Talk:Bosnian War/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Maps of Ethnic Distribution
Why the old map was deceiving and why the new map is better
The new maps added to the site are better, because they provide a clearer picture of the ethnic distribution per area, ratehr than per Municipality only. For example, in the old map, which I have reverted to the gallery at the bottom of the page, and this map is used by the OHR (and is on their website, which may create an impression of impartiality), even the slightest majority of a certain population made such municipality, which may actually be heavily mixed, as belonging to a specific ethnic group.
Look at the Municipality of Doboj. It appears from the map that it was a Bosniak municipality before the war. This is the ethnic composition of it in 1991: 41,241 Bosniaks (40.2%), 40,020 Serbs (39%), 13,283 Croats (13%), 5,637 Yugoslavs (5.5%) and 2,338 others (2.3%). So here, both Bosniaks and Serbs are up to 50% (and one should not fail to take into account the Yugoslavs, which can be either).
Furthermore, this area was actually fairly monolitic ethnically (with the town being heavily mixed, but, roughly, the east of the Municipality being mainly Bosniak and the west Serb), so the new map is wonderful at depicting this. --Ogidog 17:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Dado's and Bosniaco's reverts and additions
Threre is something called listing of facts, and conclusions and there are contentions & weasel-approach. There are some facts & events in the Bosnian war that serve against Bosniaks which attempt to prove that they're innocent victims of the conflict, and that task is difficult to achieve. Sorry. Because it was a bloody war, please stick to the list of facts, not to "most sources" etc. That's ridiculous.
Most of the Bosniaks are innocent victims of the conflict as are many Serbs and Croats. It is a fact. Why do you want to hide that. --Dado 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's not the point! The point is that the Bosniak side wants to show that there were only innocent Bosnaks killed while minimizing everything they'd done during the war. This also includes the lack of political responsibility of the political leadership of the unarmed ethnic group that led its people to war against a more powerful enemy. This is a very important thesis, and the SDA propaganda tends to set it aside by victimization of the non-victimizable. Do read some work by Prof. Muhamed Filipovic, who openly blames late Alija Izetbegovic for siding with the Croats.
- How can indiscriminate killing of innocent Bosniaks (or anyone for that matter) be justified by stating that they were guilty of certain crimes. It is not even a logical thought. If they were innocent why were they killed. Your criticism of Bosniak political leadership as somehow being guilty for Serbs killing of Bosniak civilian population borders sheer stupidity. Criticizing politicians for various mistakes may be credible but criticizing them for trying to organize a defense against an enemy that is bound to distroy them without any hesitation is beyond absurd.--Dado 00:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Did you at all read what I wrote? Nobody says anything about crimes against Bosniaks. That's an established fact. To understand better what I tried to explain to you, please read the post above again, and then read what Prof. Filipovic had to say. This part about "enemy that is bound to dEstroy them" is the problem. You don't know this. Neither do I. Even in the Prosecutor vs. Krstic judgment, it is not said explicitly that Gen. Krstic committed genocide. And I have given you the examples of the massacres of Serbs BEFORE the persecution of Bosniaks from RS towns. I'm not saying here that Serbs didn't do what they did. But in all fairness, it's crucial to mention EVERYTHING that happened. .
"Još 1989. sam sazvao konferenciju uglednih muslimana u Zagrebu u džamiji i tada sam najavio da će komunizam pasti i da će se Jugoslavija raspasti. Moj koncept je bio formiranje jedne bosanske demokratske i jedne socijaldemokratske stranke, a sprečavanje razvoja srpske i hrvatskih nacionalnih stranaka, jer sam cijenio da će oni biti filijale stranih politika. Tada je Izetbegović odbio taj koncept i najavio formiranje drugačije stranke, a ja sam rekao da ću formirati Forum za zaštitu muslimana, jer će muslimani platiti glavom. Tada smo se razišli. Sve sam tada pogodio." Nezavisne, March 4, 2006
"Referendum je bio iznuđen. Sa stanovišta političke taktike nezavisnost Bosne je morala doći ranije, prije nego što su Srbi postali svjesni da se Jugoslavija raspada i prije nego što su oni odlučili da čuvaju Bosnu. Smatrao sam da je Jugoslavija jedan nedorečen, vrlo problematičan projekat, ali ipak projekat koji ima budućnost, kao i da mi Bosanci imamo veliki interes da ostanemo u Jugoslaviji. Drugo rešenje je nosilo opasnost sukoba, a za nas, posebno Muslimane, bilo je apsolutno prioritetno da izbjegnemo taj sukob jer smo bili uklješteni između daleko jače Srbije i Hrvatske. Kada su počele silne trupe da pristižu u Bosnu, kada se SDS ogranizirala i naoružala, tada je nezavisnost postala avanturizam." Feb 13, 2003, Nin
"Srijeda, 12. oktobar/listopad 2005 mirsaddrincic@hotmail.com Mene,gospodine Filipoviću zanima jedna stvar.Da li ste vi i danas uvjereni da je bila dobra inicijativa Vas i Adila da Bosna ostane u velikoj srbiji(ovo namjerno malim slovima)?Zar ne bi danas bili još jedan spski Sandžak?
Da, uvjeren sam da je sve bilo bolje nego rat i toliko stradanje našeg naroda, a pogotovo cijepanje BiH i nestanak bilo kakve naše samostalnosti i suverenosti (ko vlada danas u zemlji). Prvo, nije se radilo o Velikoj Srbiji, nego o Jugoslaviji, a to je različito. Drugo, svaki ugovor bi imao dvije strane i dva interesa, koji su trebali biti usklađeni u tome da BiH ostane suverena zemlja i da bude sasvim jednaka Srbiji i Crnoj Gori. I treće, taj ugovor bi bio verificiran i potvrđen od Europske unije i u OUN-a, što je nama davalo garanciju da ga u svakom slučaju možemo raskinuti ako ne bude poštovan i da oni koji ugovor garantiraju moraju da nas zaštite ukoliko bi se dogodilo da on ne bude poštovan. Nisam ja iluzionist, ni naivac. Nisam ja vjerovao Miloševiću, ali sam vjerovao da jedan odgovarajući ugovor, koji bi bio međunarodno verificiran, baš kao i ovaj Alijin koji je doveo do podjele Bosne, može biti valjan i tome sam vjerovao. Nikada se i ne sačinjavaju ugovori između dviju strana koje potpuno vjeruju jedna drugoj. A šta smo mi dobili zauzvrat, odnosno bez ugovora o mirnom rješenju naših problema i sporova? Niti imamo državu, niti je ona jedinstvena, niti smo bilo kakav faktor u njoj, a izgubili smo 200.000 života, izgubli tri četvrtine teritorije i 500.000 ljudi koji su ostali u emigraciji. Ne bi niko trebao da bude toliko zaslijepljen retorikom o Velikoj Srbiji i Miloševiću, ili o nekoj Alijinoj slobodnoj i cjelovitoj Bosni, suočen sa ovim činjenicama. Ja sam siguran da je mir, pa makar nešto i pretpjeli, bio bolji od rata, u kojem smo gotovo sve izgubili. Sve su to jadne demagoške priče, a realnost je ova koju imamo. Sada Crna Gora ide u nevisnost i nije za nju morala ratovati. Kosovo ide ka neovisnosti s malim ratom, za kojeg se prethodno dobro pripremilo. A mi smo uvedeni u teški rat i stradanje, nepripremljeni i naprečac. Jedini razlog je nesposobnost naših vođa." Danas.org (Slobodna Europa)
"Utorak, 11. oktobar/listopad 2005 munir edvin.kuc@.vanadu Gospodine Filipovicu.Da li bi stvarno verovali Milosevicu za istorjiski sporazum izmedu srba i bosnjaka? I sta mislite, da nije bilo rahmetli Alije, da li bi danas postojali Bosnjaci. Hvala za komentar.
Nije bitno da li bi vjerovao Miloševiću, nego kakav sporazum bi napravio. Da smo potpisali i međunarodno verificirali sporazum, dobivši za njegovo provođenje garancije Europe i OUN-a, mi bi bili sigurni i izbjegli bi rat i stradanje miliona muslimana. Zar i Daytonski sporazum nije potpisan sa Miloševićem i to u mnogo težoj i po nas pogubnijoj situaciji, pa kome je to zasmetalo? Alijina politika je dovela do gubitka tri četvrtine zemlje i više od pola miliona muslimana (što ubijenih što raseljenih po cijelom svijetu), pa kako je onda moguće reći: da nije bilo Alije, ne bi bilo muslimana. To je jedna velika samoobmana. Moglo bi se prije kazati: da nije bilo Alije, bilo bi može biti danas više muslimana živih i slobodnih ljudi, na svojoj zemlji i u svojim kućama, sa svojim poslom i egzistencijom." idem.
"Utorak, 11. oktobar/listopad 2005 MijatLjubi@AOL.com Sta mislite,koja je strana najlicemjernija(jedno misli,drugo prica,trece radi) u BiH? Dali bi bilo rata(onako krvavog)da je Alija potpisao"Kutiljerov"plan? Jasna-USA
Sve su jednako licemjerne, jer sve imaju samo jednu ideju, a to je da se održe na vlasti pod svaku cijenu. Ne bi bilo rata da je potpisan Cotilijerov plan." idem.
Strategic Objectives of the Republika Srpska
The BBC documentary is accompanied by and based largely off the book The Death of Yugoslavia (1996) by Laura Silber (of the Financial Times) and Allen Little (of the BBC). It was for the book that many of the interviews in the series were conducted. It is one of the most comprehensive and detailed single references on the wars in Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia, and also one of the most acclaimed. Coulter 01:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
What is this about? The sole source is the BBC documentary. A BBC documentary is not a scientific source, it's TV entertainment. Please be reasonable. These objectives are bogus and have little to do with how the war went (RS on the sea????). All of these might have been the desires of Radovan Karadzic and his clique, but are not suffucient to be given a heading as a buildup to the war. Especially listing them as "ethnic cleasning". That's just silly.
The 6 strategic objectives were also used in many court cases at the ICTY and in ICJ. BBC documentary is used here as a source only because it is most easiest to digests. Attacking the massenger (BBC, which by the way has far more credibility than some local newspaper) in no way justifies hiding facts about the events that took place without any reasonable doubt. --Dado 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- They were used IN these courts. Did you ever watch a court drama. People use ANYTHING IN court. The prosecution uses everything that might harm the defendant -- that's normal, but it doesn't mean that it's a fact. It's a contention. I hold no doubts that there were these strategic objectives. But the contentions you (or BBC) make out of these facts is the problem in a topic this sensitive. Furthermore, BBC is the corporation of a country that has been in war with the Serbs two times in 1990s. Furthermore, it's not a scientific source, nor are you listing some witness-type statement that might have been recorded by the BBC. This is why this source is blah! This is also why the IDC in Sarajevo is a good source, because you can go on their website and see what their method is. It's scientific research with international funding. A BBC documentary (edited piece of television programming) would hardly be admissible in court, let alone taken into account by the jury!
If anything is admissible in the court than the court would be a big farce. Even prosecution knows better to use only those facts and findings that build the credibility in their case. I say if the documentary and testimonials that were shown in the documentary are admissible in the court so they are on Wikipedia.--Dado 18:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- You don't know law obviously. MANY things, even some quite ridiculous, have and will be used in courts. The prosecution tries, and the defense is there to refute it. You have to see the text of a judgment to see what was taken into account (the judicial council would list it). This is why the admissibility of evidence is not fact. Admissible only means that it may be presented before the court, but it doesn't have to be true or credible. It often isn't (did you ever hear about false evidence?). Furthermore, a BBC documentary is problematic because it comes from a side that has sided against the Serbs, for example. So, they have an interest to demonize their enemy and legitimize their struggle. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp.
Here is the problem:
Seceded Bosnian Serb government had declared 6 strategic objectives of the Serbian people of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992 and began implementing the objectives in the late March 1992. This included primarily taking over by force strategic towns along Drina river valley including Bijeljina, Zvornik, Visegrad and Foca.
- OK, connecting RS with Serbia is far from some type of strategy that is not reasonable. It's far from important as general info, and ought to be in the 1992 section. Don't forget that during these days, 12 babies died in Banja Luka due to the lack of oxygen. The 13th baby, the sole survivor of that criminal "strategic aim" died just recently in Banja Luka, after the tumors bursted in her lungs as a result of the lack of oxygen from when she was a baby. This is why this "aim" makes no sense as general information.
I just added 3 examples of what was a doctrine by the RS government. We can throw names of towns in each other face 'til Timbuktu but it is clear that RS government had a policy of ethnic separation while Bosnian government did not. RS government had means to conduct this separation with the help of JNA while Bosnian government did not even had a standing army at the time of the Serb offensive. As for the 12 babies of Banja Luka, check your facts. That did not happen until later in the war, at the same time when kids were being sniped down on the streets of Sarajevo. Banjaluka's airport was opened well through the first half of 1992. In march in Banja Luka my Serb "friends" were boasting each day to me how they cleansed Visegrad and Zvornik (I suppose I was to take that as a sign of something).
But still I am sorry for 12 babies in Banja Luka and the reason why I wrote an elaboration on the victims of the war (that you deleted) is exactly this, that many indirect deaths of the war are counted in the total number by some statistics.
I am still waiting for a good faith effort on your end to suggest an alternative if you still think my edits are biased.--Dado 18:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The offensive began with the help of Yugoslav People's Army and special police forces and volonteers from Serbia.
- The JNA left the weapons. The help of the volUnteers (you should think about spell-checking your writing) is listed in the following paragraphs, so there's no need to list it in front -- unless you really want to repeat the same things twice.
Early in the offensive there were reports that many civilians, particulary Bosniaks were being systematically killed or expelled from these towns.
- What about the Serbs of Zenica, Zavidovici, Konjic, Bugojno, Bihac, etc. who were fleeing in great numbers to the RS. This all happened early in the beginning of the war, so "particularly Bosniaks" doesn't stand. That's why it's better to have a whole heading called ethnic cleansing and the movement of population, and list what happened. Then, as to war crimes, the massacre of Serbs in Sijekovac, a village in Bosanski Brod, by the regular Croatian Army was also not documented, and it occured on March 26, 1992, before the recognition of Bosnia and Herz. as independent. Several dozens of people were murdered, and all of the houses were burned down.
The doctrine was quickly identified as ethnic cleansing. [7].
- What doctrine? Serbs were expelling Bosniaks, no doubt, but Serb refugees (from the Muslim parts of B&H) were flooding the RS in 1992 even if the Serbs held 70 per cent of the territory. Why is that not ethnic cleansing?
Since you're so careful to add everything Serbophobic possible, what about the article by Slobodna Bosna about the murders of Serbs in Sarajevo? I know this source is not very reliable, but it sure is better that the BBC documentary (for a number of reasons!).
- What about it? Live Forever 01:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- What about what? There is a new article in "Slobodna Bosna", a Bosniak weekly from Sarajevo, where pictures are shown of murdered Serbs in Sarajevo during the war.
I have read (too) many things since the end of the war from both sides. Couple of articles that you pasted here will not make much difference. I will admit that I am tired to read it and tired to search for an alternate source for a paragraph that you are disputing. Let's take a look at it again:
Seceded Bosnian Serb government had declared 6 strategic objectives of the Serbian people of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992 and began implementing the objectives in the late March 1992. This included primarily taking over by force strategic towns along Drina river valley including Bijeljina, Zvornik, Višegrad and Foca. The offensive began with the help of Yugoslav People's Army and special police forces and volonteers from Serbia. Early in the offensive there were reports that many civilians, particulary Bosniaks were being systematically killed or expelled from these towns. The doctrine was quickly identified as ethnic cleansing. [1].
- We have established that 6 objectives did exist.
- One of the objectives was to take control of Drina valley and eliminate Drina as a border between Serbia and BiH.
- The offensive that began in March 1992 began in Drina valley with Bijeljina, Zvornik, Visegrad and Foca
- Serbian volunteers did take part of this offensive specifically Arkan's Tigers.
- JNA did take place in this offensive and in one instance in Zvornik the town was shelled by JNA from the Serbian side of the border.
- Ethnic cleansing did take place. For instance in Zvornik before the war there wer 48000 Bosniaks living there. After the offensive there were none left.
- BBC documentary is perhaps the only surviving document that actually interviews all sides of the conflict including: Milosevic, Izetbegovic, Tudjman, Seselj, Owen etc.
What specifically do you find objectionable in this paragraph that you have such urge to completely remove it.
- The way you say: this was stated by "many sources" as ethnic cleansing. Ethinic cleasning began in Croatia. Serbs expelled Croats from the formers RSK, Croats expelled Serbs from everywhere else mostly (leaving about 10 per cent). Then in the Bosnian war, people were fleeing from all sides in the early beginnings of the war. Bosniaks were expelled from most "critical" areas in brutal and criminal ways, there is no doubt about that.
- The thing is, you tend to stick labels onto Serbs, while avoid doing that about Bosniaks (in terms of sides in the war, of course). I suggest you don't do either. Go ahead and talk about the strategic objectives in the part about the forming of the RS -- then it makes sense. I also suggest a special heading, above or below the victims one, where we can talk about the expulsions and ethnic cleansing. The deal is, when you talk about ethnic cleansing, you cannot miss talking about what all the sides did. There are Serbs left in Tuzla and Sarajevo, but that by no means shadows the lack of them in other Bosniak-held places (as well as Croat).
- Also, repatriation and the return of refugees is an important war-related topic. It should also be addressed.
Besides all this the article has become a joke with constant revert warring so I don't even see the purpose of this discusion. --Dado 03:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- How about you go pick up "Slobodna Bosna" and actually read the article before using it to back your agenda? Most of the article deals with the gross manipulation of the number of war dead by Republika Srpska authorities. Live Forever 03:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Inflation of numbers is not good coming from any side. The point is that there were (at least) 800 brutally murdered Serbs in Sarajevo. This fact alone means that crimes were committed. The fact of the matter is that Bosniak side tends to claim that they were doing nothing wrong. If that were the case, there would be no discussion here. That is my point. If you
Number of victims
There is no need for such a deep elaboration of the evolution of the number. This is an encyclopedia article, not a college essay.
I am not going to push it but I find it especially useful to deconstruct various misconceptions about the number game. I am sure that many are confused why the numbers are so off and I thought that was a good explaination. I though Wikipedia was intended to educate its users but that may just be my opinion. If anyone else agrees I will return the paragraph--Dado 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Casualty Number
Hi, this is my first edit ever, so if I do something wrong feel free to correct it. I hereby state that the Casualty Number in this article is customized and different from the original source. In the original source (to which the wikipedia article links - www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1291965/posts) the number of Serbian civilian casualties is estimated 16,700 instead of 1,973 in the wikipedia article. This gives a rather different view of the war. I hope someone will edit this, because I'm afraid I mess up the whole article when I try to modify something :P - Maarten, the Netherlands
There were many plays with numbers and one that is presented in the article is most recent one by Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo. I don't know where other numbers come from. --Dado 00:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah. But then the numbers of the ICTY-research are mixed up with the ones of the Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo. Should this be corrected like this, according to the given source:
Research done by the International Criminal Tribunal in 2004 determined a more precise number of 102,000 deaths and estimated the following breakdown: 55,261 were civilians and 47,360 were soldiers. Of the civilians, 16,700 were Bosnian Serbs while 38,000 were Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats. Of the soldiers, 14,000 were Bosnian Serbs and 6,000 were Bosnian Croats.
And can someone give a link to the Research and Documentation Center-research?
here's the link, it's both in Serbo-Croat and Eng:
http://www.idc.org.ba/ ----24.2.242.93 07:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
NPOV
This article is just a confusing collection of feelings. The part describing Milosevic's rise is leading, and it completely minimizes the participation of the Croatian leadership. It also fully neglects the Bosniak involvement, as if their politicians weren't in the country at the time.
The inaccuracies are staggering. OK, so the Bosnian Serbs did not bombard Sarajevo. They used heavy artillery. This is irrelevant from the point of view of the victims of course, however, it's just not true. Then, there were shellings of other towns in Bosnia, such as the Serb shelling of Tuzla, the Croat shelling of Zenica, Bosanska Gradiska, the Muslim shelling of Doboj, Brcko, Modrica, the shellings of Mostar between Bosniaks and Croats.
Where is the source of 40,000 rapes in Bosnia? Furthermore, one sentence says 200,000 dead, another says 100,000. Make up your mind!
Try just to list the facts: this happened then, and this person did this. The whole "Greater Serbia"/"Greater Croatia"/"Islamic Bosnia" is just a set of hypotheses.
Proabably the worst Wikipedia article, plagued with agendas! --67.172.1.76 21:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that article is inconclusive as it was a first step in what should be a translation of the same article from Bosnian Wikipedia. Hardly that is as bad as you are portraying it to be --Dado 03:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the table says that warring parties were SEM, CRO, and BiH. That's, to say the least, questionable. There is no doubt, judging from the trials in the Hague, that SEM and CRO both assisted their fellow Serbs and Croats, however, it's questionable whether they were warring parties themselves. If, hypothetically, Saudi Arabia or Al-Ka'ida assisted the Bosniaks, was it their war then? Also, Fikret Abdics Bosniak enclave has been supported by the Serbs, so should't that go on the SEM side? It's all very iffy.
Then, the whole "Greater Serbia" agenda has not been proved by any court, so it's questionable whether it's a solid argument for the beginning of the war. Also, the revival of the Ustashe terminology and personalities in Croatia has been ommitted, while it's particularly important to Bosanska Krajina areas that have been affected by it the most, and where the memory of it still lives. What about Amb. Kutilliero's plan?
Where does the figure of 200,000 dead comes, from Haris Silajdzic (I heard him say that to Larry King)? Mr. Silajdzic is not a source for the number of victims, he is a politician, and politicians do not tend to be very good sources. Furthermore, where does the figure of 40,000 raped women come from? There is very little evidence about rapes in Bosnia at this point, at least in numbers. There are indications and estimates, but those are just that, estimates. The author of "Grbavica", Ms. Jasmila Zbanic, stated that there were 20,000 raped women. It's questionable even where that information comes from. Please cite those sources. Those are very important things. 20,000 women is a huge number, and they deserve to be mentioned -- but accusing someone of raping 20,000 women is a huge deal so playing with these numbers is serious.
This is why I fear that this is about agendas. Serbs get on and edit to their liking, and Bosniaks tend to stick to their stories. Bottom line, it's fair to list the events at this point, and to leave the reasons and analyses to for a later date.
That's my ten cents. --24.2.242.93 01:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess changing the title to "Sides in Conflict" may be better also given that UNPROFOR was not really a military force although it had a large impact on the course of the war. I am not sure either what to do with Abdics troops except that they were in fact separatist movement and one that sustained itself on opportunism so I don't know if contributing it to any side would be correct.
Number of 200,000 has been repeated at least 200,000 times by various agencies from UN to Commision for missing persons in BiH. It is so common that it may not even need a source (or pick one). As for rapes, I agree that this subject needs to be researched thouroughly. I did not add the number but if you think that 20,000 is more realistic you are welcome to change it (that's until more precise source is found).
I am not familiar with "Kutilliero plan" and Ustasha terminology that you are refering to but than again as I said before the article is far from being complete. Those are my comments for now --Dado 06:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, as the intro says: it's not clear whether it's an international conflict. So far, as it has been established, it is not. Therefore, listing Serbia and Croatia as official sides in the conflict is not viable. All the judgments of international tribunals (i.e. the Hague) see the war as simply "conflict" in Bosnia -- they refrain from calling it international or aggression. It is in the interest of todays political elites in Bosnia to label it aggression or civil war -- however, for the purposes of an entry in an encyclopedia -- it's a conflict that took place in a territory. There is evidence of the presence of Croatia's military (in Bosanski Brod, in 1992, in Western Bosnia and Herz, in 1995; it has been ascertained through the witnessing of Pres. Mesic at the Hague etc.), and Serbia's paramilitary (without official presence of the Yugoslav Army and Serbian police), and the various routes of financing -- of both HVO and VRS. However, there have been finances pouring into Bosnia from Iran and Saudi Arabia for weaponry for the Government forces. This all doesn't really make it an international conflict. Primarily there was no declaration of war, etc. So there is obviously documented presence, but it's incorrect to place SEM and CRO as sides in the war!
- The fact that CRO and FRY were at the Hague is because the Serbian and Croatian leaders authorized them to represent them there. This was by no means a recognition that they took part in the war. That would be a political suicide for Messrs. Tudjman and Milosevic. --24.2.242.93 07:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Also the intention of the table was to clarify significant allegencies between groups and serve as a quick reference to many terms that are (or would be) noted in the article and not necessarily to depict sides in a classic war. I don't think that citation will be necessary once the article is complete. --Dado 06:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is what I found online about the Cutiliero's Plan (I hereby correct the spelling!):
The Economist, December 9, 1995 Letters
Editor,
In your article on Bosnia (November 25th), you say that in February 1992 before the war had started, Lord Carrington and I "drafted a constitution that would have turned the country into a confederation of Swiss-style cantons. The Muslims refused to accept what they considered to be the disintegration of Bosnia." Not quite.
After several rounds of talks out "priciples for future constitutional arrangements for Bosnia and Hercegovina" were agreed by the three parties (Muslim, Serb and Croat) in Sarajevo on March 18th as the basis for future negotiations. These continued, maps and all, until the summer, when the Muslims reneged on the agreement. Had they not done so, the Bosnian question might have been settled earlier, with less loss of (mainly Muslim) life and land. To be fair, President Izetbegovic and his aides were encouraged to scupper that deal and to fight for a unitary Bosnian state by well-meaning outsiders who thought they knew better.
Jose Cutiliero Secretary-general Western European Union Brussels
There is significantly more information online. --24.2.242.93 07:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
ICTY has the jurisdiction over individuals not states so they cannot claim either that the war was an agression nor the civil war. You have stated some claims that Croatian military was on the BiH ground which is probably true and which would make this an international conflict.
- No, still not an international conflict. What's the definition of an international conflict? Do you know?
- Simplest definition of International conflict --Dado 01:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, still not an international conflict. What's the definition of an international conflict? Do you know?
However you are conviniently disregarding numerous facts that Serbian regular troops were also in BiH under the pseudonim Army of Republika Srpska.
- Where is evidence for that (i.e. reference). Even if this was true (which is perfectly possible), the fact that they were under the jurisdiction of the RS officially, makes them the RS forces. Got this?
It is fact that all military personel by being a member of VRS was also a member of Army of Yugoslavia.
This has been proven beyond any doubt.
- Not very true. Some officers (not mobilized soldiers) were actually on the VJ payroll bc they were officers in JNA. Still not evidence of an international conflict where you can officially list SEM as the warring party!
On top of all that it is absolutely unrealistic to claim that Serbia had no involvement in the conflict and were the primary reason for conflict. There is a ton of facts and proof of this. There were even cases at the BiH - Serbia border in Zvornik and Visegrad where shelling was taking place from Serbian side of the border into BiH.
- Very true. There is evidence. Still not an international conflict. The main carrier of all warring efforts was the RS on the Serbian side. RS was an internal creation within BiH. All sides were aided from the outiside. Still not an international conlflict. Involvement does not make Serbia a party at war.
Now even if you put all this to the side a mere fact that NATO intervened in the war for the first time in its history makes the conflict international. I have stated several times that the table serves to state relevant sides not necessarily who was the agressor and who was the defender.
- Still not enough to state SEM and CRO as the primary warring parties. Their part in the conflict is important, yet, legally, it was RS and the CRHZ, and after the Washington Accords, the FBH.
Also your edits are portraying the war as being a civil war which is inherently untrue.
- Inherently untrue? How so... If the army was called the VRS, then its the Army of the RS. There was no labeled Yugoslav forces on the ground. Bosnian Serbs were drafted for the military, etc.
There is a ton of documentation to defeat this theory and you know it. On a more personal level for example I have two Serbian members of my extended family that fought for the Army of BiH. I know personally at least 5 other cases where Serbs were on the side of Army of BiH and I am sure that these are not exceptions. Jovan Divijak was a Serb and one of the head generals of the Army of BiH in Sarajevo.
- Very true. ARBH had some diversity. Serbs had their token Muslims too. The "Mesa Selimovic" company. This still makes Bosnian Serbs effectively the carriers of the VRS. There were Serbs and Croats in the ARBH, but I'm quite sure that the percentage was single-digit. This makes it predominantly Bosniak-Muslim.
- So, your facts are agenda-based. Mine are just field based. No international official in Bosnia (from the OHR and the OSCE) labeled Serbia and Croatia the warring parties. Nobody disputed their involvement, but, all the drafted soldiers were from Bosnia, not from Serbia. Ogidog--24.2.242.93 22:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This is from the Encyclopedia Britannica, no real mention of Serbia and Croatia in terms of involvement, especially not in terms of main warring parties:
Ethnically rooted war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a republic of Yugoslavia with a multiethnic population—44% Bosniac (formerly known as Muslim), 33% Serb, and 17% Croat.
Unrest began with Yugoslavia's breakup in 1990; after a 1992 referendum, the European Community (now European Union) recognized Bosnia's independence. Bosnia's Serbs responded violently, seized 70% of Bosnian territory, besieged Sarajevo, and terrorized Bosniacs and Croats in what came to be known as “ethnic cleansing.” After bitter fighting between the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian government, international pressure forced the two factions to sign a cease-fire and an agreement for a federation. Both then concentrated on their common enemy, the Serbs. After rejected peace plans and continued warring, Western nations, with NATO backing, imposed a final cease-fire negotiated at Dayton, Ohio, in 1995. Bosnia and Herzegovina became a single state composed of two distinct entities. Today Bosnia and Herzegovina has three de facto monoethnic entities, three separate armies and police forces, and a very weak national government.
Let's be honest and see what this is all about. It is obvious that this debate has to do with the Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ so called Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Serbia and Montenegro court case where BiH is suing for agression and genocide. In stead of wasting our time and reinventing the wheel I would suggest you read the docket's Oral pleadings (both sides if you wish) and leave it to experts. [1]
It is however obvious, at least from this court case, that we are talking about institutions and not ethnic groups. Hence the original form of the table is closest to the truth but for balance we can change the name into maybe "Parties involved" or some similar name that I have proposed before. --Dado 01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
---
- You were unaware of the Cutilliero's plan, you don't know much about legality, from what I can't see. What I ask you is not to present the wrong picture:
- There was no Vojska Jugoslavije fighting Armija Republike BiH on the ground. Even if there were some forces from Serbia, they had the RS insignia. That's a fact. I am not reinventing the wheel. The ICJ has not delivered any judgment. It's an ongoing process. You seem to be unable to provide sources for what you're claiming. The court case in question is just that, a court case, far from anything established.
- Here's a little bit about the debate that you single-handedly ended:
Somewhat ambiguously, the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Tadi´c Jurisdiction Appeal addressed the issue by declaring that: “International humanitarian law applies from the initiation of such armed conflicts and extends beyond the cessation of hostilities until a general conclusion of peace is reached; or, in the case of internal conflicts, a peaceful settlement is achieved. Until that moment, international humanitarian law continues to apply in the whole territory of the warring States or, in the case of internal conflicts, the whole territory under the control of a party, whether or not actual combat takes place there.” 128 While the statement is often cited to give international humanitarian law its widest possible application, it is far from clear that it represents an authority for the notion that the law applicable in international armed conflicts continues to apply to surviving internal conflict. The more plausible interpretation is that the Chamber’s comments only contemplate ongoing obligations between warring parties inter se, in accordance with the more restrictive view of “close of military operations.” That interpretation is supported by the same decision’s creation of the “mixed” approach to characterization on the very basis that international and non-international armed conflicts can mutate and co-exist. The interpretation is also supported by the fact that both the ˇ Celebi´ci and Tadi´c Trial Judgements found that prior to the Yugoslav People’s Army’s formal withdrawal on 19 May 1992, the relevant
conflict was international in character, but that subsequently the Bosnian Serbs were not agents of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and that the conflict was therefore internal.129 The former judgement emphatically declared that: “It is evident that there was no general cessation of hostilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina until the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement in November 1995. The Trial Chamber must, however, address the possibility that the nature of the armed conflict was changed by the withdrawal of the external forces involved, and hence the cessation of those hostilities, and the commencement of a distinct, self-contained, internal conflict between the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and organised armed groups within that State.” 130 Although the conclusions that the status of the conflict were both overturned on appeal because of factual findings concerning agency, in both cases the Appeals Chamber tacitly endorsed the notion that an international armed conflict can become internal131 Moreover, the possibility of transition from international to internal armed conflict is not a mere function of international criminal prosecution: formal foreign recognition of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea in 1980 sufficed to render an internationalized conflict internal despite ongoing hostilities in the territory.
There is no mention of FRY!
Read and learn about what hear-say is not! This is taken from the International Red Cross Website. You can read the whole thing, it's about international, internal, and "internationalized" conflict.
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5PYAXX/$File/irrc_850_Stewart.pdf
--24.2.242.93 04:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ on the significance of the case before ICJ. Given that it has not reached the judgement the evidence presented in that case still stands and is well sourced. It is also well summarized and quite usefull. I would suggest to begin with this one. [2]
--Dado 02:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The case before the ICJ is very important. Nobody said the opposite. I just maintain that it's ongoing, so we can't take it as a given. Also, the involvement of both Serbia and Croatia is quite undeniable. None of these things are in quiestion. I only object the listing of Serbia and Croatia as sides in the conflict (at least till there is a legal and binding ICJ decision that supports the aggresion and genocide by SEM). Ogidog--24.2.242.93 02:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
My intention was not to portray sides as classical war sides, much less to make assuptions of what the outcome t=of the trial will be. I think I have repeated that several times. To make things even clearer I have sugested to call contents in the table "Parties involved" The purpose of the table was to give a quick rundown of institutions involved in the conflict as they are repeated several times in the article. It simply becomes confusing to anyone unfamiliar with the subject to follow the article and understand the allegences of each institutions such as VRS, ARBiH, HVO, NATO etc etc. I think it becomes particulary interesting and justifiable to state SCG since at least there is a case against it at ICJ. It seams to me that avoiding to state it is like ignoring the big pink elefant in the room. --Dado 04:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- I fully disagree. SEM and CRO are not the main parties involved. The involvement of SEM and CRO is in no dispute, however, they are not the main warring sides, as it could be understood from your table. Simple as that. If you put SEM and CRO, why don't you consider Saudi Arabia and Iran, as they've thrown heaps of money on the Bosnian Muslim Government! --24.2.242.93 00:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes some islamic coutries have contributed in monetary way to BiH government in attempt to spread seeds of support for islamic fundamentalism a doctrine which, given BiH historic diversity and cultural inclination of BiH populace including it's muslim populace, could never take root, except in very few exceptions. The political intentions of Islamic coutries and BiH were completely different.
In addition you are being completely unrealistic in this comparison. First SCG and Croatia are the neighboring coutries and have a long history of territorial tendencies towards BiH. SCG had almost identical political plans with the government of RS during the war and there are numerous proofs that they, if not controlled them, at least influenced them in their politics and tactics. After all presidents of SCG and Croatia did represent their Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat constituency at the Dayton Peace Agreement. On top of all that there is a difference in the amount of support that was arriving from SCG. See [3]
I still think that these two (SCG and Croatia) need to noted in the table somehow. Otherwise it becomes pure denial and neglegence of facts.--Dado 17:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, I agree. But the way you place them in the table it appears as if THEY were at war, rather than Bosnian Serbs or Croats. Plus, the money from Muslim countries wasn't only given to promote Islamic fundamentalism. It was also given as aid, military and humanitarian. What are these "identical political plans"? The best thing to do, in my modest opinion, is to scrap the table altogether. --24.2.242.93 00:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Casualty numbers
How is that we have a precise casualty estimate done by a Bosnian Muslim commission (headed by Mirsad Tokaca), accepted by the ICTY and a foreign Norwegian organization which surveyed the whole process yet the first paragraph of this article claims a twice as a big a casualty number? How can 102,000 deaths be 200,000, according to what sort of megalomanic estimation? That goes against mathematics and rounding off, 102 is closer to 100 than it is to 200.
I don't know if you noticed by numbers from Research and Documentation Center that you are refering to are included in the article. However, even Mirsad Tokaca, who I know personally and respect, has stated that his numbers are not conclusive nor official. It makes only sense to include all other numbers as well until conclusive reasearch is conducted.--Dado 02:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't care if you are Mirsad Tokaca, there is no way that the final number of deaths can be 200,000, that would mean that the absolute error of the estimation of 102,000 deaths is 96%. That is impossible, he would not publish his findings, besides this is a quote of Mirsad Tokaca: '"I don't like to make premature estimates. But it will be over 100,000, and surely under 200,000. Our list only includes persons killed as an action of war, not those who died of indirect reasons of war," says Tokaca who cannot give enough praise to the support of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.'
- Besides a Norwegian commision is actually the source of the 102,000 figure. I apologize, Mirsad Tokaca merely confirmed that figure independently.
Where did I say that I disagree with you regarding Tokaca's research. Personally I hope he is rights. However, other numbers and numerous other research has been done that has concluded that casualties may had been close and over 200,000. I am not taking a position here as you are but only trying to note all relevant numbers still used by many sources. Also you are comming across very agressivelly. I would ask you to cool off first. --Dado 18:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC).
Dado, please list other research when you talk about it. The fact that so many people mentioned the number is hear-say. It was also in their interest to say so! Never forget political games. --24.2.242.93 07:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
NATO Bombing?
Where is the details of the NATO bombing campaign that ended with occupational forces that are there to this day? Tbeatty 19:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Operation Deliberate Force. Feel free to add it. The article needs to be expanded anyway --Dado 00:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The article claims 40,000 were raped but does not provide a source for that claim. And even if there is a source for it, I still don't think this claim should be in the article because there is no way to prove someone was raped. I mean many women might lie and say they were raped when they weren't, in order to make the other side look bad. Doctor Robotnik 20:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely ludicrous. You can surely have ways to estimate how many people were raped. --24.2.242.93 07:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I will leave it to a woman to answer this sexist remark. Other than that, no comment. --Dado 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again
I would ask user Panonian to refrain from provocations and accusations that my edits on this article are fascist.
Table depicts official sides in the war: Bosnia and Herzegovina including institutions under its command or influence, Serbia and Montenegro as co-signers of the Dayton Peace agreement and institutions under its command or influence, Croatia as co-signer of the Dayton Peace agreement and institutions under its command or influence. It further states NATO since they conducted bombing during the war and exerted considerable force in the conflict and UNPROFOR since it played a role inseveral occasion including the Srebrenica massacre.
Panonian your changes are considerable and I ask you to explain them. Until than I am returning the original version. --Dado 04:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The table is based on the ridiculous claims of the fascist SDA party, thus that is why I called it fascist. I do not say that you are a fascist, but that you use information from fascist sources. Serbia-Montenegro was not a side in YOUR war, thus that version of table is totally ridiculous and wrong. It was a CIVIL war between 3 peoples of the country. Furthermore, Serbia-Montenegro was formed in 2003, thus we cannot speak about it in 1992-1995. Its predecessor, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, only supported one of the sides in the war, but it was not directly involved in it. Milošević did not signed the Dayton agreement in the name of FRY, but in the name of the Republika Srpska. It is a big difference. Also, NATO and UNPROFOR simply were not sides in the war, thus you cannot mention them in such content. PANONIAN (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- The table is based on ICTY judgements, BBC documentary "The Death of Yugoslavia" and statements of Serbs that are aware of it from Belgrade (Natasa Kandic, Srjda Popovic, Sonja Biserko etc.). I know that many of you are not ready to face the truth. This is not BK television. And this is not Vatican-American-Islamic conspiracy against Serbs.--Emir Arven 13:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
BBC Documentary is not a scientific or legal source --24.2.242.93 07:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Scientific? Not sure there is a relevant 'scientific' source. It isn't an 'illegal' source er... sdoes that make it 'legal'?; Regardless, I'm not sure the 'legality' of a TV programme is relevant. It might however be the best source we have to hand. I suspect most would regard the BBC as a trustworthy source. Rob cowie 22:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
A truth? There is no truth here, but only stupid example of Bosniak nationalism and fascism. Please try to prove that FRY was a side in YOUR war. PANONIAN (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- You are the one who made up that article. First, you called it Unitary Islamic Bosnia. Now, you talk as Smilja Avramov, silly old lady from Belgrade that is aware that Serbia is going to lose Bosnia v. Serbia genocide case but was not ready to tell you.--Emir Arven 13:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
That is not proof that FRY was a side in war... PANONIAN (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is a proof. Stanislav Galic judgement. A quote: "On 2 May 1992, a major JNA (Yugoslav army) attack on the centre of Sarajevo occurred while President Izetbegovic was in Lisbon for negotiations. That day, Tarik Kupusovic, a member of the town council, witnessed tanks approaching from Lukavica, a neighbourhood in the southern part of Sarajevo, and opening fire on the Presidency building. Fire was returned from those buildings. Forces loyal to the BiH Presidency prevented the JNA from storming the Presidency, but only barely. “After that the town was exposed to very heavy shelling. A couple of days later the Bascarsija, the centre of old Sarajevo, was set alight, the national and university libraries, the railway station, the post office and many key buildings in town were heavily shelled and destroyed. […] This started already on the 2nd or 3rd of May and went on for several weeks, with interruptions, went [on] every day or every other day we experienced shocks. Zetra was destroyed, the Olympic Sports Hall, […] the railway station had gone, […] many apartments buildings had burned or several floors of those buildings and several apartments. […] The buildings that I mentioned are scattered all over town, so one could not identify a particular part of town being targeted, except for the buildings themselves, that were symbols of the town and were essential for its functioning, like the post office, the railway stations, the Zetra sports hall, and similar such facilities."--
- On May 2 1992 JNA was still in their own country, as B&H was recognised four days later! --24.2.242.93 07:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Emir Arven 13:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
That is only a proof that you have no idea about what you speak here. JNA was army of SFRY, not of FRY. PANONIAN (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- There is explanation in the table about JNA as well as in the judgemenet. JNA was controled from Belgrade, not from Sarajevo. --Emir Arven 13:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Slobodan Milosevic, president of Serbia, was the one that represented Serbs in the war, peace talks etc. He signed the Deyton agreement. --Emir Arven 13:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is that Republika Srpska was a side in the war, not FRY. Even if FRY gave some military support to RS in the beginning of the war, that still does not mean that it was one of the main sides in it. FRY later even imposed sanctions on Republika Srpska because its leaders did not accepted one of the peace plans. It is they who were main side in the war, not FRY. I will not revert now because of 3RR, but I will after 24 hours. PANONIAN (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It is absolutelly reidiculous to claim that FRY or SCG (Same country regardless of name) had nothing to do in the war. The table is not implying that SCG made an aggression or genocide or any other crime. It merely states all relevant sides in the war. SCG had at least as much play in the war as UNPROFOR and NATO. At the very least economic sanctions were imposed on SCG for their involvement in the war. In addition the amount of evidence that talks about involvement of FRY (SCG) and its citizans in the war is overwhealmming and I am sure you do not want to open that can of worms. I would ask you one more time to watch your conduct (ie. naming other's claims as fascist)--Dado 16:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I totally support this claim: SFRJ (a. k. a. FRJ a. k. a. SCG) was openly at war against Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991-1992, but continued to fight (even though not officially) getting involved on the Serbian side until 1995 and (although berely) got involved in the Croatian Civil War (supporting the Serbian sides). It's a fact. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It's like someone would say The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't a side in the Korrean War. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify that the war in Croatia was not Civil War as Serbs want to present here, but aggression conducted by Serbia and its leader Slobodan Milosevic. Remember Vukovar and Serb attack on Dubrovnik? It is all verified in ICTY.--Emir Arven 20:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Serb leader in Croatia, Milan Babić admitted at the Hague that Serbia controled Serbs in Croatia and conducted aggression.--Emir Arven 20:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Dado said: In addition the amount of evidence that talks about involvement of FRY (SCG) and its citizans in the war is overwhealmming and I am sure you do not want to open that can of worms. - So is at Talk:Mehmed-paša_Sokolović - but it isn't accepted nevertheless. :D --HolyRomanEmperor 16:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the question on the other article was if the source was credible or not. I don't see the relevance here as I have not yet presented source and as you point out it may not be necessary at all. It is just like pointing out to a big pink elefant in the room. --Dado 16:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The point here is that FRY is listed as one of the main sides in the war, and it was not the case. If the FRY military supported Republika Srpska that does not mean that FRY was a main side in the war. For you all: if you claim that FRY was a main side in the war, then please try to explain why FRY imposed sanctions on Republika Srpska. I have a good memory and I remember that FRY imposed sanctions on Republika Srpska because leadership of RS rejected one of the peace plans. Thus, when these sanctions were in power, FRY even did not supported RS (as it did in the beginning). Both, FRY and Croatia only supported sides in the war, but they where not sides. PANONIAN (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I have good memory, and here is the confirmation for it:
Quote: "...To je jos jedna velika laz koja je plasirana o Radovanu 1994. godine, kada je Slobodan Milosevic uveo sankcije na sankcije Republici Srpskoj...."
Quote: "...Zatim, kad je Jugoslavija uvela sankcije Republici Srpskoj..."
So, it is quite obvious that RS was main side in the war, and that after these sanctions RS was involved in war with no support from FRY. PANONIAN (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The point (if you can really prove) that SCG imposed sanctions on RS makes no difference as to involvement of SCG in the conflict. Similar conflicts within government of Bosnia and Herzegovina were also very common. However, all sides stayed firmly to their original objectives during the war. Such position may have changed since but we are considering the timeframe of the war only. Following is an excerb from a book by Ed Vulliamy "Bosnia The Secret war"
"Between October, 1994, and July, 1995, international border monitors observed the following in transit from Serbia into Bosnia:
- tanks 512
- armored vehicles 506
- heavy mortars 120
- heavy artillery pieces 130
- rocket batteries 48
- laser-guided missiles 33
- ammunition trucks 368
- artillery ammunition trucks 14
- gallons of fuel 1.9 million
Source: Ed Vulliamy, "Bosnia: The Secret War," The Guardian (United Kingdom), February 29, 1996. Since only approximately 135 monitors were assigned to patrol only 48 crossing points along Bosnia's 375-mile border with Serbia-Montenegro, Vulliamy called the arms and materiel that they personally observed "the tip of the iceberg."
Add to this the fact that most of the military personel was on the VJ payroll and that there was well evident (if not official) command structure leading to the top of the SCG government that controled operations and politics of Bosnian Serbs and ultimatelly represented Bosnian Serbs at Dayton. In the Richard Holbrook's book "To end the war" it is remarkable to notice the fact of the amount of power that Milosevic held over Bosnian Serb government and could do pretty much whatever he wanted.
Again this is a nobrainer issue and hardly deserves further explaination. --Dado 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
And before you read too much into Serbian Unity Congeress web site you may want to look into this [4] --Dado 03:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"The point (if you can really prove) that SCG imposed sanctions on RS"
All right, here is English source too:
Quote: "...The rump Yugoslav government votes to lift sanctions against the Republika Srpska (on 27 February 1996!!!)"
What proof you need more? More links? No problem just ask for them. It is clear that between 1994 and 1996 RS was under sanctions imposed by FRY, thus it is also clear that its involvement in war during this time was not supported by FRY. As for this weapon trade, RS was de facto independent state in that time, and it was not uncommonly that such trade between two states is performed (there was also such trade between RS and other sides involved in war (Bosniaks and Croats), this prove nothing). PANONIAN (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Did you read everything I said or are you just dismissing it because it does not suit your point. It is irrelevant if SCG imposed sanctions on RS. One dispute does not absolve them from evidence that prooves beyond any doubt that SCG was a side in this war --Dado 03:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that dates might be a solution to your problem. Determine the period in which FRY was involved in the conflict (1992-1994?) and note in the article. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Dado said: I think the question on the other article was if the source was credible or not. Imamoviches book is credible, but makes unlcear and really scetchy claims and when the fact that it is presented through a nationalistic site taints more on its name. However, it is also contradicting to what the rest of the world claims, I'm afraid. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, I too think that FRY cannot be considered as a main side in the after the breaking 1992. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
In Israeli-Arab War 0f 1973 US mass supplied Israel with arms and USSR did the same for the Arabs. They also negotiated the peace, but they were NOT active participants of the war. US performed lend-lease to UK and USSR before Pearl Harbor and that did not make it a combatant. If you like I can provide you with dozens of similar examples. Conclusion I leave to you.
Veljko Stevanovich 11. 3. 2006. 18:17 UTC+1
Ok people, how many times should we get over this subject? What do you think u can salve? You can only make people to h8 1another even more. And for what?? can you make a change? It was a war. Political, cultural and religious war. And NOT a civil war ("what's so civil about war anyway?"). I'm from (ex)SFRJ and if you ask me.. i don't hate anyone, until he/she tries to hurt me. That war could be avoided, but it wasn't. The name WAR says it all... 2 or more sides fighting each other.. here that - 2 SIDES FIGHTING.. not 1 side killing everybody. So leave it behind. All sides killed, all sides did genocide. Leave it be. You can only make it worse. And i hope that people that DIDN'T feel all of that wouldn't comment any more. You haven't been there, you haven't seen it all.. so DON'T judge.
Slobodan 12.03.2006. (somewhere in SFRJ)
I believe that if Croatia and Bosnia have the right to sue serbia and montenegro over genocide, than serbia and montenegro has the right to sue them. I.E operation oluja, ethnic cleansing of serbs from srpska krajina and bosnia. - Lazar Stevanovich
Justification of totallydisputed tag
Tit for tat, good continue to ignore the obvious. To this day war criminals live outstanding, and are considered war heroes. Los Angeles, CA
1. Who claims 8,000 - 20,000 were raped? Who disputes this? Do any people dispute the 8,000 - 20,000 range? etc
- Rape Camps--Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
2. "What is confirmed is that organized rape camps were created to both butalize the opposing side and to "breed out" the enemy" Confirmed by whom? The mention of "breeding out" is ludicrous as well...
3. "This change was particularly noticeable in Serbia and Croatia, somewhat less so in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to a still lesser extent in Slovenia and Macedonia." What change? This: "the onslaught of nationalist and separatist ideologies"? That would be simply wrong, as Slovenia, BiH and Macedonia seceded from the SFRJ, not Serbia.
- I may get the year wrong but didn't Serbia passed a law in 1990 by which it technically seceded from Yugoslavian Federation? This is a muddled issue as this law was not so publically available as the doctrine of insighting fear from Non-Serbian nationalism by Serbian politicians was far more prevelant and emphasized--Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
4. "This process accelerated with the entrance of Slobodan Milošević onto the political scene in Serbia, a man who began his political path by responding to the awakening of nationalistic ideology and positioning himself as a moral leader of the Serbs in Kosovo by 1989." POV, no sources, speculation etc
- Death of Yugoslavia documentary is the source. It is referenced in the article --Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
5. "Milosevic's political aims were to consolidate his own power and assert domination over the Yugoslavian Federation [4], including the domination of Serbia as its most populous republic, thus cementing a firm control of Serbian politics." Such an assertion should be supported with a better reference than some obscure documentary film. As it stands, this is simply speculation.
- What is considered a "better" source. Perhaps one that suits your POV? Death of Yugoslavia documentary was made by BBC and we can all agree that it is a relevant source. The same documentary was cited in the Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ court. If it is admisible in court it certainly is addmisible here--Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
6. "In order to achieve his goal, Milosevic choreographed [4] several processes which led to the installment of his political cabinet primarily in Vojvodina and Montenegro. The crisis in Yugoslavia deepened after the overturning of the government of Kosovo which had Albanian majority. Following these processes, Milosevic firmly held control over nearly half of Yugoslavia, and with additional votes he easily influenced future decisions of federal government. This situation led to reactions of other republics beginning with Slovenia." Same thing, also POV phrasing i.e. "reaction", "in order to ahieve his goal"; speculative as well
- Same response as above--Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
7. "At the 14th Congress of the Communist party, held on 20 January 1990, Milosevic for the first time applied his dominance by obstructing many constitutional amendments that the Slovenian delegation was proposing in an attempt to re-establish the balance of power in the Federation." POV, would need a credible source. Also, phrasing is POV: Milošević "obstructs", applies his "dominance" etc, Slovene delegation "attempts to re-establish the balance of power"
- Source is again the same. Perhaps couple of words may need to be rephrased but hardly to justify disputing the article on the basis of lack of facts. --Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
8. "The crisis turned acute as nationalistic elements attained power in order to counter the politics of Milosevic, among whom the Croatian Franjo Tudjman was most prominent." POV, implies nationalism across Yugoslavia was a reaction to Milošević. This is disputed, with other views stating that the rise of nationalism was due to the economic situation, the political vacuum after Tito's death etc
- Why than did war not erupt in few years after the death of Tito in 1980. This is very simplistic view of circumstances --Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
9. "Dissolution of Yugoslavia" The relevance of this whole paragraph (in the form it's in now) isn't clear. Also, it doesn't mention many things. Alija Izetbegović isn't mentioned once in the "Political situation before the war" section, neither are Fikret Abdić or Radovan Karadžić. The war in Croatia isn't mentioned, the referendum isn't mentioned, the way independence was pushed through without the consent of the second most numerous constitutive nation (the Serbs). Other imporant points that don't come immediately are probably omitted as well.
- I think most of the things you are talking about need to be covered in segment about "Political situation in Bosnia" prior to war which is not complete yet. I am doing my best to translate the Bosnian version so if you can help let me know --Dado 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Croat actions are presented as a reaction. In contrast to the JNA trying "to take control of all major geostrategic points as soon as the independence was declared in April 1992", the Croats of Herzegovina act, "fearing that the Serbs were preparing the occupation of whole Bosnia and Herzegovina (so-called "Greater Serbia".
Might not be 100% coherent, I'm tired and I'm going to bed. It outlines just a few of my most basic obejections and will hopefully stop anyone from removing the totallydisputed tag again. I hope this is more than enough Dado. Trust me, I know when I'm totally disputing something :) --estavisti 01:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
You are disputing from a POV as it is clear to me that you do not intent to look for sources yourself to improve the article. I will add sources that I have found so far and I hope you will help. --Dado 03:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Reasons why this article presents POV
- Serbia and Montenegro did not actively participate in Bosnian War. Should individuals and paramilitary units be accounted for, then other countries, such as Turkey must also be included - I just recently met a Turk who actually fought in Bosnian War. The article, in its current state attempts to confuse the reader about the Serbs from Bosnia and Hercegovina and Serbia and Montenegro as a country. Other than plain propaganda-related accusations there are absolutely no links that can be used to verify Serbia's official involvement in Bosnian war as a warring party.
Pick one regarding the involvement of Serbian government in the war [7] (or more if you care). I agree that we should not count individuals otherwise we would probably need to include Greece, Russia, Bulgaria and probably few more.--Dado 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- The article currently states "under the onslaught of nationalist and separatist ideologies towards the end of 1988 and start of 1989. This change was particularly noticeable in Serbia and Croatia, somewhat less so in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to a still lesser extent in Slovenia and Macedonia.". Should anyone try to verify those statements they will easily be found incorrect. In this case, the article tries to blame Serbia and Croatia where the situation was more common, did not, in fact, originate in Serbia and was not at all alien to Bosnia. There are no verifiable (not propaganda) references to agree with such a statment and there are to the contrary. For example, pay attention to book Alija Izetbegovic published, got in jail for and then republished again in "brewing" Yugoslavia. Read the book. Don't just read about it.
- Am I crazy or did 1 million people show up on Kosovo polje in 1989 to listen to Milosevic nationalist speech. Didn't he have a support in hundreds of thousands everytime he held a speeches in Belgrade, Novi Sad or Podgorica. Bosnians could not afford to have nationalist rallies of such scope (in any ethnic group) knowing that they still have to come home to their Moslem, Serb or Croat neighbors. There is a source provided for above statement so I see no problem with it. --Dado 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- The article condemns Slobodan Milosevic for many things. While pretty much noone anywhere (not even in Serbia, other than few traditional and/or uninformed groups) likes him he either verifiably did not do what the article states he did (all that talk about asserting domination over Yugoslav federation. The article states that he had power over nearly half of Yugoslavia but fails to indicate why - just look at the population of various republics. In anyone's right democratic mind it would make sense, just not in this article.
- I don't see why it is relevant to note that they did not like him if he was in power in spite of that. Over half of USA hate Bush but he is still in power. However, if you think it is relevant to point it out suggest an addition.--Dado 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- The article completely neglects to present the story around the Bosnian elections, who won and how did Alija Izetbegovic get to power at all.
- I already mentioned that the section needs to be completed. Will you help me translate it. I don't know if there is some kind of tag that can be placed on the section that would explain this --Dado 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- The article does not include information about the secession, related voting and the entire politics around it.
- Same as above --Dado 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- The article does not present two separate warring "Bosniak" parties, if you wish - one lead by Alija Izetbegovic and another by Fikret Abdic. Counting civilian victims this way is impossible but does present a different situation.
- Same as above --Dado 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- The article states that "Serbs constantly bombarded" and without a trace of shame specifies that citation is needed. Citations will not be hard to find, but verifiable data is a different story. This alone constitutes "original research" data which is not valid for Wikipedia.
- I am loosing you. Could you define the difference between "citation" and "verifiable data".--Dado 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- The article fails to mention that those Serbs and Croats who lived in Bosnia before the war did not come from Serbia or Croatia - that is where their families lived for generations. So, if a major component of the region does not want to secede from the country they lived in, why should anyone else force them to? Related to this the article only mentions the "fear of Greater Serbia", which may qualify as Serbophobia, but if some are scared of Serbs, why take them along? Was the idea to get those Serbs and Croats out? Actually it was - read that Alija's book.
- Not true. The article has a map showing the ethnic distribution before the war. If the article is stating anywhere what you are claiming about Croats and Serbs I support you to correct it. I assume you are refering to Izetbegovic's "Islamic Declaration" which is a poor source for this article or for Bosnian War in general because 1. it was written more than 30 years ago 2. It has nothing to do with Bosnia in the first place. 3 It was first published in Belgrade in 1990, obviously as a tool of inciting fear (see Hamdija Pozderac and Sarajevo process section). Also I suggest you to read more than one book on this topic as I am begining not to take you seriously.--Dado 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- This can continue for days... Just to mention one more thing - why not work on the article instead of complaining? I'm just a visitor here, busy doing other things. I've seen that any positive, NPOV, change is faced with immediate and strong mostly-Bosniak propaganda action, pushing their own government sources (by the very definition biased POV). As a reader, whenever I see a contentious article on Wikipedia, I also read talk pages, because I've learned not to believe everything the main article says. Having a POV on top of the article just helps me learn that I need to do it. That is why it must be there.
- "pushing their own government sources (by the very definition biased POV)" This is rather racist statement. I would recommend choosing your words more carefully. You are not just a visitor on this article. You have engaged in changing the article by adding a dispute tag. Dispute tag is only justified if you are willing to work towards concesus. --Dado 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
No response to me necessary. I won't be coming back. Deal with it yourselves - I've learned enough.
This attitute is not a proper Wikipedia etiquet. I have invited you before and I am doing it again to help me translate versions that need to be added and correct specific items that need correction. Since you have openly abandoned this issue I assume you are not willing to work towards concesus and your disputing is not valid--Dado 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just jumped in... While the anon's deleting of reference is inappropriate, so is your revert to the PoV version. I particularly find the problem with:
- Most international sources support the idea that the war was an aggression of Serbia and Montenegro
- This is a par excellence example of WP:WEASEL. Since the BiH/SCG trial is in progress, the only accurate thing to say is that it is disputed. Which most international sources? Also, why is the Serbs' claim of the first victim in the war erased?
:Further, why is another weasel word "The newest data about the victims state" instead of mentioning who states those data? (Ok, I see myself what it was about).
- I'm restoring some paragraphs, which are more NPoV than the current version. And I urge everyone to calm down a little. Duja 23:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I did some proofreading of the article and restored some old info. I find problems in several sentences, which I commented out. However, I don't have to discuss them now; gotta go.
- Also, I urge anyone who doesn't like my edits not to use mere revert but to work from this existing version. I spent an hour merging old data and cleaning the article up, which was too wikilinked (and still more work is required), so I'd appreciate if you appreciate at least the technical part of work.Duja 00:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Additions (please do some proper linking)
For proper understanding of the (further) conflicts I have added the key events of Albanian unrests. Could someone do the linking as I do not have much time? Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Activeco (talk • contribs)
- Sorry, I reverted them. They're really not closely related to the subject of this article, and belong to Yugoslav wars or History of Kosovo or... . (You can always retrieve your text from history.) Duja 14:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure how many people here experienced the happenings from the real beginnings. It is extremely important to emphasize the Kosovo crisis as the beginning point of after-Tito nationalisms and further escalations in whole former Yugoslavia. Explaining the war in Bosnia with starting point of 1990-1991 is completely senseless and leave the visitor in confusion. Activeco 18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- The genesis of the crisis was in national establishment in 19th century. The genesis of the crisis was in WWII bloodbath. The genesis of crisis was in communist regime... We have to stop somewhere. I don't see any direct connection of events in Kosovo in late 1980s with the war in Bosnia. I don't object to the factual correctness of your contribution, but solely to relevance – we can't start from Kulin Ban, as we say... Duja 20:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Activeco should then also add an entire article about everything else that might have served as intro to the war (don't forget the assasination of Archduke F Ferdinand!!!). This much writing about Kosovo is, to say the least, lacking seriousness, when so many events from the Bosnian war aren't addressed. Also, they are really not important... I mean, "fully clothed chetniks that caused Croatian ultra-nationalism." If it weren't tragic, it would be funny. Is this why Serbs were taken out of the letter of the constitution??? Be serious! -- Ogidog
- True, we don't have to start from Kulin Ban.
During Tito's reign there was no chance of such serious conflicts so you have to give answers why this "sudden" revival of animosities. Most eyewitnesses (including me) and serious observers concluded beyond doubt that Kosovo events were the KEY ignition of the later broad conflicts.
The simple, among neutral observers, non-disputed chronology should be the basis for further understaning.
- ...-1980
Although substantial, still very bad distribution of economic help to the poorest part of former Yugoslavia - Kosovo; rise of Albanian protests.
1980-1987 Tito's death; Albanian nationalism growing to chauvinism and introduction of "ethnic cleansing"; Serbian population fleeing the province; Federal government unable to proper react; Serbia feels betrayed from other republics which ignite the rapidly growing Serbian nationalism
1987-1990 Milosevic changes the policy and solves Kosovo with republic's police, soon joined by JNA; stripping Kosovo of autonomy; hard repressions against Albanians not welcomed by Slovenia and Croatia, who openly stood by Albanians; the Serbian "victory" and the new hero Milosevic celebrated throughout the country in a provocative way; the victorious Serbian nationalism, (ab)used by Serbian intelectuals (see "Memorandum") advocating new Yugoslavia under leaderships of Serbs, following the model of former kingdom; ultra-nationalist reactions in other republics. HDZ set up in 1989, SDA the same year (note that Izetbegovic was released from prison on initiative from SANU: "Predstavka", including Seselj as underwriter). And only here is the point where Bosnia "begins". Without the former, one could not understand further happenings in Bosnia.
1990-1991 Fikret Abdic won Bosnian elections, leaving the presidential seat to Izetbegovic, who was more islamic oriented; HDZ under Tudjman comes to power in Croatia ; growing tensions and open hostilities including armed clashes between Croats and Serbs in Croatia; Slovenia and Croatia "fleeing" from Serbia using the 1974 federal Constitution's 'rights of secession' of `every nation to self-determination', in its recognized borders; Serbia using the same argument: 'every nation having the right to self determination', but on the teritory where it lives - 'every Serbian grave is Serbian land'; short war in Slovenia, probably due to non-Serbian population; all out war in Croatia;
1992 and later Under pressure of Germany, EU recognized both Slovenia and Croatia, which gave them right to ask international support against Yugoslav army presence in the areas and legaly consider it as an act of agression of a foreign country, the same argument used later by Bosnia and Herzegovina.
And so on...
So, please do not contribute to the topic, if one's experience and knowledge is based on internet and local media's data only, or if due to your age, your intelectual sense began in 1990's. Thank you. Activeco 23:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, we should rely on you? Who are you, anyway? --24.193.157.231 16:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm oh so sorry for just barging in, putting a half-crappy thing of some sort here, and leaving, but about the 'innocents' thing: isn't innocence by law in terms of war being not part of either army? Mac OS X's Dictonary (New Oxford something) defines innocent as: • a person involved by chance in a situation, esp. a victim of crime or war : they are prepared to kill or maim innocents in pursuit of a cause.
Disputed
What is specifically disputed in this article. The tag has been on it forever and arguements seamed to have been lost in the fog.--Dado 20:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Your stupid strategic objectives. You're the only one in the world who thinks that these are relevant for the war. Oh and calling the expulsions of Bosniaks ethnic cleansing while there were simultaneous efforts on that behalf everywhere.
I assume this user believes that personal offences regarding my contributions will somehow stop me from presenting well sourced facts. Also there is no proof that many users consider this version of the article POV. There are no items listed here and I for one don't understand what the problem is. Please, if you are going to place a POV tag back it up with arguements in this section. Thank you--Dado 00:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Military history of the war
Hello everyone,congratulations on a decent article. I have a few observations.
I followed this war in the western media (I'm from Ireland) while it was ongoing and found this article very interesting, as it contradicts much of the impression given by the media at the time. For instance, it seems that the death toll was overstated by a factor of three at the time (300,000 compared to around 100,000 deaths). Also, it was believed in the 1990s that the vast majority of deaths were civilian, whereas, if this article is accurate (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), they comprised just over half the fatalities. For a modern war, the ratio of military to civilian deaths is probably quite high.
Do we have any indication of how many civilians were killed by targeted massacres (as in ethnic cleansing), how many killed by the use of heavy weapons in populated areas (as in the siege of Sarajevo) and how many of disease, or other causes? I realise that this is a painful and contentious area and that different sides will give different estimates.
The impression we were given in the west was that very little actual combat took place between combatants and that most of the war was comprised of the intimidation, displacement and killing of civilians. The casualties given here seem to indicate that this was not true. Therefore, the military history of the war becomes more important for out understanding of it - i.e. -What were the military aims of each side? What forces did they have at their disposal to achieve them? What were the important tactical features of the war - in other words, was most fightng between infantry? What was the value of regular as opposed to paramilitary soldiers -was their training and equipment different? Was most fighting in urban or rural areas? What role was played by armour and air power? I think the article would be improved if it addressed these points, if not at length, than at least in one paragraph. Jdorney 08:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Foreign volunteers
Could this article also include something about the involvement and role of foreign volunteers in the conflict? I'm not primarily thinking about those from Croatia or Serbia but about volunteers from places like Russia, Turkey, Greece and varioius Islamic countries. This could be a separate section.KarlXII 22:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Armaments
For an article about a war there is conspicuously little information about the armaments used and the relative strenght of the forces involved. Why not include a section on this. Does anyone have good information?KarlXII 22:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea. I'm somewhat of a military buff and have a lot of information about the equipment of the various armies of the war. I'll try to start this section after I refresh my memory by reading some of the articles I have about this topic. Edrigu 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
War in Eastern Bosnia (Srebrenica & Bratunac)
While editing (well trying to) the Naser Oric article I've come accross a rather good account of events in and around Srebrenica and Bratunac by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation called Srebrenica - a 'safe' haven.
Could this be used to expand either this article or the Srebrenica article? KarlXII 01:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The outcome of the war
Estavisti, Hahahihoho, this edit war is a candidate for a WP:LAME. You both breached WP:3RR, but I don't want to use the "magic" button.
If you want my opinion, the outcome is too complex to simply be put in an infobox. One interpretation is that merely stating "Dayton Accords" suffices to say it was a "draw", which it basically was. Adding "and independence of BiH" calls for addition of "autonomy of Republika Srpska" or "effective split of BiH", which calls for... Having said that, I'm reverting it to the "stable" version, which carries absolutely no POV. Duja 12:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Duja:
The war wasnt a draw. It was a heroic victory for the Bosnian government forces who miracly achieved to defend Bosnia against the 10 times better armed JNA and VRS.
We achieved independence in 1995, while RS allways claimed during the war that they never ever wanted to be a part of BiH. But, they are it now, and that means that they losted the thing that they fighted for in 3 years, and that the winner is the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Clerly. Hahahihihoho 12:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- You're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, the difference is that I'm not arguing if it was a draw or not (frankly, I don't care) on the article page. My point is, the outcome was defined by a complex set of Dayton Accords and it's sufficient to say in an infobox. Duja 12:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
1995
In the articul about 1995 it sais that "in response to...." alleged Bosniac crimes the Serbs committed the genocide. Also it shamfully sais that only 2000 Bosniac men were killed when abput 8000 is reported missing and every source in the world accept the Serbs say it can be up to 10000 killed.
Naser Oric wasn´t covnicted of etnhnic cleansing, if you read the virtict against him you can see he wans´t even convicted of attacking a single Serbian village. He was convicted for only two years(!) for not doing enough to stop the misstritment of about 10 Serbian prissoners in Srebrenica in 1992-1993. And you speak of 3000 Serbs? Not one neutral source staits this, maybe about 400 Serbs died and of theese maybe 80% soldiers meaning chetniks.
Maybe you don´t know that in April 1992 the Serbs captured Srebrenica and expelled the Bosniacs from there homes and commited war crimes, in the mountines surroinding the city Naser orginized a diffence that managed to liberated the city in May 1992. After that the Serbs used Serbian villages around the city as stongholds to attack and bombard it. It was under theese conditions the Bosnian Army led by Naser attacked theese villages to liberated territory that was officily Bosnian and not Serbian no matter how many Serbs it was there and also to eliminate the threat to Srebrenica. With the free teritory bigger the city was under less pressior and the Bosniac civilians could live more freilly. The 2nd corps in Tuzla made the misstake of not doing enough for the Srebrenica-forces so they could break throw and a free corridor with Tuzla could be formed.
Instead the Srebrenica Bosniacs were left to them selfs. Still they managed to free themselves and in 7th January 1993 Kravica was liberated and the Serb army croushed. Maybe in theese attackes som Serb civilans died but it wasn´t planned nor massive and the Serbs killed more in their concetracion camps.
When the Serbs took Srebrenica in July 1995 they killed 10000 and maybe more innocent Bosniacs and then tried to make up an explennion bie making redicullos accusions against the Bosnian Army when instead they wanted Srebrenica for them selfs so they killed half of the population and expelled the rest. You say the women were relicied, but could they return to they homes? No they were expelled to Tuzla while their husbonds and sones and fathers were being killed.
No where you it sais anytinhg about the UN betrail, no where of the brutallity and how it all was planned.
If the Bosniacs wanted to cleans Serbs why didn´t they distroy the Serbian Church in the middel of Srebrenica? No one touched it the whole war, but when Serbs took Srebrenica they bleew up the mosque directly? Why? Dosedn´t that say that the Serbs wanted the Bosniacs to dissapere from Srebrenica, som daid some expelled while the Bosniacs were only diffending them selfs. Thos Serb villages were armed and Serbian strongholds, in Naser´s trial a women clamied the Bosniacs killed here grandfather, then they asked her isn´t true he had a gun when he died and that he was convicted of war crimes against Bosniac in the Second World War? Then she sut up. Bosniacs defended them selfs and there existits no exuse for what the Serbs did, the Germans could also make up hundreds of things but they accept facts, the Serbs should to. The Jews don´t have to explain them selfs, neeither shuold the Bosniacs.
P.S. If you delete this, it is profe of you supporting the genocide that even the American Senat and the Haag admitted. The Dutch goverment resient for not doing enough to stop it.