Srebrenica: Genocide, or just War Crimes?

[timhau]

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.

Yeah. I thought I'd give CL the benefit of the doubt and not call him out right away, but apparently, that was a stupid thing to do. Thank FSM for the ignore list.

 

[MG1962]

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.

I agree with you, I only mentioned them as Catholics to highlight that because a group share a demographic, does not automatically point to a genocide.

 

[dudalb]

Caustic Logic seems to be making a career at JREF of being a defender/Apologist for dictatorships so long as they are "Anti Imperialist" and "Anti Western".
Welcome to my ignore list CL.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Caustic Logic seems to be making a career at JREF of being a defender/Apologist for dictatorships so long as they are "Anti Imperialist" and "Anti Western".
Welcome to my ignore list CL.

Caustic Logic is Ken Livingstone/George Galloway/Gerry Healy AICMFP.

 

[Nick Terry]

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.

In Poland, Nazi crimes against Poles are considered to be genocide. The range of measures fulfills pretty much all of the criteria of the UN Declaration, and for 100% certain matches what Lemkin had in mind when he coined the term.

It's a widespread misconception that genocide has to equal total extermination. Lemkin spent more time discussing measures like forced Germanisation, the destruction of national cultures (what has since been called 'cultural genocide'), suppression of national leaderships and forced expulsions.

What the Nazis planned for the Poles after the war in the Generalplan Ost, as with what the Nazis planned for other Slavic peoples, certainly must be considered genocide.

The Russians and Belarusians also consider themselves the victims of Nazi genocide.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Caustic Logic seems to be making a career at JREF of being a defender/Apologist for dictatorships so long as they are "Anti Imperialist" and "Anti Western".
Welcome to my ignore list CL.

Those are the only ones that get attacked, it seems. The Saudis: Safe. Iran under the Shah: safe. Chile under Pinochet: safe. Libya under ... whatever that is: safe. Syria: on its way. Then Iran again. Lots of people die, so truth and justice matter greatly. It's my professional bias to take the side of questioning this stuff, especially when I'm reminded that almost 100% of the public has adopted black-and-white views with cartoonish and insane villainy alleged and always taken as fact when it justifies the war. Sometimes, we find out later what a bunch of crap it was, sometimes most of us do not find that out. Sometimes, it isn't crap.

Shouldn't there be someone to double-check? Or are we afraid of what we find and inclined to enforce the fragile silence that allows consensus? Should they/we all be ridiculed into obscurity?

Okay, point is, Dudalb if you didn't really ignore me, insults and belittling and plugging your ears might make me a little sad for humanity, but I'm used to that and it doesn't stop me. So ignore away. If I ever see you say something even worth specifically ignoring, I'll reciprocate. To the others having your fun at what you see as my weak spot (never this kind of pile on where I own the thread, I notice), hey, whatever.

You guys all know I've got a pretty good batting average here, achieved by getting very specific. Guess what happens when I don't know a subject very well? I can't argue back with anything I know, when it's said there is ample evidence of genocide by the usual definitions. We're still a little slim on specifics of what was alleged by whom and when and soon, as I prefer to have when getting into a subject. But I wasn't ready for that anyway, and defending myself is all I had time for tonight. So I'll just leave it at apparently, the Srebrenica massacre was genocidal. The vast majority have concluded so with little dissent, it's based on various evidence, and usually that means the majority is right (the Earth is round, etc.)

Thanks all who provided information to move the discussion forward. Feel free anyone to carry it on and I'll try to keep up, and/or contribute. To all the haters, thanks for the glimpse.

ETA: Can I request that haters' comments remain here even if deemed fit for AAH or whatever? They help make my point now and I'd feel slighted if any were deleted.

 

[Toontown]

Those are the only ones that get attacked, it seems...

<avalanche of verbosity snipped>

Yes, it is...suspicious...that enemies are often attacked, while allies are seldom attacked.

Suspicious enough to warrant a full investigation. We'll get to the bottom of these Western imperialist games yet

 

[Caustic Logic]

Yes, it is...suspicious...that enemies are often attacked, while allies are seldom attacked.

Suspicious enough to warrant a full investigation. We'll get to the bottom of these Western imperialist games yet

Well, I never claimed to be shocked by it. What I am a little surprised by is your tacit admission these conflicts have been waged against enemies or obstacles in a geopolitical sense. Yet they've each been branded as an interest-free humanitarian crusade to end a genocide or maybe just bring freedom and democracy. 1844 wasn't it the Saudi ruling family first came to power? And how about the lovely Bahrain with its crackdown on protesters demanding a fairer new government? How about the UAE's record on treatment of alleged grain thieves? Etc...

Do you not have a problem with this hypocrisy?

 

[Ryokan]

What the hell has this got to do with the murder of 8000 people?

 

[Caustic Logic]

What the hell has this got to do with the murder of 8000 people?

Ask Dudalb.

I've been meaning to respond to your relevant post:

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

I've heard the evidence there is most consistent with a battle or a string of them, or executions, according to a guy, in a book... so probably not, whatever. Didn't mean to say I thought it was that way. Just thought maybe it was worth considering, sorry.

As for "too late," I was thinking more of the conflict's outset, where maintaining unity was the main, obvious issue in 1992. I know a bit more about that part, things I could try to "educate" with but I'm in no mood to pick any more fights where I'm less versed in the overall body of evidence. Maybe the breakup was all inevitable, and maybe the Serb reaction started genocidal too, as some alleged regime crimes of '92 suggest. But even if not, in three years, I could see their war effort just devolved to nihilism, insane acts of genocide, etc. It's a span of time, of loss and bitterness.

Then Kosovo -not even a republic proper, was it? - rebelled against Belgrade too, and then there was a lot of similar stuff I'm also not well-read on. Apparently there was a fair amount of genocidal intent against Muslim people in this ruling elite, and it killed many thousands in at least two prolonged conflicts. The final nail of the NED-managed "Bulldozer Revolution" seems a lovely ending that yanked Serbia itself away from Milosevic and allowed a whole new page turned, relatively free of such evil (or, "freedom's just another word for... nothing left to lose"?). I know a bit about that part, too, but all the middle stuff that matters here, not so much. So I yield to those who've actually read the wikipedia articles until I have too.

 

[Her Grey Eminence]

I have no doubt 8000 Bosniaks died in Eastern Bosnia, I expect 8000 or so Bosnian Serbs died in eastern Bosnia also.

But can anyone tell me where the normal war cemeteries are in Eastern Bosnia? Everyone seems to end up in the genocide cemetery.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I have no doubt 8000 Bosniaks died in Eastern Bosnia, I expect 8000 or so Bosnian Serbs died in eastern Bosnia also.

But can anyone tell me where the normal war cemeteries are in Eastern Bosnia? Everyone seems to end up in the genocide cemetery.

Oooh, you might be asked for evidence, and I'll follow along to see if there is any. As I recall, not that I'm trying for any equivalency or to support a dictator, but wasn't there also some killing of Bosnian Serb citizens by the separatists? Again not an apology, just maybe a factor to consider, if true. Or not, I don't know.

 

[Ryokan]

Oooh, you might be asked for evidence, and I'll follow along to see if there is any. As I recall, not that I'm trying for any equivalency or to support a dictator, but wasn't there also some killing of Bosnian Serb citizens by the separatists? Again not an apology, just maybe a factor to consider, if true. Or not, I don't know.

War crimes were perpetrated by all sides in the Bosnian war. Both Croats and Bosnian Muslims have been prosecuted at the Hague.

But the vast majority of war crimes were done by the Serbs. And most of what they did, like the Srebrenica massacre and nazi-style concentration camps, where on a level unmatched by the other participants in the war.

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...l_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia

 

[Ryokan]

I have no doubt 8000 Bosniaks died in Eastern Bosnia, I expect 8000 or so Bosnian Serbs died in eastern Bosnia also.

But can anyone tell me where the normal war cemeteries are in Eastern Bosnia? Everyone seems to end up in the genocide cemetery.

If you think that the casualty numbers were equal on both sides, you really need to educate yourself on the matter. The problem the Muslim population faced was that before the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Serbs had dominated the army and therefore had much more military experience. In addition, they were supplied by Serbia, while the Muslims had no such 'benefactor'. So for the first years of the war, it was very much a civilian population vs. trained and well armed paramilitary forces.

It was only later in the war that the Muslims were supplied and trained by outside forces, mostly by the USA, and were able to fight back.

ETA: Oh, and the massacres weren't only in eastern Bosnia.

 

[timhau]

Equivocation, red herrings, JAQing... wow, I've never seen any "revisionists" use those tactics before. You see something new every day.

 

[A'isha]

not that I'm trying for any equivalency or to support a dictator

Actually, that's exactly what you're doing, on both counts.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Actually, that's exactly what you're doing, on both counts.

Oh is it? Can you explain that to me?

 

[Virus]

CL, it says on your blog that you're writing a book on this stuff. Does that mean you're writing a book about something you admit you don't know anything about?

 

[Border Reiver]

Presently I am awaiting the accusations against MGen MacKenzie while he was UN commander to surface.

 

[Toontown]

Well, I never claimed to be shocked by it. What I am a little surprised by is your tacit admission these conflicts have been waged against enemies or obstacles in a geopolitical sense. Yet they've each been branded as an interest-free humanitarian crusade to end a genocide or maybe just bring freedom and democracy. 1844 wasn't it the Saudi ruling family first came to power? And how about the lovely Bahrain with its crackdown on protesters demanding a fairer new government? How about the UAE's record on treatment of alleged grain thieves? Etc...

Do you not have a problem with this hypocrisy?

Yes, I have a problem with your hypocrisy.

How is an interest in bringing about a more civilized world by curbing genocide and promoting democracy supposed to be "interest free" in a geopolitical sense?