Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I have no sympathy for anyone involved in Srebernica, and feel that if you can punish them cleanly, then DO IT.

By cleanly I mean, don't start another war that will take many innocents down with the monsters.

I wrote this in another post above: Why didn't the UN Dutch troops intervene? The answer corresponds to something Vladimir writes in his response to you. The reason is that the Dutch were in the Bihac pocket in the prior year when Bosnian Muslims slaughtered many Serbs. Carla Del Ponte puts the number of Serb civilians killed in the pocket at 2,500 (but maybe she's taking all the deaths together from 1992-1994). The Dutch General together with Phillipe Morillon testified at the Hague that they saw Serb reprisals as revenge for the acts of the prior year.

One reason that Naser Oric does not appear in Wikipedia on Srebrenica is because he was arrested and acquitted by the UN's ICTY. Thus, in legal terms, he never committed those crimes. He is innocent. The most you can add is that the prosecutor, Del Ponte, thought his acquittal was an obscene travesty of justice, and that the UN generals on the ground knew him well and offered testimony against him in the mid 1990s.

Regardless, I can't see how anyone can defend a revenge that is essentially a horrific atrocity, the killing of captive thousands, and the dumping of them into unmarked graves.

Serb's took revenge on Muslims (who were probably taking revenge on them) and then NATO takes revenge on the Serbs by starting the Kosovo War which leads to ever multiplying acts of revenge between Serbs and Albanians? I do buy your theory. I think this is what happened. Obviously I don't think revenge is a proper response.

by Upstate NY on Tue Mar 10th, 2009 at 10:56:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series