightly less macabre than with the Jews. He wanted to "behead" the Polish nation, so to say. Everyone educated - priests, lawyers, teachers, etc. etc. - was targeted to be killed, so that only an uneducated workforce would remain that would serve the Nazis as, effectively, slaves. With that intent, this may very well fall within the bounds of the definition of genocide.

If you want a contrast, you can better use "simple" punishment measures like Lidice or Ouradour.