by Stephen Karganovic for Global Research
The judgment delivered by the ICTY Trial Chamber in Popović et al. on
In two areas, in fact, the Popović judgment marks noteworthy departures from previous ICTY Srebrenica cases which suggests that the Tribunal has taken some account of criticisms that have been raised of its handling of key evidence used to buttress the official Srebrenica narrative. These are the method of arriving at Srebrenica death toll figures and definition of the character of the retreating 28th Division column in terms of criminal liability for the Srebrenica massacre, including the impact of its extraordinarily high casualty rate on the overall calculation of culpable deaths. But in another, equally contested area, the evidence of the so-called „crown witness“ Dražen Erdemović, the Chamber has apparently chosen to ignore compelling criticisms of his credibility and to continue the practice of its predecesors by continuing to draw important conclusions from his questionable testimony.
First, about departures from the established pattern.
(1) The death figures. The major departure, the full significance of which will become fully apparent only with the passage of time and as the remaining Srebrenica related trials (Karadžić and Mladić) are completed, is the fundamental shift in the methodology of demonstrating the number of Srebrenica victims. It should be recalled that right up to the last Srebrenica trial (Blagojević and Jokić) the Tribunal relied on the standard forensic procedure of conducting autopsies on human remains that were found in exhumed mass graves believed to be linked to Srebrenica. Official exhumations began soon after the event, in 1996, and they continued until 2002. They were conducted by international forensic specialists under the auspices of the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor. In relation to the genocide victim figure of 8,000 that was announced at the start, and which sounded rather like a target for the forensic specialists should use to measure their field performance, the actual results of the exhumations were quite meager. By the end of the process, when prosecution forensic teams ceased operating, all they had to show for their labor were 3,568 autopsy reports (which turned out to not necessarily be as many bodies), clearly not even half of the „target“ figure.
Significantly, in the important Krstić case, the first in which an ICTY chamber made intimations of genocide with reference to Srebrenica, the court had only about 1,800 autopsy „cases“ to work with.[1] That, of course, was not an impediment to the finding of the Krstić chamber that “7,000 to 8,000” Bosnian Moslem males were executed in Srebrenica,[2] but considerable subterfuges were required to cover the striking numerical difference. One of them was simply forecasting future forensic developments. The Krstić chamber nonchalantly expressed its opinion that once the contents of an additional 18 unopened mass graves were disinterred “it is expected that the total number of bodies found and linked with Srebrenica will significantly increase as these sites are exhumed”.[3]
The source of this extraordinary conviction is not referenced, but in the footnote the Chamber quotes approvingly the Prosecution’s estimate that “the total number of bodies detected in mass graves is 4,805”.[4] Clearly, if the Prosecution’s “estimate” were validated, that figure plus the approximately 1,800 cases available to the Chamber at that time would make the claimed 7,000 to 8,000 death toll look like a credible analysis.
These speculations may well have gone unchallenged if Dr. Ljubiša Simić, a member of the Beara defence team[5], had not bothered in 2008 and 2009 to take a very close look at the prosecution’s—by then—3,568 autopsy reports, all 30,000 pages of them. What he discovered was startling. One report, or “case”, did not equal one body. In 44,4% of the “cases” it consisted of only a few bones or fragments from which no forensically significant conclusions could be drawn. In fact, in 92,4% of those the prosecution’s own forensic specialists admitted in their reports that they could not determine the cause and manner of death.
If parameters crucial to criminal liability, such as cause and manner of death, were indeterminable, how could the conclusion be reached that the victims were executed as opposed, for instance, to being killed in the course of legitimate military action? And how could such unsatisfactory evidence serve further to support a grave conclusion, such as genocide?
In contrast to the bulk of human remains offered by the prosecution in support of its Srebrenica case, and which the chamber accepted as ultimately probative of genocide, but which seemed to be devoid of any forensic significance, there were only 442 human remains in the mass graves with ligatures and/or blindfolds. This was the only category in a condition that strongly suggested execution.
Dr. Simić meticulously categorized mass grave remains by degree of completeness and pattern of injury. The picture which emerged from his investigation was most contrary to the prosecution’s case, yet it was the prosecution’s own evidence that he was dissecting. In the end, he canvassed the number of paired femur bones[6] in the autopsy reports in an effort to determine how many individuals were buried in Srebrenica mass graves, having died of all causes. He found a total of 1,919 right and 1,923 left femur bones. Thus, with a very high degree of reliability it was established that in total there were under 2,000 individuals in all the Srebrenica mass graves exhumed by the prosecution. The patterns of injury were in some cases consistent with combat death, and in others with possible execution.
Plainly, on closer examination the forensic evidence was more unhelpful than helpful to the prosecution thesis (and, by obvious extension, the very thesis that the Tribunal was hard pressed to document) that in Srebrenica there were about 8,000 execution victims. Ten years later, there is no trace of the 4,805 bodies the Krstić court gullibly agreed had been “detected” in the unexhumed Srebrenica mass graves. Body counting in the classical sense had reached an embarrassing dead end.
In the Popović case, the Chamber therefore decided to make an end run around the issue and to shift its emphasis to a new technique—DNA:
“Based on the evidence, the Trial Chamber has found that at least 5.336 identified individuals were killed in the executions following the fall of Srebrenica. However, noting that the evidence before it is not all encompassing, the Trial Chamber is satisfied that the number of identified individuals will rise. The Trial Chamber therefore considers that the number of individuals killed in the executions following the fall of Srebrenica could well be as high as 7.826.”[7]
The reference to “identified individuals” indicates the source of the Chamber’s data: the International Committee for Missing Persons (ICMP), an NGO with US ties with local headquarters in
ICMP’s penchant for secrecy in fact seems to go quite far. After Radovan Karadžić’s open court complaint that his defence was subjected to discriminatory treatment as a result of ICMP’s refusal to show their data, to everyone’s surprise it was prosecutor Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff who revealed that ICMP was no more forthcoming to the prosecution:
“The ICMP did also not provide the DNA to us. It is not that give it to us and not to others.”[10]
It strikes one as amazing that even the proponent of this evidence—in this case ICTY Prosecution—should have been denied the privilege of properly reviewing it.
While the Chamber did hear ICMP Director of forensic science Thomas Parsons’ presentation of the DNA data[11] it is not clear whether it, any more than the Prosecution, had actually seen it, and even if it had a glimpse, the record does not show that the Chamber bothered to enlist any expert help to understand it.
To summarise, acceptance and reliance[12] upon ICMP’s critically unexamined evidence seems first and foremost to be an act of faith.
Even if protestations of privacy on behalf of the survivors who donated blood samples are to be accepted at face value, now that the 5,336 identified victim figure has been enshrined in the official Judgment, it would seem simple and convenient to allay doubts by publishing the first and last names of all the 5,336 individuals involved. That should offend no one’s sensibilities as thousands of names of alleged Srebrenica victims have already been carved into a huge slab of stone at the Potočari Memorial Centre to be seen by everyone. The publication of these names of victims supposedly identified by DNA would not only be quite sensational, it would also make further forms of verification possible. No such list, however, is appended to the Judgment.
But the Chamber’s biggest problem in this segment is not its failure to name the identified individuals (identification, it should be recalled, means assigning a first and last name rather than a number to each individual.) Nor is it even its cavalier prediction that “the number of individuals killed in the executions following the fall of Srebrenica could well be as high as 7.826”, a prognosis for which there is no apparent basis and which is distressingly reminiscent of the Krstić Chamber’s failed forecast that almost 5,000 unexhumed but “detected” bodies were on the verge of being discovered. It is, rather, that the Chamber is apparently ignorant of how DNA works and of what it can and cannot do.
That ignorance is reflected in the Chamber’s finding that “at least 5,336 identified individuals were killed in the executions following the fall of Srebrenica”, which is scientifically impossible. By matching samples taken from the deceased person to biological material donated by the potential blood relative, DNA procedure can establish, with various degrees of certainty, the deceased’s probable identity. But in terms that are relevant to criminal liability it can do nothing more than that. It cannot help determine the time and manner of death. The deceased, whose first and last name as a result of successful matching may have been established, could have been killed in combat, in an accident, or could have died of natural causes. The casual suggestion made by the Chamber, that the 5,336 identified individuals “were killed in the executions following the fall of Srebrenica” is scientifically unwarranted and, as any biology student could inform the Chamber, it is absurd on its face. No one can make such a determination based on DNA data without exposing themselves to enormous ridicule.
But this is a determination which the Chamber simply had to make, because without the time and manner of death claim to go with it, the pompously announced DNA identification evidence is quite useless for conviction purposes.
It can be argued that the Chamber acted most unwisely by embracing the DNA approach without at least consulting a biology student about its usefulness before doing so. Once this segment of the Judgment is subjected to thorough critical analysis, ICTY will discover that it will get even less in terms of genuine conviction evidence than was the case with the apparently jettisoned standard forensic approach. The standard approach at least had yielded 947 potential execution victims (442 with blindfolds and ligatures, plus 505 with bullet injuries). The methodology shift to DNA is incapable of demonstrating a single death in terms of legally relevant characteristics. It seeks to impress with the aura of high tech, but like any bluff it can last only as long as it remains unchallenged or, in this case, unexamined.
(2) The 28th Division column. The status of the 12,000 to 15,000 strong mixed military/civilian mostly male column which left Srebrenica enclave on foot late on
The legal character of the column and the extent of its casualties are of the utmost importance because in an effort to reach the magic figure of 8,000 column losses are commonly conflated with execution victims. That approach is quite improper because the column’s casualties are legally legitimate and give rise to no criminal liability whatsoever. Referring to the column, Jean-Rene Ruez, chief ICTY prosecution investigator, stated that,
“A significant number [of Moslems] were killed in combat. The Zvornik Brigade of the VRS Drina Corps had organized ambushes and that is when it had the most casualties during the entire war. Many were killed while trying to make it through minefields. An unknown number probably committed suicide in fear of being tortured before being put to death. It cannot be excluded that some had shot those who may have wanted to surrender.”[15]
In fact, based on statements given by surviving column members who reached
These casualties were estimated by prosecution military expert Richard Butler, when testifying in the Popović trial, to have been 1,000 to 2,000 for the period of
The technical problem which the column presents is two-fold. First, it demands separate analysis and categorization for Srebrenica-related events which suggest legitimate combat and cannot be fitted into the Procrustean bed of genocide, as the neat and simple Srebrenica narrative requires. So, in the first place, politically and psychologically it greatly alters the simplistic picture that has been relentlessly emitted over the years. Secondly, it apparently involves casualties in the thousands that cannot easily be brought within the ambit of war crimes. Given the severe dearth of bona fide execution victims, the presence of thousands of legitimate casualties is at worst an embarrassment and, at best, an opportunity. The opportunity is to simply blend them in with execution victims, thus eliminating the problem and at the same time helpfully raising the victims’ total, even if it still remains short of the target figure of 8,000.
It seems that the Popović Chamber has opted to seize the opportunity. It admits that the column was shelled with artillery and hand grenades, presumably causing widespread casualties, and that some members of the column committed suicide. [22] But then it goes on to argue that the column was in its composition (and presumably its legal character as well, though that is never stated explicitly) indistinguishable from the women, children, and elderly Srebrenica enclave inhabitants who had gathered at the UN base in Potočari. Having practically erased the legal distinction, the Chamber then draws the natural conclusion: the column (and by implication its casualties) was part of the “widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population.”[23]
There is, of course, no subtle or refined legal analysis here, but the conclusion does serve the Chamber’s practical purpose. By erasing the legal distinction between the two groups, it also did away with the necessity for bothersome account-keeping in terms of which victim was unlawfully executed and which was a legitimate casualty. Given the severe shortage of execution victims, the Chamber’s practical solution is understandable. But it is certainly not to its credit professionally any more than the misrepresentation of what can be expected from DNA results.
(3) The Erdemović evidence. While the introduction of DNA evidence and its elevation to the status of primary analytical tool for estimating Moslem losses, and the simultaneous downgrading of the 28th Division column to virtually an extension of the civilian population, appear to be departures from the way in which these topics were being approached in previous Srebrenica trials, the Popović Chamber’s wholehearted embrace of Dražen Erdemović’s evidence can safely be filed in the “more of the same” category. In this particular case, the Tribunal was oblivious to the intense and cogent questioning of Erdemović’s credibility coming from various sources. The most prominent of them was Germinal Čivikov’s devastating critique, “Crown Witness,”[24] published initially in German, then in Serbian in the Fall of 2009, and now waiting to appear in English translation.
In fact, the Chamber’s use of Erdemović’s evidence startles with its boldness. The following example, bearing on the identification of defendant Vujadin Popović at a key crime scene, will do.
Here is how the Chamber approaches the issue of identification of one of the principal accused:
”There is no evidence before the Trial Chamber of any other Lieutenant Colonel in Pilica at this time. In light of this, the Trial Chamber is satisfied that there is no other reasonable conclusion available on the evidence but that the Lieutenant Colonel whom Erdemović saw at Branjevo Military Farm and in Pilica town on 16 July was Popović.”[25]
The way in which the Chamber handled the identification of the mysterious “lieutenant-colonel” is curious indeed. His presence in Pilica is assumed, not for some objective reason, but because it was Erdemović who said so. The picture drawn by Erdemović by hook or by crook must be rounded off with an identified lieutenant-colonel on the crime scene, and it seems to matter little who that individual might turn out to be. By happenstance, in the courtroom, in the dock, there was indeed a real life lieutenant-colonel, the defendant Vujadin Popović. The possibility that Erdemović may have invented the lieutenant-colonel as he did a number of other things in his evidence, does not disconcert the Chamber in the slightest. It goes on to render its conclusion:
“The Trial Chamber has carefully considered the fact that Erdemović was unable to identify Popović in a photo line up … However, the Trial Chamber considers that given the traumatic circumstances in which Erdemović met Popović and the significant passage of time since then, Erdemović’s failure to identify Popović in a photo line up does not raise a reasonable doubt as to the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that the man whom Erdemović saw at Pilica on 16 July was, in fact, Popović”.[26]
The impression that the Popović trial chamber is incapable of functioning without reliance on the discredited “crown witness”, Dražen Erdemović, is overwhelming. The Hague Tribunal’s toxic dependence on the evidence of the notoriously false witness Erdemović is reflected in the way the Chamber approached the issue of placing the accused VRS Lt. Colonel Vujadin Popović on the crime scene in Branjevo and Pilica. There was no other evidence but Erdemović’s that could possibly put him there. But the Chamber simply had to engineer a way to make sure Popović was there, and so it did. Otherwise, it would lack a plausible rationale for connecting him to the crime and sentencing him to life imprisonment. If it had to resort to the feeble excuse that the photo line-up crashed because Erdemović was too traumatised to give the proper response, so be it.
The Popović judgment fails as a serious act of juurisprudence on many levels. It reflects institutional arrogance and corruption in the highest degree. Since Srebrenica is the core factual and legal issue that the Tribunal has assigned to itself to deal with and „resolve“, not just in judicial but indeed in moral and historical terms, these and other features of the Popović judgment portend the techniques that the Tribunal will most likely use as it prepares to strike its farewell blows in the Karadžić and, potentially, Mladić trials.
If this is a preview, it fails to impress with the sophistication of its approach. But the Tribunal probably sees no reason to even try to be sophisticated in the fabrication of its evidence or in the formulation of its bogus legal doctrines. It apparently feels invulnerable under the protection of its mighty “hyperpower” sponsors. The issue its willing tools and enablers are not addressing is precisely for how long that protective shield can last. It is, in fact, crumbling before our eyes and they may well be called to account professionally long before they are able to settle comfortably to enjoy the ill-deserved pensions, perquisites, and sundry munificent rewards that have undoubtedly been set aside for them by their masters.
Stephen Karganovic is President of the Dutch-based NGO “Srebrenica Historical Project.”
Notes:
[1] The number stabilised at 3,568 by 2002 when further ICTY exhumations were discontinued.
[2] Prosecutor v. Krstić, trial judgment, par. 84.
[3] Prosecutor v. Krstić, trial judgment, par. 80..
[4] Prosecutor v. Krstić, trial judgment, par. 80, footnote 166.
[5] Ljubiša Beara: one of the Popović et al. co-defendants.
[6] The femur is one of the sturdiest skeletal components and therefore least likely to be degraded as a result of exposure to unfavorable external conditions.
[7] Prosecutor v. Popović et al., Judgment summary, http://www.icty.org/x/cases/popovic/tjug/en/100610summary.pdf
[8] Popović Trial Judgment, par. 638 and passim.
[9] ICMP, “ICMP makes 13,000 DNA-led identifications of missing persons from Bosnia-Herzegovina”,
[10] Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Status conference,
[11] Popović Trial Judgment, par. 639.
[12] Popović Trial Judgment, par. 624.
[13] Richard Butler, Expert report, par. 3.21,
[14] Prosecutor v. Popović, T. P.20244, lines 19-25, p. 20245, line 1.
[15] Monitor newspaper [
[16] For a sustained analysis and discussion of witness statements on column casualties, see: Stephen Karganovic and Ljubisa Simic, “Srebrenica: Deconstruction of a Virtual Genocide” (Belgrade 2010), available on the internet at: http://www.srebrenica-project.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90:any-lieutenant-colonel-will-do&catid=12:2009-01-25-02-01-02
[17] See Stephen Karganovic: “Analysis of Moslem Column Losses Due to Minefields and Combat Activity,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on ICTY and Srebrenica, p. 376-391 {Belgrade-Moscow 2010). Available on the internet at: http://www.srebrenica-project.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=21&Itemid=19
[18] In the Krstić judgment, it is conceded that the column was subjected to “heavy shooting and shelling,” par. 65.The Chamber did not dispute the conclusion, stipulated by prosecution and defence experts, that “the column qualified as a legitimate military target”, par. 163.
[19] Prosecutor v. Popović, T. P.20251, lines 6-8, and 12-14.
[20] ICTY electronic data base number R043-3424.
[21] ICTY electronic data base number R003-8723.
[22] Popović Trial Judgment, par. 381.
[23] Popović Trial Judgment, par. 782.
[24] Germinal Civikov: Crown Witness [Belgrade 2009].
[25] Popović Trial Judgment, par. 1134.
[26] Popović et al., trial judgment, par. 1135.
This Stephen Karganovic’s pseudo-scholarship has been debunked again and again….
At least there are some honest Serbs in Serbia who can look past the Serbian nationalist propaganda:
http://www.helsinki.org.rs/tjsrebrenica.html
I will never understand how one can support the Palestinian cause etc etc and yet be taken in by all this anti-Muslim Serbian propaganda. All the minutiae in this article is a smokescreen by Karganovic to hide the forest behind a fog of trees. Reminds me of the zionist smokescreens to hide what they did in 1948 and beyond… People can splice any local information ad infinitum but that does not change the global facts.
War rarely leaves any participant innocent. But what the Serbs did in that war to the Muslim community in Bosnia was beyond the pale, and is documented beyond the criteria of certainty.
Even in the anti-Imperialist camp in the West, Muslim lives are continuously trivialized…
Very Saddened
I
@ishamid: Even in the anti-Imperialist camp in the West, Muslim lives are continuously trivialized…
Two things strike me about this comment. First, it borders on the insult and constitutes what is called a “procès d’intention” in French. Second, it is exactly the kind of ad hominem arguments which is used by Zionist to dismiss arguments or opponents which they dislike: what is the difference bewtween a Zionist speaking of “anti-Semites” and a Muslim accusing a non Muslim of “trivializing Muslim lives”?
Call it “procès d’intention” or ad hominem – it is fundamentally a sophism.
Ishamid, I would like to point out to you a reply I wrote yesterday evening which you might have missed:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2010/06/poll-russias-stance-on-iran-mistake.html?showComment=1277173257325#c3050961142433431793
In it I write about something which I have observed over and over again and which saddens me:
In the Muslim word it is extremely difficult not to side with the shaheed against the kuffar
Your recent post only serve to further support this observation of mine.
Kind regards,
The Saker
===============
In the Muslim word it is extremely difficult not to side with the shaheed against the kuffar
===============
Using that statement here itself constitutes an ad hominem argument, Saker, and with respect to genuine Islamic liberation movements it is simply false. Using it wrt my comment also borders on insult.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims abhorred what happened on 9/11 — whether you buy the theory that it was an inside job is besides the point. That is a counterexample to your claim. Despite all the evil that flowed out of American Imperialism and Capitalism, very few Muslims consider the hijackers “martyrs” or shaheed. Further, I believe that any Muslim (or non-Muslim) who conspired to help make 9/11 happen should be justly tried and, if convicted, executed; pure and simple.
If you had read any of my books or other writings you would have come across my deconstruction of the whole “kuffar” canard, as used both by some tunnel-visioned, 2-dimensional Muslims and by non-Muslims as well.
For example: Turkish activities against the Armenians, while used with great propaganda effect by the West and others with a political interest, does not absolve the Ottoman Empire of its crimes, regardless of whether they were Muslim or claim to represent Islam. Indeed, the rotten Ottoman imperial regime ended as something no better than that of any of the European Empires. It does not matter whether or not they carried the “Muslim” label.
=====================
what is the difference bewtween a Zionist speaking of “anti-Semites” and a Muslim accusing a non Muslim of “trivializing Muslim lives”?
=====================
If someone genuinely hates and oppresses Jews on account of their Jewishness, it does not matter if the one who points it out is a zionist or a genuine humanist in the honorific sense of ‘humanist’. As Imam Ali said: “Look at what is said and not who has said it”.
Saker, when you look at the history of oppressed peoples over the last few years: Who has been at the receiving end of Western Imperialism more than Muslims? Whose lives have been trivialized more than those of Muslims? That is simply a statistical fact. Whether I am a Muslim pointing this out or not is irrelevant. Zionists trivialize the deaths of Palestinians and Lebanese: 1 zionist death will get more media attention than 500 non-zionist deaths. Americans trivialize the deaths and sufferings of Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis. Serbs and Russians trivialize the rape of Bosnia and Bosnians — even some of the articles you have posted mention that Serbs were protecting Europe from the Muslim “threat”.
So the difference lies in the truth or lack thereof of the statement, not in the label associated with the one who stated it.
Respectfully to you, I find all this denial of the Srebenica massacres by Karganovic and grasping at straws to disprove it to be quite offensive. Consider: Suppose only 3 million Jews died in the Holocaust. Well, whether it was 1, 3, 6, or 10 million, naziism was an evil, racist ideology that needed to be stamped out. Splitting hairs of the the minutiae of Srebrenica cannot be used to cloud the evil of what the Serbs did.
Yes, I hold that Karganovic is little different from the zionists who hold that the expulsions and massacres of 1948 were all the Palestinains fault, or that the Palestinians somehow supported Hitler and so deserved what happened to them. And yes, I hold that there is something incongruent about supporting the Palestinian cause — or the general anti-Imperialist movement — while apparently trivializing the evil perpetrated by the Serbs in Bosnia. There is nothing sophistical about stating that.
Peace
[contd]
And although it does not apply to you, Saker, I must point out that in the West the demonization of Islamic movements of liberation — No, al-Qaeda and the Taliban do _not_ count as _Islamic_ movements; there is a big distinction between “Muslim” and “Islamic” — is carried out as gleefully by so-called “anti-imperialists” as by capitalists. They will defend Chavez but demonize Ahmadinejad in nearly identical situations.
As I have said before, we need, e.g., a general sociological framework of oppressed peoples, independent of race or religion, to contextualize much of this discussion. Otherwise sophism does indeed become hard to avoid. The post-Enlightenment arrogance of Europe shows itself equally on the “left” as on the “right”: Witness the evils of Soviet communism against the Muslim peoples of the Caucuses and Central Asia, including the ethnic cleansing of entire populations from their homelands, the devastating effects of which continue to play out today in those regions. When put in the context of the effects of the slave trade in the Americas or the apartheid regime in South Africa and the blood-diamond phenomenon, many things become much more clear.
With regards
@ishamid: you and I disagree on quite a few things, the first one being that the nature, scope and quality of what happened in Srebrenica does not need to be investigated. You seem to have decided once and for all the official narrative about what happened there is the truth and that the Serbs are THE guilty party here. As it happens, I was profesionally involved in the monitoring of what happened in Srebrenica, Tuzla, Gorazde and the rest of Bosnia at that time. I had access to the shall we say “behind the scenes” info and I can tell you that your view of what happened there is very incomplete, to put it mildly. I the hopes of craking, even if just a tiny bit, your wall of certainty, let me offer the following to you. You need not turst my word on it, though. I will give you what I know, but if you research it, you will find corroborating source and facts. So here we go:
In the initial phases of the war, it was the local Muslim force in Srebrenica which burned down the Serbian villages surrounding the city and massacred or expelled all its inhabitants. Many of them fled to Serbia proper and many where killed. But some of them joined the Bosnian Serb forces the officer who became one of the commanders of the VRS which surrounded Srebrenica. The UN attempted to protect this city and declared it a “safe area”. Needless to say, it was never demilitarzied as agreed upon by all parties, but it became a safe haven for Muslim forces. NATO countries did have advance warning about the Serbian plans to take the city because of NATO telephone intercept capabilities. NATO gave NO warning to the UNPROFOR, no warning to Akashi, and no warning to the Dutch battalion tasked with the protection of the city. When the Serbian assault began, the Dutch batallion commander Ton Karremans repeatedly requested from the French and British supreme commanders in Sarajavo and Zagreb that they call in close air supprt. Generals Smith and Janvier both turned down these requests and did not even inform Boutros-Ghali or Yasushi Akashi. General Janvier personally turned down FIVE such requests. Only at noon on July 11th, was such a request passed on to Akashi who IMMEDIATELY approved it. But that was way too late, of course. Why does this matter?
Because NATO needed a pretext, a “massacre” to fully enter the war. The NATO propaganda blamed the United Nations for “idecision” in the Srebrenica debacle and then simply pushed the UN aside. Ask yourself a simple question: did the Serbs need a massacre in Srebrenica? If yes, would Mladic have shown his face in front of numerous TV cameras filming him telling the frightened civilians that they were under no threat (as he did, I suppose you have seen this footage)? Or did NATO need this to push aside the UN, enter the war, and charge Mlasic & Co. with “genocide”?
And this is just ONE example among MANY which show that what happened in Srebrenica is not fundamentally different from other such “massacres” as Timisoara, the Markale market, Racak or the Koweiti incubators affair.
I am telling you all this even though I don’t expect you to even look into it (nevermind believing me!). After all, you explained away the nightmarish horrors of the Chechens (including an open air slave market in Grozny, the crucifixion of Russian soliders, the systematic brutalization, rape and muder of Russian civlians living in Chechnia, the recording of torture movies sent to relatives to extort money) simply as a “consequence of oppression”. And don’t tell me that the word “kufar” is a canard. Ask your Chechen friends, I assume you must have some, what THEY called the Russians.
@ishamid: (continued)
Ishamid, you write well and you are clearly well-read (if rather selectively). But it is also clear to me that feel compelled to use double standards towards Muslims and non-Muslims even though you accuse others of doing exactly that (with the opposed bias, of course). But as Rablais said, “science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul”, and I am personally sick and tired of both ethnic and religious “patriotism” which is always a crime against the truth. Still, I don’t want to argue about this any futher with you. If you want to believe that Serbs are bestial monsters and Chechens are oppressed freedom fighters – be my guest. The Serbs lost, and so did the Chechens. Hopefully. we can at least agree on the need to oppose future bloodbaths.
Peace,
The Saker
@ishamid: post-scriptum
Just to make things absolutely clear: I am NOT denying that Serbs did commit atrocities during the wars in Bosnia and Croatia. Nor am I denying that a number of Muslims was killed by Serbs following the seizure of Srebrenica. I have no idea how many. What I do NOT believe is that there was a deliberate Serbian plan to committ a massacre in Srebrenica. I don’t believe that for the following three reasons:
a) that would have been clearly catastophically totally counter-productive
b) all the evidence points to the fact that most of the victims that day were retreating paramilitary units crossing the forets in the general direction of Tuzla; I am quite sure that innocent civilians were also killed on that day, but as far as I can tell these were mostly the result of spontaneous acts of revenge by Serb paramilitaries.
c) I know that NATO carefully set-up the “Srebrenica operation” as a strategic psyop to take over the war. That argument in no way lessens the Serbian responsability for the atrocities which were committed.
@ishamid: post-post-scriptum
Botton line: compared to the Chechen insurgents, the VRS was an almost irenic institution. And this has exactly nothing to do with religion as both the wars in Chechnia and Bosnia had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with several multi-national mafias of thugs who were using nationalist and religious slogans to serve their ideological and personal objectives.
Now I am done with this topic.
@vineyardsaker:
================
I am telling you all this even though I don’t expect you to even look into it (nevermind believing me!).
================
“O ye of little faith!”
:-)
================
After all, you explained away the nightmarish horrors of the Chechens … simply as a “consequence of oppression”.
================
That is a gross oversimplification of what I said.
==============
And don’t tell me that the word “kufar” is a canard. Ask your Chechen friends
==============
Umm, you ignored the last part of my statement: “as used both by some tunnel-visioned, 2-dimensional Muslims and by non-Muslims as well.” That would include your Chechen gangsters.
OTOH: the word does have a legitimate use when one is legitimately defending oneself from outside aggression. In covering the truth (kufr) of Palestinian rights, the zionists are indeed “kuffar” in the Quranic sense of that word. Muslims can be kuffar as well…
==============
did the Serbs need a massacre in Srebrenica? If yes, would Mladic have shown his face in front of numerous TV cameras filming him telling the frightened civilians that they were under no threat (as he did, I suppose you have seen this footage)?
==============
I have answered this before in some detail. Yes, I saw that. Anyway: The apparent irrationality of an act is not solid evidence for the non-committal of that act, especially in the context of this kind of war.
==============
Because NATO needed a pretext, a “massacre” to fully enter the war.
==============
Here is a fundamental disagreement. I hold that Milosovic et al. were doing Europe’s dirty work — the French “peacekeepers” all but openly supported the Serbs –, and that Nato only reluctantly intervened when it became clear that doing nothing would do more damage to the interests of the Empire than letting this thing go on, as Thatcher pointed out.
==============
compelled to use double standards towards Muslims and non-Muslims
==============
Err, did you read my comment about the Ottoman Empire and the Armenians?
===============
If you want to believe that Serbs are bestial monsters
===============
Extreme nationalism can turn anyone into a monster. And the behavior of a significant number of Serbs in that war was bestial. You talk about Chechen gangsterism: fair enough. But what of the Serbian camps for raping Bosnian women and forcing them to deliver “Chetnik” children? That is not mere “Western” propaganda.
===============
and Chechens are oppressed freedom fighters – be my guest.
===============
Again, a gross oversimplification of what I said. The plague of gangsterism in Los Angeles and Chicago is just that: a plague. But it has sociological roots in the oppressive policies of American imperialism and racism towards hispanics and blacks. Local pathologies amongst oppressed peoples often has roots in the very sociological circumstances of the oppression of those peoples. Ignoring this point often leads to demagoguery and sophism This is why South Africa is the most violent society in the world that is not at war. Russia’s brutal conquest of the South Caucasus and its settlement of Russians in the region as part of its expansionist, imperialist strategy; its expulsion of the entire Chechen population during WWII; and other crimes was bound to produce blowback. The cooptation of the Chechen struggle by Wahhabism threw oil onto the fire of the pathologies of preexisting Chechen sociology, contributing to a horrible tragedy.
==============
I don’t want to argue about this any futher with you.
==============
Fair enough :-) In general, I will avoid commenting on this topic in the future.
==============
I am personally sick and tired of both ethnic and religious “patriotism” which is always a crime against the truth.
==============
Amen to that!
“All of you: Be those who stand for God, witnesses to social justice! And do not allow hatred of a people incite you so that you do not act with justice. Be just! It is closer to awareness of God. And be aware of God! For surely God is well-informed of all that you do.” Quran 5:7
Peace
Ishamid : Whose lives have been trivialized more than those of Muslims?
It’s all about who controls the world media. There was no problem for the world in mourning with the Chechens and everybody knows how many of them have been killed or deported by the Russians. But not many heard that during the early 90s in Chechnya about 20000 of ethnic Russian civilians were killed and about 300000 deported. Sure they all just fell victims to the “consequence of oppression” which they caused by themselves but weren’t their lives trivialized.
And weren’t the lives of the Serbians killed and kicked out from their homes in Bosnia, and Kosovo trivialized since we haven’t heard much of their fates. And we all know in details about what the Serbs did to the Bosnians and the Albanians. We hear a lot about the oppression of the Uigurs in China too.
Trivializing lives of victims has nothing to do with their faith or race. It’s all about making profit. The Muslims often don’t get their share of mourning by the world because they are on the frontline /well some of them/ against the Jews. And when the Muslims get killed by the Israelis or Americans there is no point in announcing that. But if by a chance the Jews or the US did not have their own hands bloody in a argument with you then there would be a good chance that you will be heard and supported.