Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic Arrested

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

 

Good, I personally had to deal with this assholes guys...

Can you tell us about it?

Well, he did say "In Europe".. I do think it's hard to find a worse specific incident, although I'm sure we could find some pretty bad ones in communist Romania or various dictatorships which have come and gone.

Unionist wrote:

[...]  those attacks were designed to save U.S. and Japanese soldiers and civilians from the far greater horrors of a land invasion. Pardon my forgetfulness. Whereas Mladic and Karadzic, well, that was totally different.

 

Um yes, it does seem totally different.

You're just waiting for Armageddon aren't you, Snert?

There is no doubt that NATO was right to destabilize the federation of Yugoslavia and inflame centuries old hatreds that most people had largely thought to be a restricted to small minorities in each communities.  The people of Yugoslavia are so much better off now that they are in tiny enclaves run by people with distrust of their neighbours. 

The Sarajevo Olympics showed the face of a multicultural society proud of its shared heritages.  Within a few short years that was systematically and deliberately undermined to the determent of the people of the region.  Its great to lock up this brutal murderer but the puppet masters are still at large.

The hypocrisy of NATO and Western countries pointing the finger and 'crying wolf' over war crimes and human rights violations never fails to amaze me.

What about our criminal wars/warcrimes/crimes against humanity against Afghanstan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and Libya?

And no, the U.S./NATO/ISAF countries DO NOT have a U.N. mandate that expressly permits them to occupy and wage war on Afghanistan.

The current bombing of military personnel, weapons and so-called "Command and Control" infrastructure, regime change and militarily assisting the rebels in Libya is a violation of UNSCR 1973.

In case anyone wants to argue the U.N. mandate - therefore these wars are 'legal' (they're not) canard.

Of course it's a good thing that Mladic is apprehended and will stand trial for horrendous crimes.

My difficulty is with the ability of the media, and of some progressive people, to "separate" things.

We're very good at recognizing and punishing crimes of the past, while we (I do mean we) murder people today in Libya and Afghanistan.

I can't join with the champions of those ongoing war crimes and crimes against humanity - the Obamas, Harpers, Camerons - in patting ourselves on the back for catching one of the monsters who isn't on our side.

I'm glad when someone goes on trial for this stuff - even though there are many more who ideally ought to as well.

Quote:

But why isn't Western mainstream media shreiking for Bill Clinton...

It just wouldn't do to have the Court Stenographers challenge their patrons.

Frmrsldr wrote:

Tommy_Paine wrote:

All that is true.  But because someone else got away with something, or because someone else was worse is never a mitigation.  If we allowed that reasoning, we'd never bring anyone to justice for anything. 

It's a good thing Mladic will stand trial.

All what you say is true.
But why isn't Western mainstream media shrieking for Bill Clinton (who authorized the U.S. bombing campaign of Bosnia and Serbia and sent ground forces into Kosovo), George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Stephen Harper, former General Rick Hillier and others, to be similarly brought to trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity?

The West is only interested in prosecuting Serb war crimes for reasons of political expediency and East-West turf war dating back to imperialism and WW II results in the former Yugoslavia. It's hypocrisy for the West to have propped-up an al-Qaeda-friendly narco regime in Kosovo. The Clinton regime created a militant Islamic base in Bosnia in the late 1990s.

Then: 

[url= http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/PAS111A.html]U.S. Protects Al-Qaeda Terrorists in Kosovo[/url]

and today:

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/839... of Libya: the West and al-Qaeda on the same side[/url]

Now, some people might write this off to wild coincidence, but then again those people tend to view everything and anything that is anti-USA or anti-British as conspiracy theory. If it is a conspiracy, then it dates back 30 years to the beginning of US meddling in Central Asia and, even earlier, to US meddling in Asia in general beginning with the Vietnam conflict.

Probably the best we can hope for is that they burn in hell for eternity, but that is an irrational hope.

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=24050]Kosovo's Mafia: How the US and Allies Ignore Organized Crime[/url]

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=22619][color=blu... Freedom Fighters Financed by Organized Crime[/color][/url]

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8533]War Crimes and the Recognition of Kosovo: Observations on the current political leadership in Kosovo[/url] by Major General (ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie

Frmrsldr wrote:

Yeah, no kidding.

Freedom of the press ended a few wars ago - back in Iraq/Gulf War I (1990-1991.)

When it comes to reporting on issues of war and peace involving America, freedom of the press ended when the merchant class of the 13 colonies incited the mobs to burn down every Loyalist press in the colonies and murder many of the publishers and their families.  The US press has always had a mean streak of, "kill them all they are evil we are good."  Think Hearst for a different era. 

As Noam Chomsky outlined in his book "Hegemony or Survival", the atrocities in that war were precipitated by American blanket bombing.

Adhering to International Law, all tyrants and mass murderers must be brought to trial (except Osama bin Laden, of course). People who have raised their ire in this discussion are, if I may hazard a guess, simply decrying the lack of universality in the application of these standards.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Yeah, no kidding.

Freedom of the press ended a few wars ago - back in Iraq/Gulf War I (1990-1991.)

When it comes to reporting on issues of war and peace involving America, freedom of the press ended when the merchant class of the 13 colonies incited the mobs to burn down every Loyalist press in the colonies and murder many of the publishers and their families.  The US press has always had a mean streak of, "kill them all they are evil we are good."  Think Hearst for a different era. 

 

Hahaha

I thought we were done with that one. maybe it's time to get a "revolutionary war" room and leave this thread to cover this century and the last.

('scuse the joke. It's just funny to see that other topic come back so quickly)

I missed the joke. Since you seem to be laughing at me could you please explain it?  What other topic are you talking about?  Do you have links so I can follow along with your little joke at my expense.

When people refer to history and truncate it to the period of the last two decades I always think it better to remind them of the long term historical trends.  I believe that the lessons of history is not how we understand last years events but how we understand the integrated history of a society. American settler history started with the Puritans and much of the militaristic holier than thou attitude of US foreign policy has not changed in centuries.  I think that failing to look at all the history leads to an incomplete analysis and a repetition of the same mistakes.  The people who drafted the constitution knew many of the pitfalls from their colonial history.  There are good historic reasons for them trying to keep the war powers out of any individuals hands.  

As for the free press I for one am of the opinion it has always been bought and paid for and there are few examples of actual unbiased papers in North American history.  To me saying this started in this millennium leaves a big gap in proper historic insight.  I love both history and politics and always try to integrate them into my viewpoints. 

If we played name the political bias I'll bet most people who read them could guess who the Toronto Star. the Globe and Mail, the National Post, Le Devoir etc support in politics.  There is IMO the same inherent bias in our TV news bodies also. 

So I guess what I am trying to say is that I think history is very relevant to most discussions of current affairs and I will not stop throwing in historic tidbits to broaden the scope of debate.  if you find those tidbits irrelevant then please ignore them.  And if you think they are relevant then feel free to comment and/or poke fun.  Your response was a little too obtuse for me this morning. 

notaradical wrote:

As Noam Chomsky outlined in his book "Hegemony or Survival", the atrocities in that war were precipitated by American blanket bombing.

Adhering to International Law, all tyrants and mass murderers must be brought to trial (except Osama bin Laden, of course). People who have raised their ire in this discussion are, if I may hazard a guess, simply decrying the lack of universality in the application of these standards.

Chomsky didn't say that, he's far too careful a historian to blame events in Bosnia in the early 1990s on bombing that took place in the late 1990s. 

As to the Lewis Mackenzie link, it's interesting. He is quoted saying: 

Quote:

It's a distasteful point, but it has to be said that, if you're committing genocide, you don't let the women go since they are key to perpetuating the very group you are trying to eliminate. Many of the men and boys were executed and buried in mass graves

This is, sadly, a typical general's assumption that war is about all men. But of course it's not. Research by human rights groups, for instance, has found that 70% of those killed in Bosnia up to 1992 were women, and 75% of those in detention camps at that time were women. 

As to Srebenica itself: were the women "allowed" to go? Survivors - whose voices should be listened to with some respect, a bedrock principle - have reported being raped. Was this being "let go"? Really, no. That sort of claim is screaming for some decent feminist analysis. 

As, of course, is much of the debate over Mladic and war crimes.

Personally, I'd say the ICTY should be give some credit for finally getting it accepted into customary international law that rape is, indeed, a war crime. 

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre#Rapes_and_Abuse_of_Civi... you like wikipedia[/url]

[url=http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2008/08/can-genocide-be-committe... blogpost analyzing the "women were let go" claim[/url]

Lachine Scot wrote:

Let's not mix up the Kosovo and Bosnian wars AGAIN, guys.. 2 different wars, 2 different chain of events.

Yup. Total mistake on my part. Thanks for pointing it out.

notaradical wrote:

As Noam Chomsky outlined in his book "Hegemony or Survival", the atrocities in that war were precipitated by American blanket bombing.

Chomsky co-authored Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media with Edward S. Herman, also a co-author of the essay below:

The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics

by Edward S. Herman and Phillip Corwin

Quote:

Foreword by Phillip Corwin (excerpt)

On July 11, 1995, the town of Srebrenica fell to the Bosnian Serb army. At the time, I was the highest ranking United Nations civilian official in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In my book, Dubious Mandate,1 I made some comments on that tragedy. Beyond that, I decried the distortions of the international press in their reporting, not only on that event, but on the wars in Yugoslavia (1992-95) in general. I expressed the wish that there could have been, and must be, some balance in telling the story of what actually happened in Srebrenica and in all of former Yugoslavia, if we are to learn from our experience.

This book by the Srebrenica Research Group, The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics, answers that call. It presents an alternative and well-documented assessment of the tragedy of Srebrenica, and of the suffering of all the constituent peoples of former Yugoslavia. It is an invaluable document.

Of course, there will be those who will disagree with the authors' perspective. But if we are to open a discussion that has been closed to all but the faithful, if we are to prevent similar tragedies from occurring again, then we must take seriously the accounts put forward by the bright and discerning contributors to this book. No honest reader can doubt the credentials of these authors. And no honest reader should doubt the importance of what they have to say. I congratulate them on their scholarship and their courage.

Since Herman repeats the line that Bosnian women were all "bused to safety," I've never personally put much credence in any of that notorious and controversial article. Offered without comment, what are we to take from the link? I'd simply repeat: more feminist analysis needed.

Yes, the massacre was highly convenient for NATO. (On the other hand, the "claims" are from Amnesty International and many others who Herman accuses of lying, not manufactured by NATO or the ICTY.) Does this make it an act of "benign terror" or "constructive terror," to use the language of Chomsky and Herman's "The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism"? 

Znet also ran some replies to Herman's famous attack, but they are no longer available as links from his article. They can be accessed from http://www.glypx.com/BalkanWitness/Srebrenica-debate.htm for anyone wanting to grapple with the debate through more than simply accepting Herman's famed 2005 piece based on the fact that it is "convenient" to a certain strand of the antiwar movement (the strand that some of the linked critics, including others in different strands of the antiwar movement, accuse of being simple genocide-deniers). This features links to responses published on znet by Z magazine contributors.

One excerpt only from the replies, becuase it's from one of the people whose own experience is sweepingly denied by the Herman article:

Quote:

I can almost feel the breath of your hate on my skin, and I reminded myself of my obligation to tell the truth as a firsthand witness.  I owe that to those who are not among us anymore because I was there.  There are no facts that will change what you're saying publicly.  In addition, there's nothing that I can say to you that will not be returned against me: I must be biased because I'm one of the victims.

http://www.zcommunications.org/re-the-politics-of-the-srebrenica-massacr...

I'm not sure what to make of Fidel's link - it's already been established in this thread that Chomsky did not blame NATO bombing of Kosovo for events that took place year earlier. Is co-authoring with someone who has co-authored with Chomsky supposed to confer extra credibility? In any case, the appeal to Chomsky-as-Authority isn't relevant in terms of what we've had on tis thread so far. Perhaps I've missed a connection?

Quote:

It didn't take long for the Bosnian Muslims to realize that the UN was in no position to live up to its promise to "protect" Srebrenica. With some help from outsiders, they began to infiltrate thousands of fighters and weapons into the safe haven. As the Bosnian Muslim fighters became better equipped and trained, they started to venture outside Srebrenica, burning Serb villages and killing their occupants before quickly withdrawing to the security provided by the UN's safe haven. These attacks reached a crescendo in 1994 and carried on into early 1995 after the Canadian infantry company that had been there for a year was replaced by a larger Dutch contingent.

The Bosnian Serbs might have had the heaviest weapons, but the Bosnian Muslims matched them in infantry skills that were much in demand in the rugged terrain around Srebrenica. As the snow cleared in the spring of 1995, it became obvious to Nasar Oric, the man who led the Bosnian Muslim fighters, that the Bosnian Serb army was going to attack Srebrenica to stop him from attacking Serb villages. So he and a large number of his fighters slipped out of town. Srebrenica was left undefended with the strategic thought that, if the Serbs attacked an undefended town, surely that would cause NATO and the UN to agree that NATO air strikes against the Serbs were justified. And so the Bosnian Serb army strolled into Srebrenica without opposition.

What happened next is only debatable in scale. The Bosnian Muslim men and older boys were singled out and the elderly, women and children were moved out or pushed in the direction of Tuzla and safety. It's a distasteful point, but it has to be said that, if you're committing genocide, you don't let the women go since they are key to perpetuating the very group you are trying to eliminate. Many of the men and boys were executed and buried in mass graves.

Evidence given at The Hague war crimes tribunal casts serious doubt on the figure of "up to" 8,000 Bosnian Muslims massacred. That figure includes "up to" 5,000 who have been classified as missing. More than 2,000 bodies have been recovered in and around Srebrenica, and they include victims of the three years of intense fighting in the area. The math just doesn't support the scale of 8,000 killed.

[url=http://www.srebrenica-project.com/hol/index.php?option=com_content&view=... Lewis MacKenzie, Globe and Mail, July 14, 2005[/url]

Rape often occurs in war, it's true. It's often a part of war propaganda as well. Were there no Serb women raped and murdered? It's funny in a strange kind of way to suggest that only a specific ethnic group does these things. But then again, these show trials targeting Serbs only are designed for political expedience more than anything.

And to suggest that there can be no whistleblowers within NATO is equally absurd. What some people apparently will not tolerate,  besides certain ethnic groups, is fair and balanced reporting. One-sided reporting tends to tell one side of any particular story, and that's a sign that full-duplex conversation is probably not happening.

Ah. Well, Herman's reports, methodology and accuracy (and motives) are criticized in links above. Not much point repeating. I read Herman's piece back in 2005 and have read many of the responses to it then and since. Quite a few survivors feel their lived experiece is denied by argumentation along his lines. Doesn't mean Serb women were not rape, murdered, and otherwise violated; I have no doubt that many were. We need to stop accepting rape in war as "normal." The singular invaluable contribution of the ICTY was to lift the veil of silence and normality from rape during war. 

But I think we're really aiming at different points, M. You're talking about the construction of a Srebenica trope. I'm coming from a Cynthia Enloe-esque perspective that tries to see the women who are erased in the telling of wars. I'm not making anything up about the claims about women survivors' experiences being denied - it's there in the quotes, at least in my reading of them. The "women were bused to safety" line is very much a construct too. 

swallow wrote:

We need to stop accepting rape in war as "normal."

War is not normal.