Serbs admit 1995 massacre of Muslims

[Dover]

Serbs admit 1995 massacre of Muslims


Saturday 12 June 2004, 0:33 Makka Time, 21:33 GMT


Bosnian Serbs have admitted for the first time that their forces killed several thousand Muslims in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre.

A report by a Bosnian Serb government commission said that it has "established that during the 10-19 July 1995 period several thousand Bosniaks (Muslims) were liquidated in a way which represents grave violations of international humanitarian law."

"The perpetrators undertook measures to cover up the crime by moving the bodies," from the place where the victims were killed to other locations, said the report.

Refusal

Bosnian Serbs had previously refused to acknowledge the extent of the Srebrenica massacre, considered the worst atrocity committed in Europe since World War II.

Some 7000 Muslim men and boys were killed when heavily armed Serb troops overran a small force of United Nations peacekeepers protecting the enclave.

"The perpetrators undertook measures to cover up the crime by moving the bodies" ....cont'd

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/269383EC-C8A6-47C9-8532-4AA9C8953399.htm

[Ediacara]

1. Ahhh but even hear on DU...

...The Milosovic apologists will continue to claim that this never happened, and that somehow the Albanese and Bosniaks tricked the world into hating those poor, innocent Serbs.....

[Kagemusha]

2. This is the second article I've seen on this..

and the second reference to "deniers".

I mean um. Can people at least wait for naysaying to occur? Grandstanding and laughing over a serious issue is at the least rude, and definitely sets a bad tone. If deniers come out, fine, flame away, but this is repetitive nasty preventive behavior. Preventive flaming doesn't become Democrats.

[Pepperbelly]

6. maybe it would not look as bad to you if ...

you had been through some of the denying.

There are few depths to which people will not sink to make a political point. That is the danger of ideologues.

[Ediacara]

16. I'm sorry maybe you misunderstood my admittedly vague point

The Yugoslav civil war was nasty, and bad things were done by both sides, but the Yugoslav-led Serbs, IMHO, take the cake for the ultimate in nasty, as has been well documented by numerous sources. Despite the well documented atrocities in Bosnia and Kosovo, some people, even some DUers, insist that it was all made up by tricky Bosnians Muslims and Kosovar Albanians to soil the good name of the Serbian people. I liken this type of denial to Holocaust deniers, who, no matter how much evidence to the contrary, deny that the Nazis did anything bad.

So again, let me apologize for assuming that deniers would show up, because, well, they tend not to be swayed by evidence.

[aquart]

3. And this is why bombing the poor Serbs made me laugh.

Really, to see them weeping and wailing when trouble struck them, murderous racist swine...

My, that's intolerant of me.

They got what they earned and they got off easy.

[makhno]

4. What's your take on the recent events in Falluja?

Would you argue that killing civilians as retribution for the criminal actions of some among them is justifiable?

[homelandpunk]

8. The Serb children who died is not on Clark's hands, but on the hands

of the medieval, religio-racist, shit for brains parents.
I get fucking disgusted by people on this forum who scream about Clark being a "babykiller", as though the babies who were being slaughtered by these repugnant Serbs was not an issue. The blood is on the Serbs and their disgusting, inhuman, medieval Milosevic followers.
I agree with you aquart. They got off easy.

[Cheswick2.0]

5. well of course this happened...this is why we went in

to Bosnia in the first place. There was mass slaughter happening.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

7. Bollocks...

There was mass slaughter happening, but that had NOTHING to do with why the US went in.

Did you know that the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo were being aided by Osama Bin Laden? In fact one of the current "guests" of Guantanamo, charged with being a member of "Al Qaeda" fought in Kosovo alongside the KLA.

Funny how the US and "Al Qaeda" were allies in 1999, but by 2001 they were arch enemies, huh?

The fact is, the US stirred up Muslim fundementalism in the Balkans the same way they stirred it up in Afghanistan and the Middle East. To act as proxy soldiers in battles against Russian supported regimes, and to act as excuses for US involvement.

Dead Muslims meant nothing to the US government then or and they mean nothing now - all that matters is the geostrategic "great game".

[treepig]

9. more . . .

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ONE309A.html

[Cheswick2.0]

10. Sorry I don't beleive you

I think we did the right thing going in and stopping genocide. I care about dead muslims.

[treepig]

13. if you care about dead muslims, did we really do the right thing?

for example, by "internationalizing" the radical islamic fundamentalists, 9-11 was surely facilitated.

in the aftermath of 9-11, 70,000 muslims have been killed in afghanistan and iraq according to high-end, but not unbelievable, civilian casualty reports to be found on the web.

so, the escalation of violence in eastern europe has resulted (albeit indirectly) in a 10-fold increase in dead muslims. at some point, i suggest the usa just butt out of fucking up other people's countries - they're not going to do worse on their own than with our constant interference!

on edit, refer to the link in post #9 if the first sentence doesn't make any sense.

[Just Me]

12. It saddens me to agree with you.

But, I believe what you say is true. "All that matters is the geostrategic 'great game'."

[Dover]

11. Has anyone here read Brzezinski's explanation of our strategic presense

in the Bosnian/Balkan region? There's MUCH more to it than the ethnic cleansing issue. The U.S. wanted to move their eastern "front" deep into Europe, and begin an American presense in EurAsia...which, not coincidentally, also follow the path of various resources like oil and pipeline routes.
I highly recommend reading his book, The Grand Chessboard, for a more complete picture of what was in the minds of U.S. foreign policy strategists.

The whole book is available online:
http://book-case.kroupnov.ru/pages/library/Grand /

And specifically this chapter on the Balkans:
http://book-case.kroupnov.ru/pages/library/Grand/part_5.htm

[Judi Lynn]

14. You're leaving some of us with a sinking feeling in the pit of stomachs...

Thanks for introducing a thought worth considering more.

There's so MUCH to learn in a hurry, for sure.

[Dover]

15. I don't think 'sinking' will be your response to this book or information.

Certainly the U.S. has self-serving economic interests there, but as I said...it's all much more complex than that. It is a "chess" game, but with MANY players. I think people would find the whole book very interesting...even if they disagree with the mindset or strategies of our leaders.

Some parts are a bit dated already.

Here is the general geostrategic premise for our presense in Eurasia, as outlined in the second chapter under Geopolitics and Geostrategy:
http://book-case.kroupnov.ru/pages/library/Grand/part_2.htm


FOR AMERICA, THE CHIEF geopolitical prize is Eurasia. For half a millennium, world affairs were dominated by Eurasian powers and peoples who fought with one another for regional domination and reached out for global power. Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia—and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.

Obviously, that condition is temporary. But its duration, and what follows it, is of critical importance not only to America's well-being but more generally to international peace. The sudden emergence of the first and only global power has created a situation in which an equally quick end to its supremacy—either because of America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival—would produce massive international instability. In effect, it would prompt global anarchy. The Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington is right in boldly asserting:

-- A world without U.S. primacy will be a world with more violence and disorder and less democracy and economic growth than a world where the United States continues to have more influence than any other country in shaping global affairs. The sustained international primacy of the United States is central to the welfare and security of Americans and to the future of freedom, democracy, open economies, and international order in the world.1
--1. Samuel P. Huntington. "Why International Primacy Matters," International Security (Spring 1993):83.

In that context, how America "manages" Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent (see map on page 32). About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources (see tables on page 33)......cont'd

[Orangeone]

17. The only country that helped...

It wasn't actually Al Quaeda; from what I remember the only country that provided significant military aid was Iran; as bad as Iran might be, at least they did something to help them fend off the Serbs. There were 'Afghan Arabs', but they were there on their own volition.

[Dover]

18. EurasiaNet is a great source for info on this region

http://www.eurasianet.org/index.shtml

[Devils Advocate NZ]

19. A final addition to this thread...

I just want to say one more thing, because I am sick of having to argue with people who believe everything they were told by the media about Yugoslavia, but deride that same media for what it tells them about Iraq.

The wars in Yugoslavia were started by the US. The US intentionally destroyed that country, and then, by encouraging local Muslim populations to attack their fellow countrymen, created a situation in which not only did tens of thousands of people die, but the US was given an excuse to invade.

Now, Yugoslavia is occupied by US troops, and the wealth of that nation is being raped by international (mainly US) corporations. Sound familiar?

It sickens me that many people can be so hypocritical. Yugoslavia and Iraq were and are EXACTLY THE SAME. An illegal war, followed by an illegal occupation, and the installation of pro-US puppet regimes.

Don't believe the LIES that the media feeds you. Find the truth for yourself. One good place to start would be Foreign Operations Appropriation Law 101-513 passed in 1990. This law was the means by which the US broke up Yugoslavia, leading to civil war.

Another direct cause of the slaughter in Bosnia was the intervention of Warren Zimmermann. The Lisbon Agreement was signed by the leaders of the three main factions, the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Croats, and the Bosnian Muslims lead by Alija Izetbegovic.

After the signing of the agreement, which had hoped to head off civil war, Zimmerman encouraged Izetbegovic to reneg on the deal and withdraw, saying that should he gain full control of Bosnia, the US would support him.

Thus, it was the Muslims, encouraged by the US, that started the civil war that lead to the massacre described.

The same thing happened in Kosovo. The KLA were supported by the US, LONG before claims of ethnic cleansing and massacres arose. The KLA at that time were carrying out a terrorist campaign intending to force Serbia to relinquish control of part of their country, so that a "Greater Albania" could be formed.

The history is all there for anyone who wishes to find it, rather than having it spun to them by the same media that gave us the Iraq war.