Talk:United Nations Safe Areas

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Bez Traga in topic Comment

Comment edit

This article appears to have been written by UN diplomats. The safe zones were an utter disaster and people were actually turned over to be slaughtered. I hope someone takes the time to fix the record. It's an atrocity to perpetuate this false record of what happened as if the safe zones were some kind of diplomatic failure. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Totally true, there should be part for controversy, because those safe areas were places from which muslim forces attacked serbian teritories, and UN didnt do a thing to stop all those masacres, and it was nothing strange that serbian army after that wanted to stop that and entered "safe areas".

The Dutch UN “peacekeepers” failed to keep the jihadists inside Srebrenica, and to stop them from leaving Srebrenica at night to murder Serbs in villages around Srebrenica. That's why General Mladic performed an anti-terrorist operation that was more needed than when General Pershing went into Pancho Villa's "safe" haven of Mexico to put a stop to Pancho's terrorist operations against the US.-- (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Great documentary explaining this whole mess with Srebrenica [1] and safe areas.-- (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is much that isn't clear. Being a "safe area" should have meant it was demilitarised but it is indeed a fact that the areas were all with Bosnian Muslim armies. So it is true that throughout the "safe" periods, Serb troops were able to overrun these zones whilst at the same time the Muslim Army had used the zones as a launching pad for its own offensives. Presenting a balanced view would upset the article though, which acknowledged that only Bosniak areas were "safe" when it is added that they were all "attacked by Serbs" by the end of the war, but seems not to want to mention this because - preferring only to state that Serbs attacked the safe areas - so that by the end the NATO became involved, it was to defeat the agressor. To give the true account which is that both belligerents committed abuses within the "safe" areas would present the west as biased when coming down against the Serbs in 1995. beztraga (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Struck out comments by sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply