Srebrenica Genocide Anniversary

[DexterMorgan]

Today marks the anniversary of an unimaginable savagery committed on European soil at the end of 20th century.

The Srebrenica Massacre, also known as the Srebrenica Genocide,[1][2][3][4] was the July 1995 killing of more than 8,000[5] Bosniak men and boys, as well as the ethnic cleansing of 25,000-30,000 refugees in the area of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War. In addition to the VRS, a paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the Scorpions, that operated as part of the Serbian Interior Ministry until 1991 [6], also participated in the massacre.[7][8] The United Nations had declared Srebrenica a UN-protected "safe area" but that did not prevent the massacre, even though 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time.[9]

The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II.[10] In 2004, in a unanimous ruling on the "Prosecutor v. Krstić" case, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) located in The Hague ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_Genocide

May the victims rest in peace. If there is God, their murderers will surely burn in hell.

 

[SuAside]

May the victims rest in peace indeed. It is however sad how little we have learned from this...

(not wanting to cause a controversy or anything, i'd however also would like to point out that the failure to protect the city was not with the dutch peacekeepers. it was with the UN command that failed to provide ANY support for the dutch. as such, resistance would have been little more than a heroic suicide on their part.)

 

[Crni Vuk]

I agree that it really wasnt one of the magic moments of my country ...

 

[Sander]

I agree that it really wasnt one of the magic moments of my country ...

...
That's one hell of an understatement, there.

(not wanting to cause a controversy or anything, i'd however also would like to point out that the failure to protect the city was not with the dutch peacekeepers. it was with the UN command that failed to provide ANY support for the dutch. as such, resistance would have been little more than a heroic suicide on their part.)

The soldiers themselves cannot be blamed. Many of them have been traumatised due to their inability to prevent the massacre from happening, and their was very little to nothing they could have done.

However, Dutch and UN command can be blamed, as the force was too small, badly supported and ill-prepared for the situation.

But that is beside the point. Fact is that Mladic and consorts are the people ultimately responsible for the massacre. They planned it and carried it out, which to this day stands as a completely incomprehensible action. A horrific, genocidal action that had nothing to do with the actions of war.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I agree that it really wasnt one of the magic moments of my country ...

...
That's one hell of an understatement, there.

Well there is not much one can say anyway.


Though sometimes I dont know what kind of reaction people expect from Serbians. Particularly since a lot even when its "regret" seems wrong anyway.

I mean what was done was a lot of damage by Serbians to any relation between those that have been part of former Yugoslavia which was more or less a post war communistic construction anyway (its a bit more complicated of course but thats not the topic of this discussion).

Particularly if one would try to explain here the whole issue it would not be possible anyway its even for people with the experience from there not easy or sometimes understand the situation. Lots of the conflicts today are more then 50 years old. A lot older then ANY of those soldiers and civilians which did the crimes and have been victims. And I fear that a lot of situations will also do even more damange in the future, incidents that are not fully known and never have been cleared and thus changed the mind of the people.

Tuzla massaker
Bjelina war
Sarajevo marketplace (Markale massacres)

Izbica Kosovo 1999
Drenica 1998

Camp Trnopolje
Camp Omarska
Camp Keraterm
Camp Manjača

But what I feel really sorry for though and what strikes me most is the fact that in Serbia (I cant say anything about the other nations though) the people do not concern oneself with all those things, what went wrong or feel any kind of personal responsibility for the situation and no rehabilitation of the past which seems that they try to all just brushed under the carpet instead of really deal with the past and make it part of the history so at least in future it will be at some point possible for next generations to co-exit peacefully together and forget about hate and blame each other for the things that happend.

 

[Slaughter Manslaught]

If there is God, their murderers will surely burn in hell.

[spoiler:1d51964326]There's no god, and they won't burn in hell. They will cease to exist, though.[/spoiler:1d51964326]

 

[JunWisewar]

May the victim rest in peace.......knowing that those who responsible to their death are burn in hell.

 

[alec]

Okay. Here we go again: the Srebrenica Genocide wasn't a genocide at all. I know that the definition of what a genocide is got drastically changed after the second World War (I think they re-defined it in 1948), but strictly speaking a genocide used to be the complete annihilation of a race or culture or religious group. Hence the only true genocide to have ever occured in modern history is the complete annihilation of the Tasmanian Aborigines by the goddamn British. And that's it. Hitler had an intent to create a genocide, but he didn't succeed.
Genocides occured more often in the olden days. The Huns and the Mongols almost surely completely obliterated certain tribes or cultures and it has been argued that the disappearance of the Neanderthaler was probably the first genocide ever, which fucking kicks arse.

that did not prevent the massacre, even though 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time

The fuck?

 

[Crni Vuk]

well I think its beside the point if it fits the definition or not particularly since there is not a 100% clear definition anyway. It would be like a discussion about its meaning which is relatively irrelevant for the incidents. You had camps in former Yugoslavia that somewhat pretty much resembled concentration camps there was a lot of propaganda the military and some civilian forces have been heavily involved in many of the crimes there was definetly a tendency to remove certain groups no matter the cost maybe it doesnt completely fitt a usual genocide but I think to now decide if it was a "real" one or just a "try" to relativze the situation. The issue was that all sides engaged in the conflicts and just caused more and more provocation and extrem situtions while the united nations or NATO did not really that much to prevent it. They could have stoped a lot from the begining already. I am a serbian and always had the oppinion that someone should have thrown out all that brittle post-communistic system. But thats another issue for it self (A serbian General dictated a NATO General what to do?).

 

[Brother None]

Uh, no offense, but any reason to bring this up now, on its 14th anniversary?

Okay. Here we go again: the Srebrenica Genocide wasn't a genocide at all. I know that the definition of what a genocide is got drastically changed after the second World War (I think they re-defined it in 1948), but strictly speaking a genocide used to be the complete annihilation of a race or culture or religious group.

"Strictly" speaking? "Strictly" speaking you should apply the legal definition, not the one you like the best:
any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

And yes, that is a fairly meaningless definition, and one that is a total nightmare in a legal language sense. Besides, it includes pretty much everything from the Armenian Genocide to the Sebrenica Genocide to the Sabra and Shatila Massacre to the Second Chechen War to the 1991 and 2008 Georgian conflicts to the Chinese policies in Tibet or Xinjiang. Without a doubt, it is slowly taking all the meaning out of the term genocide. People never seem to realize that if you overapply a negative term all the effect it has is that it becomes meaningless.

The fuck?

Wut?

 

[Carib FMJ]

May those souls rest in peace and those guilty may they burn in the everlasting fires of Hell...

And may the consciences of those who had the means of stopping the atrocity, may they have long life but not good health. May the faces haunt their sleep.

 

[alec]

And yes, that is a fairly meaningless definition, and one that is a total nightmare in a legal language sense. Besides, it includes pretty much everything from the Armenian Genocide to the Sebrenica Genocide to the Sabra and Shatila Massacre to the Second Chechen War to the 1991 and 2008 Georgian conflicts to the Chinese policies in Tibet or Xinjiang. Without a doubt, it is slowly taking all the meaning out of the term genocide. People never seem to realize that if you overapply a negative term all the effect it has is that it becomes meaningless.

That's the whole fucking point, innit? Pretty much every armed conflict in which a certain amount of civilians are killed or oppressed is a fucking genocide nowadays. And that's stupid.

The fuck?

Wut?

Wut? Wut?
Wasn't the main Dutch philosophy back then: just being there, simply our mere presence, will keep them calm? Sure, 't was also a perfect example of how dysfunctional the UN is when it needs to function, but the sheer naivety of the Dutch back then (one might as well call it 'amateurism') still amazes. They're not guilty of it, but dawgunnit, they didn't really do anything worth mentioning to prevent it either, now did they?

 

[welsh]

Often when we say genocide, we actually refer to an "act of genocide" - essentially aimed at the destruction of a people. But yes, the legal definition is way too broad. Like many such legal definitions, it is a political compromise.

What worries me is how many people have tried to forget these events and by doing so allow these things to continue. By forgetting the ugliness, perhaps they hope it will go away. I don't know.

 

[Crni Vuk]

...
What worries me is how many people have tried to forget these events and by doing so allow these things to continue. By forgetting the ugliness, perhaps they hope it will go away. I don't know.

actualy that is from my experience what counts for many Serbians as they try to push it away as good as possible and no one actualy tries to grapple with the crimes that have been done.

 

[Brother None]

Wasn't the main Dutch philosophy back then: just being there, simply our mere presence, will keep them calm?

Dutch? No, that was just the UN party line. We just happened to be the country to carry it out.

Often when we say genocide, we actually refer to an "act of genocide" - essentially aimed at the destruction of a people. But yes, the legal definition is way too broad. Like many such legal definitions, it is a political compromise.

"How many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide?"

"Acts of genocide" is an even more horribly obfuscating term used by governments to dodge their responsibility.

 

[welsh]

Well BN- who is responsible- those who give the order or those who carry it out? The mind or the hand? Or are they both culpable because they both should have "known better."

As for the differences between "Acts" and "Genoicide". As we both pointed out, its terribly poor a definition for something truely horrible. I would think that Acts of Genocide would have to systematic, part of an overall plan committed by a body capable of actually carrying it out and who make substantial progress towards that end.

A murder would not be a genocide because one person doesn't make a group. A massacre of a village would not be the genocide of a people = unless that village is the entire population of a culture or people.

Darfur, Rwanda, the Holocaust - all were systemic plans of annihiliation. THe KKK might want to wipe out black folks but it lacks the capacity to do so. The Khymer Rouge wiped out 1/3 of the population of Cambodia in its campaign to rebuild Khymer Rouge society- was this genocide? It was a systematic and done by a group of people with the capacity to do so- but the goal was to recreate rather than completely destroy.

One solution would be to throw out the definition altogether- and thus end the element of murder in the crime, or at least leave the murder to an act of intention, malice or recklessness. One might redefine the term to get to the results of the crime (and so Khymer Rouge in Cambodia fit the bill).

But if you are getting to the idea that the term needs to be better defined- yes.

My point was simple- when charged with genocide, the actual crime is acts of genocide- which requires a more actions and motive directed to wiping out a people, not, as Alec suggests, the successful destruction of an entire people.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Wasn't the main Dutch philosophy back then: just being there, simply our mere presence, will keep them calm?

Dutch? No, that was just the UN party line. We just happened to be the country to carry it out.

though what I think is that teh UN and Dutch commanders should have in some way reacted to the many provocations by the Serbian military. It was in the end that Ratko Mladić dictated the Dutch General what to do and it was see as a "big" success for the propaganda of serbia and Mladic.

Though I dont share the oppinion that it was a failure by the dutch battalion in Sebrenica alone. The UN as "whole" should have emidiately intervene in the situation if needed even with a biger force to makre sure that the saftey was guaranted. Of course its easier to doay to blame just "one" force. But I see the issue more in teh UNO itself. Its like that they only want to show presence but are not ready to defend their principles. And what is it worth if they cant even do what their target is.

 

[Sander]

though what I think is that teh UN and Dutch commanders should have in some way reacted to the many provocations by the Serbian military. It was in the end that Ratko Mladić dictated the Dutch General what to do and it was see as a "big" success for the propaganda of serbia and Mladic.

That wasn't a general, and he didn't have much choice. The batallion was badly prepared, ill-supported and undermanned. They were attempting to secure the safety of thousands of people with about 400 infantry, and even the requested air support was denied for a while.

The Dutch command isn't free from blame, but mostly the Dutch were just there by coincidence and the same would have happened had it been any other UN contingent.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well as already said the issue was also caused by the UN and their apathy (for the lack of better words I dont know how to call it else).

Quite some times I asked my self how things would have changed if they decided to defend the civilans, the Dutch Battalion I mean. They definetly would had almost any right for it. Alone from the human point of view as it would have been a try to save lifes. I mean the outcome would not have been well for the Dutch soldiers as theiy where hopelessly outnumbered.

But maybe this would have waked up the UN from its lethargy. Who knows. The Serbian military defenetly was out of control in that time and knew no limits and any kind of restrictions by the UN or other organisations have been completely ignored. At this point as serbian I even agree it would have been about damn time that the UN or any other force should have started to get in action.

 

[Sander]

well as already said the issue was also caused by the UN and their apathy (for the lack of better words I dont know how to call it else).

Quite some times I asked my self how things would have changed if they decided to defend the civilans, the Dutch Battalion I mean. They definetly would had almost any right for it. Alone from the human point of view as it would have been a try to save lifes. I mean the outcome would not have been well for the Dutch soldiers as theiy where hopelessly outnumbered.

They would have been slaughtered. They were effectively hostages there, as it was impossible for them to leave the situation or fight back.

But maybe this would have waked up the UN from its lethargy. Who knows. The Serbian military defenetly was out of control in that time and knew no limits and any kind of restrictions by the UN or other organisations have been completely ignored. At this point as serbian I even agree it would have been about damn time that the UN or any other force should have started to get in action.

That whole war was retarded from the outset anyway.