Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 10

Editing
Just a thought: it seems to me that this article about the Srebrenica massacre/genocide needs editing; it is far too long. Remember, these are supposed to by encyclopedic articles, not book drafts. Perhaps interested parties can remove the 'surplus' to a newly created article entitled, Background to the Srebrenica Massacre? Politis 15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Politis, I don't agree with you about moving the Background to a separate article. First of all, in my understanding, articles should be about specific subjects, not about the background to specific subjects. Perhaps, though, it could be possible to have a separate article on the Bosnian War - eastern Bosnia or similar. Also, part of the challenge of writing a good article is to be concise for the benefit of the reader. Although the Background may be too long, I think that problem is more pressing in the main description of the massacre. Here it could be better to try to shorten and focus on the most important parts. But let's start at the top, with the Introduction and the Background.KarlXII 14:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this sounds good. I'm not sure if it is possible thoug, given the very aggressive attitud of some of the editors here.KarlXII 09:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[Big sigh] I know, that is why I am not offering to cut it back ;-) Can the current 'edit warriors' agree between them for a cut back? I mean, the article is about Srebrenica and the case for 'genocide' has been made quite clearly by the international community - even if many of us disagree and many of us are also aware of Serbian suffering, that is the situation and it must be respected. In any case, it seems to me that a generous compromise has already been achieve by excluding the term 'genocide' from the title of the article. Politis 12:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How about deleting the Role of Bosniak forces on the ground section (I'm not sure how relevant it is), or at least summarizing it? Now it's just a really long quote from some UN publication/report.KarlXII 22:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked just the first reference (for Federal list of missing persons) and found that the link, which claims to be to the Federal Commission for Missing Persons; "Preliminary List of Missing and Killed in Srebrenica"; 2005, in fact appears to be to the site of some unidentifiable (it's all in [serbocroatian)] http://www.srebrenica-zepa.ba/srebrenica/news.php NGO.
 * It is very difficult for someone who does not speak/read serbocroatian to evaluate this source and the organization which is behind it.
 * It would be better to link to an authoritative source stating, in English, that the Federal list of missing persons contains 8,000 or so names.

Your thoughts?KarlXII 14:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Some comments concerning the participation of Serbian special forces units:
 * is this information crucial enough to warrant a mention in the introduction? Would it be better placed and expanded on in the same section as that which deals with the possible participation of Greek and other volunteers?
 * the reference refers to an article from March 2006 which recounts amendments to indictments against some individuals for allegedly leading these special forces units in connection with the Srebrenica massacre
 * are there any other good sources regarding the participation of these units in the massacre?
 * wherever the text is placed, should it be preceeded by an "alleged" or "possible" or similar wording?

KarlXII 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The role of Serbia in the Bosnia war is quite relevant. The presence of forces from Serbia is indicative of the Srebrenica massacre not being an isolated incident but rather part of a larger dynamic and therefore belongs in the introduction. Fairview360 04:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The introduction mentions that the Dutchbat forced "did not prevent the massacre" and cites p. 18 and 26 in the icty case. That wording insinuates that the Dutchbat soldiers could have prevented the massacre if they had wanted to/tried. This is not supported by the reference. A better wording would be "were unable to prevent the massacre".KarlXII 15:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "were unable to prevent the massacre" is debatable. We can state with complete confidence the fact that the massacre occurred and that the Dutchbat mission was to preserve Srebrenica as a safe haven. The stated fact that Dutchbat soldiers did not prevent the massacre still leaves room for a discussion of what they could have actually done given what tepid support they received, etc. Fairview360 04:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the numbers killed, the introduction again uses the missing persons figure referring to the serbocroatian language NGO site (see my comment above). Wouldn't it be better to use the figures mentioned in the icty case:
 * "experts were able to conservatively determine that the minimum number of bodies in the graves exhumed was 2028" of which "the majority of the victims were executed"(p. 80) and
 * it then concludes by saing that "The Trial Chamber is satisfied that, in July 1995, following the take-over of Srebrenica, Bosnian Serb forces executed several thousand Bosnian Muslim men. The total number is likely to be within the range of 7,000 -8,000 men." (p. 84).

Given that the icty document is probably the best/most authoritative source available, should't the article strive to use it's interpretation/wording/presentation of events as much as possible (as opposed to using those of native language NGOs)? KarlXII 15:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In the intro. do we really need the concluding citation, or at least all of it? Since the intr should be about summarising the article, wouldn't it be enough to simply state that the icty judget it to be genocide? The judgement is covered in detail later in the article anyways.KarlXII 10:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The ICTY citation aptly summarizes what happened which is exactly what an introduction is supposed to do. Fairview360 04:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

KarlXII, sorry for the delay. Your observations seem well researched across the web. The article needs to focus on what the title says. The plain fact as you are proposing, seem to me neither anti-Serbian, nor disrespective towards the Bosniaks. Perhaps you should go ahead with editing out some chunks, and hope that our friends understand the need for a fair and succinct article. Politis 12:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Politis and others, OK I will use the weekend to go ahead with the edits proposed above. I hope no one has any issues with them. I'd especially like some help with finding an official English languge source for the list of missing persons, or, even better in my mind, an updated reference which mentions the numbers missing. Until then I propose to use the icty figures although they are by now almost a year old.KarlXII 14:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Making suggestions at 10:46 and then saying OK I am now going to engage in wholesale edits to the intro at 14:07 the same day does not constitute engaging in good faith discussions. 6 hours does not provide enough time to the editors of this article to respond. Fairview360 04:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In reply to the points raised by Karl:
 * The "Role of Bosniak forces on the ground" section &mdash; I agree that it should be removed or rigorously shortened.
 * The federal list of missing persons &mdash; while we prefer English sources, the fact that this source is written in another language is in itself no reason to remove it; see Reliable sources.
 * "participation of Serbian special forces units" &mdash; I agree that this needn't be mentioned in the lead section. Some more supporting sources would be useful, but it's not necessary to wait for a conviction. Regarding "alleged" or "possible": well, that depends; if most reliable sources agree that Serbian special forces did participate, then our language should reflect that. The role of the Scorpions has been discussed before, see Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive5.
 * "Dutchbat forces did not prevent the massacre" &mdash; I don't think that this implies that Dutchbat were able to prevent it. It may suggest it to some people, which is why I prefer the formulation "&hellip; 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time, but their presence did not prevent the massacre." In any case, I think that the text "were unable to prevent the massacre" which you prefer is worse; this clearly says that Dutchbat could not have prevented it whatever they would have done, which is not supported by the references as far as I can tell.
 * the numbers killed &mdash; this was discussed at Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive8 and I think that that discussion shows that the range 7000-8000 mentioned by the ICTY is outdated.
 * the concluding citation in the intro &mdash; I agree that it shouldn't be there. I seem to remember that I said so but others disagreed. However, I can't find the discussion anymore in the archives.
 * Karl, I am very grateful that you posted this points for discussion on the talk page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This pattern of a lot of animated activity, apparently reasonable suggestions across a wide range of issues with a reference to issues that have already been well covered (eg 7,000-8,000 dead), and then wilful and rapid intervention to make contentious changes is rather reminiscent of Osli73. It's a very successful tactic for tying up a lot of other people's energy without being identified immediately as someone with destructive intent.


 * Back in the summer I worked my way over the whole article to see what suggestions might be worth making, because it is a bit sprawling and could certainly do with a bit of restructuring, but I lost the thread of it with the last round of onslaughts.


 * Jitse, I have to say that however legitimate you consider substantial revisions at fairly short or minimal notice to be, they do convey the impression of someone with an agenda. --Opbeith 22:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What is reminiscent of Osli73 is using the argument that the article is too long as justification for deleting a few essential sentences in the introduction. That makes no sense. I believe Opbeith has accurately described Osli73/Karl12 as having an agenda. And, for the record, while we will all have our disagreements perhaps passionate at times, I believe Jitse is motivated by a genuine desire for fairness. Fairview360 23:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Jitse, thanks for the reply. My thoughts on your comments are:
 * OK, let's remove the "Role of the Bosniak forces on the Ground section, or if someone cares to, shorten it considerably
 * the main reason I brought up the reference is that I can't tell wether or not it really is the federal list of missing persons and the site it's on doesn't seem to be an 'official' one. I would prefer if it were possible to find a better, pref. English language, source. Maybe it would be better to find a recent English language comment on the list, on saying something to the effect of "the fed. list of missing persons contains some xxx names" and a date.
 * about the special forces, see below
 * I think your wording is better
 * if "an estimated 8,000" is better, then let's say that. I just thought it would be good to use the icty judgement since it's such a solid source which can't be questioned, while the other figures are just quotes from newspapers and general media, which I imagine would carry less weight
 * my thinking was that the citation just repeated what the text said so that it wasn't really adding information

Again, thank's for your comments. KarlXII 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just 2c for "Serbian special forces units": I agree that it's too undue weight to be put in the intro. However, the "Serbian special forces unit" is a moot definition. Those were dogs of war sponsored and to a good extent controlled by Serbian Secret Service (SDB), funded partly by SDB but mostly by smuggling and looting. Only in 1996 they become officially incorporated in security system of Serbia, and at the time of Srebrenica massacre they were just officially "volunteers". I started expanding the Jedinica za Specijalne Operacije (bad name, I know) article, but if you can read Serbian, please read the extensive coverage in Vreme, referenced there, which covers all   dark aspects of the Unit and its predecessors, from its roots, through the wars, to Đinđić assassination. Duja ► 13:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Duja, thanks for the info. I know nothing about the Scoprions or wether or about their or the SDBs role in the massacre. I just felt that it wasn't something you would normally put into an intro. Better to develop this in a special section of the article if it is warranted.

Also, sorry about not following through with the edits over the weekend as promised. It is just that I've been busy elsewhere. I'll try to get to it soon though. KarlXII 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's my suggestion for a shorter introduction:
 * The Srebrenica Massacre was the July 1995 killing of an estimated 8,000 Bosniak males in the region of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Army of Republika Srpska under the command of general Ratko Mladić. The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area" and 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time, but their presence did not prevent the massacre.


 * The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II and it is the first legally established case of genocide in Europe. In the landmark ruling "Prosecutor v. Krstic", the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide.

Is there anything else we should add? Maybe something about the attempts to hide the bodies or about the excavations? I also prepared this text describing the massacre, but now I'm not sure where to put it:
 * Following the Bosnian Serb army's takeover of Srebrenica on 11 July 1995 an estimated 20,000-25,000 residents had sought refuge at the UNPROFOR base at Potocari, outside of the town while an estimated 10,000-15,000 Bosniak men had sought to escape to government controlled territory north of Srebrenica. While the women, children and elderly were sent on buses to government controlled territory while the men, including those captured from those trying to escape, were sent to various locations around Srebrenica were they were executed between 13-17 July. Following the massacre.

Your reactions, pls? KarlXII 10:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I'm going ahead with the changes.KarlXII 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairview (and anyone else out there), I don't think it it acceptable to not participate at all in the discussion on the talk page and then revert the outcomes from that discussion by referring to some historical discussion. If you don't participate or give input, don't think you own the page.KarlXII 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. The article is not frozen, but constantly evolving, like the rest of Wikipedia. There has been a lot of discussion about it, which means that we have to be careful and not change too much, but there is no reason at all to prohibit any changes. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jitse, nice to hear that. I knew the article was sensitive to some but though that discussing changes on the talk page first and giving everyone interested in the article ample time to respons would be sufficient. I don't have the interest or the time to spend on petty revert wars with people who think they 'own' the article and that it is 'perfect' as is.KarlXII 02:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So Osli73 and KarlXII both are a name plus a number, both have an interest in Sweden, both have an interest in the former Yugoslavia, both make the same arguments, and both want to delete entire sections of the intro, but we'll just ignore that for now. Let's just forget that extensive sockpuppetry has been the bane of this article. The wholesale deletion of portions of the intro are not justified. The only edit I see, that is something that was not fully discussed and agreed upon before, is whether the intro is going to say "at least" 8000 or "an estimated" 8000. I would agree with an estimated 8000 and will change it now. But there is no reason why editors who have worked on this article for sometime -- as opposed to transient sockpuppets -- should have to tolerate the wholesale unjustified deletion of accurate fully documented statements. Fairview360 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fairview, you cannot dismiss it like this. As I said, I agree with Karl comments, he justified the deletion, and you should be willing to discuss it instead of just stating out of the blue that it's not justified. I'd be very disappointed to learn that I'm wrong when I said that you would engage in discussion.
 * Osli and Karl may be the same, and they may not be. It does not matter. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jitse, I know that you are not a sockpuppet. If KarlXII is a sockpuppet about to take us down a road we have already traveled, then his being a sockpuppet is indeed relevant. But OK, I'll let that go and respond at face value, again, to what is being expressed here. Let's start with this statement from the ICTY which so eloquently describes what happened in Srebrenica and gives the context. Why would someone put so much effort into having it deleted from the intro?


 * "By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims [Bosniaks], the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity."


 * Please explain. Fairview360 05:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The section quoted by Fairview360 concisely and authoritatively explains why the massacre took place and its wider significance. That is why it remains central to the Introduction. --Opbeith 22:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing - the background
Although the background to the massacre deserves to be properly explained, I feel that it can be done more concisely and with fewer sub-sections (which, if nothing else, just makes the TOC longer). Would anyone object to, or want to contribute to, a new, more concise version of the background section including the "Safe area" section? KarlXII 00:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning: KarlXII is probably Osli73's sockpuppet
An analysis of KarlXII and Osli73's edit history strongly suggests that KarlXII is Osli73's sockpuppet. I believe it would serve the best interests of wikipedia if an administrator conducted a Usercheck on KarlXII and Osli73 as well as review their edit histories for comparison. If it is true that KarlXII is a sockpuppet, good faith discussions are essentially impossible. It is not realistic to expect legitimate users to attempt good faith discussions with sockpuppets. Fairview360 06:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Relevant decision by the Kosovo arbitration committee:


 * 7) Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.


 * Pass 6-0 at 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to carry our any type of investigations you would like. I know that you levelled the sockpuppet ackusation before and I ignored it but did forward it to osli who warned me about this article being sensitive. On the basis of this and of jitses suggestion I took extra care to discuss everything on the talk page. However, if this is the type of behavior which is going to characterise this article then I will focus my efforts elsewhere.KarlXII 08:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Simple question, KarlXII: what is your actual relationship to Osli73?

I've been tied up trying to sort out the havoc caused by a virus on my computer. A lot of my time has been wasted over the last three weeks by the various effects and repercussions. I'd hate to see the prospect of further time wasting by a reincarnation of Osli73 but I suspect that what I see developing is the same pattern of objectively reasonable comments serving as a Trojan horse for much less constructive interventions. --Opbeith 22:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

KarlXII is destroying Srebrenica Genocide article
Where are admins to protect integrity of wikipedia's encyclopedia? We can't let people who deny facts (e.g. who deny Srebrenica Genocide, or who deny WWII Holocaust) to participate in these topics, because they have nothing valid to contribute. They delete important facts of the case, and spam articles with discredited leftist-apologist make-believe propaganda. If they love Milosevic, Hitler, Saddam Hussein and other dictators so much, then they should move either to Serbia, Germany, or Iraq; and they would probably not be welcomed even there.

So, let this be final wake up call for wikipedia's admins to protect Srebrenica Genocide article from these vandals. Bosniak 20:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, this does it. I have been nothing but polite and open about my edits on this page. Now I'm getting accusations like "sockpuppet" from Fairview and "love Milosevic" from you. What I do think the admin should do is to do something about the tone used and the aggression level here. And you, I'm going to report for slinging personal insults. As for F-view, I encourage him to investigate as his accusations are becoming very irritating.KarlXII 09:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi KarlXII, you should stop treating Wikipedia as your personal homepage where you can delete important paragraphs and vandalize article(s) as you see fit. Please go again and read what is wikipedia all about and stop destroying what has been built for the past 12 months. Bosniak 23:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ivanisevic
Bosniak, earlier this year, I believe it was Emir Arvin (?) who submitted an extremely well argued and well documented account of Ivanesic and the genesis of Belgrade Centre for Investigating Crimes Committed against the Serbs. If you can find Emir's submission, it may help you document statements regarding Ivanisevic. Fairview360 01:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fairview, I will send you results of a research about chetnik "Mr. Ivanisevic" and his made up and overblown research about alleged crimes against Serbs. The research was made by another American girl, a friend of mine. Bosniak 06:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprofor
F-view, what is your problem with the text (suggested by Jitse Niesen, not me)? Are you the admin for this page? Do you control who is allowed to add content and edit here?KarlXII 16:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Karl73, twice you have said that you are not interested in editing this article which tells me your commitment to this article is flaky. So why would I want to spend my time discussing this with a user who has only a fleeting interest in the article, who I still believe to be a sockpuppet or someone whose approach to this article is identical to Osli73 (a sockpuppy if you will), and who can't decide whether to stay or go? Your being a potential sockpuppet/sockpuppy is less relevant than your tempermental whimsical engagement. So what is it Karl73? Have you made up your mind? Which statements of yours are we to believe to be true? In any case, for the record, I do discuss my edits even with those I believe to be -- an opinion I am entitled to -- johnny-come-lately, should-I-stay-or-should-I-go sockpuppies.


 * I would be more than happy to discuss with Jitse -- an editor who has invested a lot of his time and energy in this article and has shown a long term commitment to its quality -- his preference for the intro reading "their presence did not prevent the massacre". My impression is that Jitse has a preference though he sees "they did not" and "their presence did not" as both essentially acceptable. Meanwhile, Jitse sees your suggestion as unacceptable. Jitse stated to you: "In any case, I think that the text 'were unable to prevent the massacre' which you prefer is worse; this clearly says that Dutchbat could not have prevented it whatever they would have done, which is not supported by the references as far as I can tell." But I believe we can agree that Jitse is perfectly capable of arguing for his suggested edits and does not need you as his advocate.


 * Lastly, your questions are clearly rhetorical and do not warrant a direct reply. -- Fairview


 * Fairview said on my talk page:
 * "In the following sentence, I believe the antecedents of the pronoun 'they' are both the UN and the Dutch peacekeepers. 'The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected 'safe area' and 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time, but they did not prevent the massacre.'"
 * This is certainly not how I read it; I think that "they" refers to the peacekeepers. I have no problems with the reading "The UN did not prevent the massacre."
 * We should be able to lift the ambiguity with a slight formulation. I change it to "The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area", but they did not prevent the massacre, even though 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time." -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jitse, good job. That makes it clear that "they" refers to the UN. Fairview360 12:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jitse, I disagree with your most recent edit. The problem ins't with wether "they" refers to the UN or the Dutch peacekeepers. Rather, it is that the sentence "They did not prevent the massacre" insinuates that they, wether it be the UN or the Dutch peacekeepers, could have but for some reason didn't chose to prevent the massacre. Although I am aware that there are those who believe this, I think a more neutral wording would be the one you proposed earlier:

"their presence did not prevent the massacre"

KarlXII 12:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not an insunation. It is a fact. The Dutch troops pleaded for airstrikes. The UN leadership decided not to launch them. In the words of Kofi Annan: "No one laments more than we the failure of the international community to take decisive action to halt the suffering and end a war that had produced so many victims." Fairview360 14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "The Committee is convinced that by massive strikes along the southern road, the only road leading to Srebrenica, the UN and NATO could have stopped the offensive."


 * Report by the parliamentary committee on the events in Srebrenica
 * National Assembly (French Parliament)
 * http://www.msf.fr/documents/srebrenica/Conclusions.pdf


 * "A Dutch battalion of UN peacekeepers (Dutchbat) failed to prevent the killing of 7,000 Muslims when the town was overrun by Serb forces in 1995."
 * BBC
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1921482.stm


 * “U.N. peacekeeping officials were unwilling to heed requests for support from their own forces stationed within the enclave, thus allowing Serb forces easily to overrun it and, without interference from U.N. soldiers, to carry out systematic mass executions…”
 * US Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe testimony
 * Researcher HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/HELSINKI
 * http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1995_hr/c951206l.htm

Fview, so you agree that it was not the Dutchbat troops who were unwilling to stop the massacre (and cannot even be taken for granted that they knew a massacre would take place prior to the Serb attack on Srebrenica)? I think the BBC quote pretty well presents the issue. I would be happy with that. KarlXII 12:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify, KarlXII now says he would be "happy with" the following statement from the BBC: "A Dutch battalion of UN peacekeepers (Dutchbat) failed to prevent the killing of 7,000 Muslims when the town was overrun by Serb forces in 1995." Therefore, if "they" refers to the Dutch Battalion, KarlXII would be "happy with" the statement "They failed to prevent the killing of 7,000 Muslims." Given that "killing 7,000 Muslims" is a massacre, KarlXII would presumably be comfortable with the statement: "They failed to prevent the massacre." Given that that statement conveys the massacre as being the direct result of the Dutch Battalion's failure, one would think that KarlXII would prefer the more forgiving factual statement: "They did not prevent the massacre." But no, KarlXII strongly disagrees with that statement. (memories of Osli73) Fairview360 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Article is a Disgrace
I cannot believe the blatant bias and inaccuracy of crucial sections of this article, and its disgusting attempt to make a Hollywood movie out of an awful event from the war.

Some significant faults:

1) The simple use of the word "Denial" (in section "Denial of the massacre") as opposed to "Controversy" has enormous negative connotations. Denial is used as a word often used describing one who wishes to not face the truth. Therefore, the article claims that the truth is: a certain number of Bosniak men were killed (~8000) and anyone who disputes this is in denial, or refusing to face the truth.

There is significant proof that disputes the numbers provided in this article, therefore, this is a "Controversy", not a case of fact and denial.

Instead of "Denial of the massacre", that section of the article should be named "Controversy Over Casualties" or something similar to that.

In addition, since these figures are disputed, the Srebrenica incident cannot be called the "largest mass murder in Europe since World War II". In order to give it such a label, one must know, without controversy, the number of people killed. If contesting figures (which are equally legitimate) on the number of men killed are considered, the incident ceases to be the "largest mass murder in Europe since World War II".

2) Close to the beginning of the article, there is a section on "Ethnic Cleansing". However, the "Ethnic Cleansing" which occurred prior to the incident at Srebrenica is blatantly ignored.

I am referring to the "Ethnic Cleansing" that took place in neighbouring Serbian villages, where Serbian civilians were "Ethnically Cleansed". (And not just the men interestingly...)

The number of Serbs killed during this act of "Ethnic Cleansing" may be equal or even greater than the number of Bosniak men killed during the Srebrenica incident. Since both figures are disputed, it is almost impossible to know. However, it is no more likely that more Bosniak men were killed, therefore, that assumption must not be made! (There is much evidence against it, this being an entirely different argument.)

This act of "Ethnic Cleansing" against Serbs in surrounding villages is referred to in a section close to the end of the (too long to be an encyclopaedia) article. This is a major error, since this act of "Ethnic Cleansing" was one of the primary causes of the Srebrenica incident.

To downplay it, and almost leave it out of the article entirely, is to ignore that Srebrenica was an act of retaliation and an attempt to end the numerous attacks on Serbian villages by Bosniak forces.

3) I could go on, but this article is massive and full of factual and organizational errors. To dispute them all would take far too long.

This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. It should definitely not be removed, since it is an important historical event, but it needs massive alterations.

Stop The Lies 07:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Stop the Lies, although I can agree that this article is not entirely NPOV, the problems are mainly related to wording and which information is presented and how, rather than the information as such. Its things like saying "guerilla-style counter attacks" when describing Bosniak military operations and "offensives" when describing Serb military operations, describing Serb villages as "military bases", saying that the UN "did not prevent the massacre", etc. My comments on your issues raised:
 * numbers killed: the icty and most media cite somewhere between 7-8000. It can be argued that the figure is higher or lower, but that is beside the point.KarlXII 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==>Most media? Encyclopaedias aren't regurgitations of media claims, they are factual sources, meant to illustrate the truth regarding things such as historic events. That is why the fact that, (as you said) "it can be argued that the figure is higher or lower" is actually not beside the point, but rather, IS the point. Stop The Lies 11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies


 * I'm afraid you are mistaken. The core policies of Wikipedia are clear that Wikipedia should only reproduce statements of other sources and that we do not strive to find the truth. For instance, Verifiability says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in original). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As your source points out, you are right, Wikipedia does want the most popular belief on its pages. However, it is very unfortunate that there is a bias toward some sources and not others, and the deliberate attempts to turn previously legitimate sources into illegitimate ones (ex: General Mackenzie) leading to only the exposure of one limited point of view (in this case, a view with a political agenda), and therefore, to the demise of truth. Stop The Lies 00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies


 * largest mass murder in Europe since WWII: regardless of wether the number killed is 7000 or 8000 the massacre certainly was the largest in Europe since WII. This is also how it is typically presented.KarlXII 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==>Once again, how things are "typically presented" are of no importance to an encyclopaedia. The truth is what is relevant. ==>If the number killed is slightly under 2000 as some sources claim (while providing evidence), then the 'massacre' ceases to be the "largest in Europe since WII". The fact that this cannot be disproved is a legitimate argument for the removal of such an arbitrary phrase. Stop The Lies 11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies


 * There are very few reliable sources that claim a number under 2000. As Neutral point of view says: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jitse, could I ask you to reconsider what you've written here? Are there any reliable sources that currently claim a number under 2000?  Please do not allow any window for the denial of truth.  --Opbeith 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop_The_Lies, It's not an arbitrary phrase. The magnitude of the atrocity has the authority of the U.N. Secretary-General's Report on the Fall of Srebrenica of 15 December 1999, A54/549, para 467, behind it. "The tragedy that occurred after the fall of Srebrenica is shocking for two reasons. It is shocking, first and foremost, for the magnitude of the crimes committed.  Not since the horrors of the Second World War had Europe witnessed massacres on this scale. ..."  --Opbeith 14:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ==>I agree that if a handful of people believed the world would end in a week, that view would not belong in Wikipedia. However, in a controversial topic such as the Srebrenica incident, I believe it is crucial to illustrate such a pressing view that HAS been reported by reliable sources, just not the hundreds available to the advocates of the Western agenda. Some are sadly not aware of the millions that went into hiring agencies to circulate propaganda about the entire Yugoslav War (the media attention surrounding the Srebrenica incident being part of it)... Stop The Lies 00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies
 * Stop the Lies, many people are aware of the propaganda war that was waged and continues to be waged alongside the war on the ground. But life isn't Hollywood.  Propagandists are constrained by the reality of credible reports and individuals have the ability to analyse and reach conclusions.  Please don't be so patronising.  --Opbeith 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ethnic cleansing: apart from the fact that the takeover of Srebrenica and the following massacre are examples of ethnic cleansing themselves, ethnic cleansing taking place prior to the June 1995 deserves to be mentioned in the article since it provides background to understanding the massacre. It is relevant background information.KarlXII 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==>Agreed Stop The Lies 11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies


 * ethnic cleansing of Serbs: I believe ethnic cleansing of Serbs in the Srebrenica region prior to the massacre is described in the article, as it also provides relevant background information to the massacre. Its relevance should be pointed out, since it is an often used explanation for the massacre (especially by Serb sources, but also by some 'western' media - again, remember that Wikipedia is about conveying how an issue is usually presented, not about original research).KarlXII 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==>Yes it is described. However (1) The section is too small when compared proportionally to the rest of the article (2) Portrayed as a controversy when there is sufficient evidence to state it as fact (more in fact, than there is to state the Srebrenica massacre as fact) and (3) it is placed at the end of the article, a MAJOR error. The section should be placed close to the front, not only because it occured before the Srebrenica incident, but because it is the primary cause of it. Stop The Lies 11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies


 * deniers: here I only agree to a certain extent. Yes, not all those who disagree with the "over 8000" number should be dubbed "genocide deniers". Certainly, there are those who absolutely deny that any massacre took place at all. To me, "Genocide deniers" is a label applied to a group by its opponents in a debate, and therefore POV/inappropriate. Better to describe the debate which has taken place (and maybe still is taking place) regarding the massacre. Maybe under a heading like "Srebrenica massacre debate".KarlXII 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==>There are 4 different takes on the Srebrenica incident: (1) It happened, and the numbers claimed by this article are correct (2) It happened, but the numbers stated by this article are incorrect because they do not have sufficient supporting evidence and are, therefore, arbitrary (3) It happened, but the numbers stated by this article are incorrect because they have been proven lower, and (4) It did not happen. ==>As one can see, there are two cases where one can argue that the figures presented are incorrect, yet that same person fully agrees the event took place. Going by other Wikipedia articles containing controversial topics, an (in my opinion) appropriate, neutral, and objective heading is commonly: "Controversy Regarding ___ " or "Controversy Surrounding ___ " etc. Stop The Lies 11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Remember, Wikipedia is about presenting the common understanding of an issue, rather than original research (truth) about it. KarlXII 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

==> I disagree. What is the point of having facts presented, when they may not be facts at all but common fallacies or mass misconceptions? Stop The Lies 11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies


 * Stop The Lies, again, the point is that Wikipedia is not the place to 'set history right'. It is not about 'original research' but about the common view. However, if there is a considerable minority view, as in this case, these should also be presented (in a NPOV way). All major sources use the 7000 to 8000 killed figure, state that there was considerable ethnic cleansing (on both sides, but primarily of Bosniaks). Many sources site it as the largest mass murder in European history since WWII.


 * ==>Once again, I strongly disagree. For example, the "common view" in the United States was (and could still be) that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 (due to propaganda/media to get support for the war, etc, we all know the story). That is an example of a "common view" I would strongly disapprove being displayed on Wikipedia, much like the "common view" that 8000 Bosniak men were killed in Srebrenica and that this is only disputed by radicals and "deniers".
 * ==>If encyclopaedias were filled with "common viewpoints" they would be absolute trash.
 * ==>And please stop reducing the truth to meagre "original research". Original research is something that "discovered" the "pyramids of Bosnia" heh (I'm not sure if you've heard of that disaster).
 * ==>But let us stop, we have made our views clear and obviously neither of us is going to convice the other. Stop The Lies 23:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies


 * What I think is wrong with the article is that it in many cases is POV in its selection of the facts and how it presents them.KarlXII 12:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ==>You are right, that is a major error. Stop The Lies 23:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies


 * This argument seems to have drifted away from its original focus on the reality of ethnic cleansing in the area around Srebrenica. Stop the Lies, you seem to have embarked on a reappraisal of the perceived view of ethnic cleansing in the area without touching on the atrocities perpetrated in 1992.  This Talk Page has already discussed the issue of ethnic cleansing in considerable depth.  You may remember in the Krajisnik hearing Mladic's November 1992 order to the Drina Corps of the Army of the Republika Srpska, VRS, instructed them to "Cause as many losses as possible to the enemy," and to "Force them to surrender and force the Muslim population to leave the area of Cerska, Srebrenica, Zepa and Gorazde".  This was after the events from April 1992 onwards took the lives of many Muslims in the area and persuaded large numbers to leave.  Your second-hand claim that whatever happened at Srebrenica was justified by what happened to Serbs in the area previously is like so many other similar assertions, a partial account that wilfully distorts the overall picture of events during the war period in order to make the case that others are denying the truth.  --Opbeith 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop_The_Lies, here's the concluding paragraph of an alternative "Hollywood film script" - the "Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly resolution 53/35 - The fall of Srebrenica", United Nations A/54/549 (15 November 1999) http://www.domovina.net/srebrenica/page_005/unsrerep.pdf

''506. The body of this report sets out in meticulous, systematic, exhaustive and ultimately harrowing detail the descent of Srebrenica into a horror without parallel in the history of Europe since the Second World War. I urge all concerned to study this report carefully, and to let the facts speak for themselves. The men who have been charged with this crime against humanity reminded the world and, in particular, the United Nations, that evil exists in the world. They taught us also that the United Nations global commitment to ending conflict does not preclude moral judgements, but makes them necessary. It is in this spirit that I submit my report on the fall of Srebrenica to the General Assembly, and to the world.''

Having rejected the media, the ICTY and the "common view", would you find the Secretary-General's report to the UN General Assembly more acceptable as a reasonably authoritative baseline? If you read the relevant sections and come back with your evidence-based arguments we can discuss the details but you'll need to come up with some fairly substantial supporting evidence if you want to dismiss the findings of the report quite so summarily as blatant bias and inaccuracy. "XI. The fall of Srebrenica: an assessment", paragraphs 467-506 (starting on page 105), provides an informative summary but you'd also find that the chronological accounts in "VII. Fall of Srebrenica: 6-11 July 1995", paragraphs 239-317 (starting on page 59), and "VIII. Aftermath of the fall of Srebrenica: 12-20 July 1995", paragraphs 318-393 (starting on page 74), provide a reasonable yardstick for assessing the basic accuracy of the article.

--Opbeith 19:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Scorpions
I am removing:

"In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, special state security forces of Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre."

For the following reasons:

(1) Its reference does not claim that. This is a quote from the reference:
 * "The indictment alleges that “Special units of the Republic of Serbia DB [state security] under the control of Stanisic and Simatovic, including Red Berets and Scorpions participated in [an] attack” by the Bosnian Serb army in July 1995 on the Muslim enclaves of Srebrenica and Zepa."

(2) It is an allegation that has not been proven.

It should NOT be changed to: "In addition to the Army of Republika Srpska, it is alleged that special state security forces of Serbia known as the "Scorpions" participated in the massacre."

Because: If that is included in the introductory paragraph, then the following should be included in the introductory paragraph: "It is alleged that the number of Bosniak males killed could be as low as 2000." As well as plenty of other 'allegations'. Stop The Lies 20:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I agree with the anon. user who states that Wiki isn't a courtroom where only events established by international court judgements can be included. It would certainly appear that the Scorpions were present at the time of the massacre. However, while it seems clear that the Scorpions did indeed participate, it is not clear that they were under the command of Serbia or if they were controlled by the Bosnian Serbs. This IWPR article goes into quite a bit of depth on the issue, saying:
 * The question that will necessarily arise at the tribunal, should the tape showing the executions be admitted into evidence, is under whose command the Scorpions operated in the summer of 1995 when they are alleged to have killed the six Muslim men and boys in Trnovo. The prosecution at the tribunal claim that the Milosevic-led Serbian security authorities were in charge of the unit, while the former Belgrade leader has insisted that it was under the control of the Croatian Serb authorities.


 * According to IWPR sources, the Scorpions at the time of the atrocity were formally part of the 11th Corps of the VRSK, the Army of the Republic of Serb Krajina, the self-proclaimed Croatian Serb statelet.


 * Medic, in testimony given a few years ago in a case involving one of his former comrades, said the Scorpions unit was formed in 1991, initially to provide security for the eastern Slovonian oil fields. He added that in 1996 it became a reserve unit in the Serbian Public Security Service Special Anti-Terrorist Unit, SAJ.


 * This was confirmed last week at the Milosevic trial, when witness General Obrad Stevanovic, the former Serbian assistant interior minister, told the court that “the earliest point that [the Scorpions] could have been [subordinated to the Serbian interior ministry] would have been after the end of the war in Krajina, after mid 1996 or perhaps slightly earlier [that year]”.


 * A recently published report by the Serbian organised crime department into links between the Scorpions and the Belgrade authorities says that the paramilitary unit did not come under the command of the SAJ until March 1999.


 * Although the Scorpions may have been directly controlled by VRSK military chiefs, there’s evidence that the paramilitaries had links with the security establishment in Belgrade, especially at the time it was created.

In conclusion, it would appear to be pushing it to label the Scorpions as "special state security forces of Serbia" as it implies that they were indeed under Serbian state control while this is far from an established fact.KarlXII 11:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've taken out the reference to the Scorpions being "special state security forces of Serbia" as that appears not to be settled. Please see the discussion on this IWPR article I mentioned above.


 * One could even argue, as Jitse Niesen has done earlier, that if the Scorpions thing is to be mentioned in the lead article it should also be discussed in the main text of the article, which it is not, as far as I can see. That would also give room for a more detailed discussion about who was in control of the Scorpions at the time of the massacre. I will propose a text, OK?KarlXII 09:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

for the record
I just made two edits to the article while forgetting to sign in. The two recent edits by 216.7.9.34 are me. However, when checking the IP I see that not all edits by 216.7.9.34 are by me. I see three edits from Nov. 20 and 30 that are not me. The IP address is from a cafe with wireless for its customers. Fairview360 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed issues
Below is a list of disputed issues in the article. I've added my explanations for them.
 * the is still considerable disagreement on the status of the Scorpions, while they were from Serbia, it is not clear that they were present in Srebrenica under Serbian command. This is what the IWPR article I referred to above deals with. Read it. - as a compromise/olive branch I have now proposed calling the Scorpioins "a Serb paramilitary unit"KarlXII 09:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC). Calling them "Serb" or "Serbian" rather than "Bosnian Serb" does indicate that they are from Serbia. "paramilitary unit from Serbia" could work. I've now changed the text to "members of a Serbian paramilitary unit". This seems a good compromise given the above.KarlXII 09:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * describing Oric's attacks as "counter-offensives" and "guerilla-style" rather than as plain "offensives" is POV. It's as if the VRS attacks would be referred to as "counter-offensives"
 * regarding the medals to the Dutch peacekeepers, there's no need to insert personal comments such as "even though they did nothing to prevent the massacre" It should really be enough to say that the UN had declared this a "safe area" and that 400 UN peacekeepers were present at the time. That they did not prevent the massacre is quite obviuos since it happened. As to why, again, it's better to expand on this in a separate section, perhaps in the "Analysis" section.KarlXII 09:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * McKenzie quote: He appears to be one of the most vocal/best known 'Western critics'. KarlXII 13:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC) As for saying that he was "paid by the Serb lobby" because he (allegedly) received a lecture fee is POV. In that case a lot of other sources should labelled as "Bosniak-controlled", "controlled by the Bosnian government" or "a pro-Bosnian group" etc. Placing MacKenzie in the Revisionism section should be enough.
 * I've reworked the Revisionist section, stating that it contains everything from outright deniers to those who claim that considerably fewer than 8000 were executed. I've split it into two sections - one for Serb and one for Western critics/revisionists.KarlXII 12:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "estimated vs at least": most sources cite 7-8000 killed or just "estimated" 8000 killed. The Enc. Britannica cites "more than 7,000", CNN says "up to 8000" and the BBC says "more than 7,000 Muslim men are thought to have been killed". So, "an estimated 8000" seems pretty good.KarlXII 09:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Also, the 8,300 figure by the Commissino of Missing Persons includes all those unaccounted for, ie also people who disappeared (ie were killed) before the main attack on the enclave as well as those in the column to Tuzla who died in 'combat'. Please see the list below with the figures as they are cited by major sources.KarlXII 20:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * POV tag: quite obviously the neutrality of this article under its present form is disputed, which qualifies it for a POV tag.KarlXII 09:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Further reading section: this should contain links to some of the most established books/works on the subject. This should probably include the ICTY judgement against Krstic, the NIOD report as well as Rohde's Endgame. This is even more important in such a politically charged topic as this. Therefore, including links to an obscure book and to one in Dutch, is not appropriate. KarlXII 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * copyright issues: after reviewing the archives of the Talk pages it seems large parts of the text concerning the massacre are/were a cut and paste job from the ICTY judgement against Krstic, has this been rectified? What about the images, what is the status of the rights on them?


 * Fview, you didn't explain your accross the board revision. See above for the other issues (which you also deleted). As for the Scorpions, yes, theye were from Serbia, but it's far fro mclear that they acted in Srebrenica under Serbian govt control, which the wording you propose insinuates. Why don't you expand on it somewhere in the main article? This is, after all, just a lead text.KarlXII 13:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And you Karl73 have not responded to this from the "Unprofor" section : To clarify, KarlXII now says he would be "happy with" the following statement from the BBC: "A Dutch battalion of UN peacekeepers (Dutchbat) failed to prevent the killing of 7,000 Muslims when the town was overrun by Serb forces in 1995." Therefore, if "they" refers to the Dutch Battalion, KarlXII would be "happy with" the statement "They failed to prevent the killing of 7,000 Muslims." Given that "killing 7,000 Muslims" is a massacre, KarlXII would presumably be comfortable with the statement: "They failed to prevent the massacre." Given that that statement conveys the massacre as being the direct result of the Dutch Battalion's failure, one would think that KarlXII would prefer the more forgiving factual statement: "They did not prevent the massacre." But no, KarlXII strongly disagrees with that statement. (memories of Osli73). Fairview360 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Fairview360 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We've been over all of this before, Osli. Live Forever 17:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, people, I didn't participate in this debate too actively, but "being here before" is not a particularly appealing reason without pinpointing where particularly, and I find Fairview's reply confusing and fairly ad hominem—while KarlXII likely is Osli73, that doesn't change the arguments, as Osli was not banned from this article. There are 6 points raised by Karl (and AFAICT a new link to a IWPR article concerning Scorpions) and I'd really like them addressed either directly or via links to older discussions. I think that three of you (and perhaps few more editors) are generally doing a good job on the article, despite occasional POV clashes, and I'd be sad to see an edit war without talk. Duja ► 08:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * #1 Osli73 is on probation. If Osli73 is using a sockpuppet to circumvent that probation, that is quite relevant. It would be grounds for permanently banning KarlXII and extending Osli73's probation.


 * #2 Osli73/KarlXII is agreeing with the BBC statement that the Dutch failed to prevent the massacre and then at the same time deleting the statement "they did not prevent the massacre". Yes, it is confusing since the edits and the line of argument are not consistent.


 * #3 I do not have time to go in circles with Osli73/KarlXII as I did earlier this summer, therefore I am limiting most of my discussion and edits to the introduction. Fairview360 12:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OMG, my head hurts when looking at the diffs... Guess I'll follow the wise advice above. Duja ► 13:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been invited here - but I don't really understand what am I asked to do. Since I am inactive, I'm afraid I'll require direct questions. --PaxEquilibrium 15:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Pax, since Nov 21, you have made over 500 edits. In the last two days, you have made over 100 edits. What do you mean when you say that you are "inactive"? Fairview360 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Fview, instead of answering any of my comments above you are simply ignoring them or making up excuses for not having to discuss them. Please, answer these questions instead of just saying that you don't need to discuss. KarlXII 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, the Scorpions were from Serbia, though it is not at all clear that they were acting on behalf of the state of Serbia in Srebrenica. Please, read the IWPR article on this topic.
 * 1) I deleted a reference to a dead link, what's wrong with that?
 * 2) I'm simply asking that Oric's attacks not be described as "guerilla-style" "counter-attacks", when "offensives" is a much more NPOV term used elsewhere in the article
 * 3) about the Dutch peacekeepers, yes, they did nothing to prevent the massacre because they were completely outgunned and outnumbered. The wording you are proposing implies that the Dutch peacekeepers didn't want to stop the massacre. Oric and the Bosniak forces in Srebrenica also didn't do anything to prevent the massacre, should we state that as well? However, I'm fine with saying that the UN did not prevent the massacre (if it could even reasonably be expected to have anticipated that it would happen). That's why I'm proposing the NPOV term "their presence did not prevent the massacre". What's wrong/objectionable about that?
 * 4) what was wrong with the "Serb casualties" section? What was there to object about it? Instead you are proposing a very POV text.
 * 5) why can't the MacKenzie quote be in there? He is certainly one of the more well known Western critics? The article is certainly full of quotes from others. Why not this one?


 * I am focusing on the introduction. I will leave it to the other editors to do this dance with you regarding the rest of the article. Since your approach and desired edits are identical to Osli73's, you can easily see my response to your thoughts and edits by reading the archives. Fairview360 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * About "motivations" for the massacre: Shouldn't the new state project, and the significance of capturing Srebrenica and the other enclaves in order to achieve an ethnically homogenous Bosnian-Serb state along side the Drina also be mentioned as well?

The fact that the municipalities of Bratunac, Zvornik, and Vlasenica were already cleansed of their Bosniak population, and that population already subjected to massacres & mass murder in spring 1992 (before any significant Bosniak/ABiH "counter offenses" "raids" "offenses" "guerilla attacks" "forays" (whatever term people want to use)took place is not insignificant.


 * About MacKenzie quote. *If* the quote & reference in kept in the article, I also think that it is important that the fact that he took money from a Serbian interest group also be referenced as well. It serves no one to try to portray him, despite his UNPROFOR credentials as an "objective" or "neutral" observer as the article does. I have some quotes regarding the General, if you want to see them.

(This hasn't been discussed yet.)
 * About Mladic's quote "Mladic recognized genocide..." It should be moved up to the ethnic cleansing section of the article, because the meeting where the quote was uttered took place on May 12th, 1992. Not, right before the massacre in July 1995, as the article implies.

Therefore, I think that Mladic's statement needs to be moved up to the Ethnic Cleansing section. Bosnia's Accidental Genocide Article

Gardenfli 04:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Anger over Dutch Srebrenica medal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6207254.stm --HanzoHattori 15:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Explaining my edits/Serb casualty section

 * Explaining my edits:

I'm brand new to using Wikipedia; although I have followed the Srebrenica article for quite sometime. If inadvertently violate some wikipedia ettiquette or format, I do apologize. Anyway, I want to explain the edit that I made on the section regarding Serb casualties (although, I'm not sure if it necessary for me to do so).


 * The original statement stated that there were 1,200 civilian casualties including men of military age.

However, the exact quote from which that statement is referenced to HRW: Oric's two yearssays: "...Milivoje Ivanisevic (the president of the Belgrade Centre for Investigating Crimes Committed against the Serbian People), uses the significantly lower figure, of “more than 1,000 persons [who] died,” and contains the list, mostly made of men of military age. Among those killed, there were evidently a significant number of Bosnian Serb soldiers who died in the fighting, like in Kravica."


 * Therefore according to the HRW article that was referenced: the 1,200 number includes both civilian and military casualties. With a significant number of the casualty list being fighters.


 * I (or someone else) do probably need to edit the line for flow, and it may be too similar to the sentence used in the HRW article.,. But, the main point is that according to the HRW article, the Ivanisevic number includes both civilian & military casualties, with a "significant" number of casualties being military.


 * Again, I realize it is not necessary for me to explain this edit, but given the constroversy that this article has caused, and the ocassional fighting that takes place, and the fact that I'm brand new to this article, I figure that I should do so.

Secondly, although I did not edit this point: the various sources quoted in the ICTY Press Briefing does not say one way or another that the victim list were all civilian or not. For example it states 995 Serb victims from the Bratunac-Srebrenica area. Not 995 civilians as mentioned in the wiki article. Of course, if the ICTY article did specifically say that all 995 victims were civilians, I would have no problem saying that all 995 casualties were civilians, if the ICTY article said so, but it does not. Gardenfli 04:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Gardenfli, welcome. Yes, I agree that if MacKenzie is going to be given airtime in this article, his having been paid by nationalist Serb lobby groups should also be mentioned. I have always wondered why ManKenzie is so beholden to nationalist Serbs. It may be that his personal conduct during the war witnessed by nationalist Serbs puts him a position of being blackmailed. I do not consider him to be a reliable source. With that said, I am concentrating on edits that I am willing to put my time into defending. I am concentrating mostly on the intro. In regards to my most recent intro edit, the Serbia MUP commander Franko Simatovic boasted on film to Milosevic how well his soldiers were fighting in Bosnia and Croatia. There is no question that units from Serbia MUP were deeply involved in the wars in Bosnia and Serbia. Fairview360 05:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Gardenfli, A couple of comments to the above discussion:
 * The ICTY press briefing does differentiate between "victims" and "casualties", with the former only encompassing civilians. It seems fair enough that this article should do the same. However, if pushed too far some could then argue that since that several thousand of the Bosniak men killed in the Srebrenica massacre were soldiers breaking out towards Tuzla these people should not be labelled "victims" but "casualties", etc.
 * MacKenzie, I've never seen any other media introducing MacKenzie as having been paid by any "natinalist Serb lobby". Why should this Wiki article do that? It is precisely this type of labelling which makes the article POV. I'm sure Serb nationalists would think it appropriate that the UN General Assembly statement on the role of the Bosniak forces on the ground be accompanied by a comment about how many muslims countries voted for this or state that the Research and Documentation Centre has been sponsored by NATO countries, etc, etc.
 * Regarding the Scorpions, well, see my comment above. Basically, yes, no one challenges that they were from Serbia, but it is far from clear that they were present in Srebrenica on behalf of the Serbian government. This is what the IWPR article mentions.

KarlXII 16:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Karl, I've posted a reference to the Newsday article by Olojede and Gutman in which they spoke with MacKenzie about his payment by SerbNet, who I think can fairly be described as a nationalist Serb lobby, in the "MacKenzie" section below. MacKenzie's willingness as a former UN officer to take payment from an organisation promoting the interests of one side to that conflict and subsequently to express opinions supportive of that side's position is a reasonable basis on which to question his impartiality. His less than forthcoming attitude towards the disclosure of pecuniary interests is significant when as a politically aware soldier - whose ambitions led him to seek a career at the highest levels of Canadian politics - he addresses a body, the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, whose attitude towards the evidence of its witnesses tends to reflect its awareness of the position from which they speak.  MacKenzie is widely portrayed as an independent authority with no mention made of his affiliations and this is to a large extwhy his views receive such extensive publicity.  So when contributors try to portray his comments on issues covered by this article as objective analysis by a neutral expert readers of the article do need to be made aware of the issue of his questionable impartiality.  --Opbeith 09:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Karl. Thank you for the welcome.


 * We will probably never know the exact number of Serbs (both military & civilian) killed in the Srebrenica-Bratunac-Skelani(sp) area. Just as we will never know the exact number of Bosniaks (both military & civilians) killed from the same period in 1992-1993, after the initial ethnic cleansing in the spring of 1992, and before the Safe Area was declared.

I am not denying that there weren't any Serb civilian casualties, murders in the area.

However, there does seem to be some problems with how the article presents the casualties.
 * As I explained in my previous edit, according to the HRW article, which is referenced in regards to the Ivanisevic casualty total, the number 1,200 includes both military & civilian casualties; not just civilians.
 * The exact quote from HRW is:

However, the book Hronike nasih grobalja (Chronicles of Our Graveyards) by the Serb historian Milivoje Ivanisevic (the president of the Belgrade Centre for Investigating Crimes Committed against the Serbian People), uses the significantly lower figure, of “more than 1,000 persons [who] died,” and contains the list, mostly made of men of military age. Among those killed, there were evidently a significant number of Bosnian Serb soldiers who died in the fighting, like in Kravica.
 * Therefore, the Ivanisevic number clearly includes both non-combatants, and combatant deaths in the overall total. Presenting all 1,200 victims as being civilians is misleading.


 * Secondly, I'm wondering if the section explaining Serb casualties won't be more logical in the section about the "fight over Srebrenica." ? (since that is the period of time in question).

Just a suggestion. It seems much more logical. Gardenfli 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gardenfli,
 * Number of Serb casualties: I don't put much store in the Ivanisevic numbers to begin with. Certainly the ICTY/Carla del Ponte doesn't. I honestly haven't given that much thought. As for the 2,000 estimate quoted by del Ponte, you were right to include that that included both civilians and military.
 * Location of section: I guess the logic for the current location of the Serb casualties section in the article is that it's not directly related to the massacre as such but is an issue of contention related to the massacre.
 * A question: the article is quite long. Do you have any ideas for condensing the text? As much of the description of the massacre appears to be a direct cut-n-paste job from the ICTY judgement against Krstic and should probably be rewritten anyway - would you be prepared to give that a try?
 * Scorpions: although everyone agrees that the Scorpions is a Serbian paramilitary unit and was present (or at least some of them) in Srebrenica, it's not clear whether or not they were there under the command or knowledge of the Serbian military/state. Currently, the Scorpions are mentioned in the intro but not anywhere else in the article. I've suggested that this might be added in the analysis section. Would you be willing to help out there (I think it would be much better if this was a common project, to reduce the conflict level)?

KarlXII 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Karl,
 * I never said I had much faith in Ivanisevic's number. My edit had nothing to do with Ivanisevic, it was with how the HRW article was used. The original quote stated (citing the HRW article) that there were 1,200 civilian casualties, when the article did not say that at all.

Gardenfli 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gardenfli,
 * Ivanisevic numbers: if the article misquoted the HRW report, I think it's great that you corrected it.

KarlXII 09:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, "Serbian paramilitary unit" is moot again. To my knowledge, they were a mixed bag of "volunteers" from many sides; see the trial in Belgrade records. Duja ► 10:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Duja,
 * I'm trying to propose some kind of compromise between saying they were just a bunch of volunteers and that they were under orders of the Serbian government. Saying "Serbian paramilitary unit" makes it clear that they were from Serbia but doesn't say, or imply, anything about whether or not their status was official or not. Again, I recommend that this is expanded on in the articles main text.KarlXII 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

MacKenzie

 * Roy Gutman's "Witness to Genocide" includes an entire chapter on MacKenzie, specifically mentioning the fact that he was paid by a Serbian interest group. The information is also cited in Norman Cigar's "Genocide in Bosnia" book.

The fact that MacKenzie took money from a Serbian interest group is not in dispute or up to debate. It has been cited many times. Next time I go to the library, I'll try to find the specific quotes, with page numbers, publisher's information, etc. referenced.
 * I also have several paraphrases from MacKenzie's testimony, which shows very clearly his lack of objectivity.

(All of this is from Gutman's Witness to Genocide) pg. 172: "In his testimony before the House Committee, MacKenzie argued for the creation of a small Muslim state in central Bosnia, while the Croats and Serbs get their respective wishes for Greater Serbia and Greater Croatia."
 * In April (no year is given, I'm guessing 1993). He visited Karadzic in Belgrade. MacKenzie claimed the visit was just to help secure passage of Canadian troops.

3. 170: According to George Kenney, a US State Department official (who resigned from office in protest of the US's Bosnia policy)
 * officials there frequently were unable to find any factual basies for MacKenzie's statements alleging that government forces were firing at their own civilians.

4. 172: MacKenzie appeared as the main "celebrity" in the SerbNet film titled "Truth Is the Victim in Bosnia." (Quotes are as they are quoted in the book, parenthesis are mine).


 * If we keep the MacKenzie quote in, and we keep the fact of him being an UNPROFOR general (which rightly or wrongly does give him an aura of "objectivity" we should also include info about him taking money from a Serbian interest group based in the US. Again, it is a fact.


 * I'm sure there are other people other than MacKenzie that we can use. But, I don't understand why people refuse to even put a quote in about MacKenzie taking money from the Serbian lobby based in the US.

Gardenfli 20:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gardenfli, Obviously, Mackenzie is not a "friend of Bosnia" (ie the Bosniaks). In the samw way, Gutman and a lot of other sources used here are very much "friends of Bosnia" (which is probably why he insits on painting MacKenzie as being paid by Serb nationalists). Are you familiar with the bogus rape story put out by the Bosniak government during the war to discredit MacKenzie? Obviously, they're not friend. So;
 * Is it necessary to state the leanings of all of the sources cited?
 * It's very unlikely that the views which he has expressed are the result of being "paid by" Serb groups. It's more likely a normal lecture fee.

KarlXII 21:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * MacKenzie himself acknowledges that he has been paid by Serb lobby groups. The rape story is as bogus as MacKenzie's claim that far fewer people were killed in Srebrenica. Actually, MacKenzie's claim is more bogus since the evidence proves him wrong. People do not simply disappear into thin air. If this article is going to give credence to his demonstrably false claims, if the standard of the article is going to be lowered such, then it is equally acceptable for editors to include the allegations against MacKenzie. I believe that both his demonstrably false claims and the rape allegations should not be in this article. Fairview360 18:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The payment which MacKenzie apparently (I haven't seen any source) received was, as far as I understood, a normal lecture fee. There is nothing to imply that his views are not his own. Lots of other sources, cited here, have been paid by or supported by various groups with an interest in the conflict.
 * If any mention of MacKenzie is to be preceeded by a statement that he was paid by a Serb nationalist lobby, then the same principle should apply to all other sources as well.
 * Placing MacKenzies claim/views in the Revisionism section should mean most readers understand that they are far from the consensus.
 * KarlXII 16:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fview, The reason MacKenzie's views should be presented in the article is not because they are correct (which they're not, in my opinion) but because he represents one point of view. Putting his quotes in the Revisionist section make it pretty clear for the reader that he does not represent the mainstream point of view. It's not about setting things right, but about presenting the commonly held views on the subject.KarlXII 23:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As Osli73 before, KarlXII is arguing in circles. According to KarlXII, MacKenzie's false claims should be included in the article because they represent "one point of view". However, KarlXII, at the same time, argues that claims MacKenzie succumbed to temptation and accepted offers of enslaved prostitutes from nationalist Serbs should not be included in the article because they are false. And then KarlXII accuses others of not engaging in good faith discussions. All the while, it does appear that Osli73 has circumvented his probation by recreating himself as KarlXII... with a different computer of course... thereby demonstrating the bane of wikipedia. Fairview360 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fview,
 * It is quite apparent that there are alternative / revisionist views of the Srebrenica massacre. It would seem normal for an article on the massacre to mention these views
 * MacKenzie is one of the proponents of such 'revisionist' views
 * If we are going to condition all opinions expressed in the article by things like "enslaved prostitutes" of "nationalist Serbs" then we should apply the same principle to all other sources as well - which obviously does not make sense.
 * Placing MacKenzie's views in the "Revisionism" section should be enough to help the reader understand the nature of his views.

KarlXII 09:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

KarlXII, the important point about MacKenzie's receipt of payment from a prominent pro-Serb lobby group was that he failed to disclose any potential conflict of interest when he testified before the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee to give them his views on the war in Bosnia. This was the famous occasion on which he told the Committee "Dealing with Bosnia is a little bit like dealing with three serial killers -- one has killed 15, one has killed 10, one has killed five. Do we help the one that's only killed five?"

Newsday (Dele Olojede and Roy Gutman) found out that his lecture tour was funded by SerbNet. MacKenzie maintained that he hadn't done anything unethical or improper. He said that he didn't know how much he was paid but he customarily received up to $10,000 an appearance and that he "wouldn't be surprised" if SerbNet paid that rate through his agent.

MacKenzie's view that the parties were to blame for atrocities in the 3-2-1 proportions he suggested blunts the apportionment of blame for ethnic cleansing and mass killings by UN and other reports that found the Serbs predominantly responsible.

Newsday quoted SerbNet's treasurer Milan Visnick as saying "We were very pleased that there was someone to speak more favorably of the Serbs". Visnick confirmed that SerbNet was a sponsor of the tour which SerbNet considered had, with other efforts by Serbia's American sympathizers, led to the organization's "most successful month yet in bringing the Serbian-American perspective before the wider public."

During his tour MacKenzie gave more than a dozen speeches and interviews questioning the value of U.S. military intervention to rescue Bosnia's Muslims, reiterating his claim that "the vast majority" of cease-fire violations that he observed in Bosnia were committed by Muslims. He defended himself by arguing that "my position is always of objectivity because I don't blame only the Serbs." Which is as it may be, but all then same he still took money from a pro-Serb lobby group and didn't disclose the fact at an appropriate moment.

So it's not unreasonable for MacKenzie's pronouncements to be viewed as being perhaps less objectively alternative than they might be.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N29/serbs.29w.html

--Opbeith 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

KarlXII, I'd like to know why you want to discredit Gutman - a decent humane journalist who brought the world's attention to horrors that others were trying to conceal, minimise or excuse - by alleging that it is probably as a "friend of Bosnia" that he insists on painting MacKenzie as being paid by Serb nationalists. McKenzie, when pressed, acknowledged to Olojede and Gutman that he had received payment from Serb nationalist sources. Gutman isn't "insisting on painting" as you rather tendentiously put it - he's reporting. Why are you trying to undermine his credibility as a reporter? I must declare my own position - I regard Gutman, along with other colleagues, as a hero in the battle against the use of atrocity as a weapon of war by Serbia or anyone else. So I resent that rather snide smear. --Opbeith 12:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

MacKenzie is rather grudging in the way that he acknowledges the scope of his activities and involvements. He responds to accusations in a less than forthcoming way. I've just come across an Ottawa Citizen article in which he winds up a series of articles commenting on the Kosovo war in 1999 by dealing with the criticisms offered by his readers. The article reads as an exercise in self-justification based on an albeit genially wilful use of half-truths:

''I guess what I enjoyed the most about the entire process was the reader feedback. Unfortunately, by the time the e-mails reached me, the return address was deleted. The majority of them were positive and I thank those of you who took the time to write.''

''As a general in the army, I wasn't used to criticism (I'm sure there was a lot of it, but it was behind my back and certainly not to my face) so I naturally focused on the critical letters. Some of them were borderline humorous because they parroted the bizarre propaganda put out by one of the parties to the Bosnian conflict when I failed to take their side in the early days of that war -- the UN mission I served with having been assigned an impartial mandate by the Security Council.''

But for those who still believe the fairy tales they read in '93, I offer the following facts:

...

No, I didn't give a speech to an American Serbian audience in 1993 for thousands of dollars.

...

http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/Jul_28/5.html (pro-Serb site)

"As a general in the army" he certainly should have been aware of criticism made to his face, unless he was completely out of his face at the time the Somalia Commission of Inquiry reported his shortcomings in that debacle.

--Opbeith 11:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Another website (Free Serbia Net, caveat obviously not an impartial source) describes the way in which SUC and Serbnet leveraged the MacKenzie contribution to the US pro-Serbia lobby's propaganda campaign and also cite a figure of $15,000 per speaking engagement. There certainly was a public relations war and the Bosnia lobby weren't (and aren't) the only army on the field. http://www.freeserbia.net/Documents/Lobby.html --Opbeith 21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Some Bosnian sources have claimed that Brian Mulroney's lobbying for MacKenzie's appointment as commander of UN peacekeeping forces in FRY was influenced by his wife Mila, who was born in Sarajevo with a Serbian Orthodox family background. Mila Mulroney was a controversial figure with a higher public profile than many other Canadian Prime Ministers’ wives but I haven't seen specific evidence of her intervention in matters linked to Canadian involvement in FRY. Does anyone know if there is any substance to this allegation, which if true would obviously have a bearing on the public's perception of MacKenzie's objectivity? --Opbeith 10:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

slight correction "Surrendering"
'''ETA: I didn't correct this yet. I'm just bringing this up, because it is something that needs to be corrected sooner or later.''':The wikipedia article states: On April 13, 1993, the Serbs told the UNHCR that they would attack the town within two days unless the Bosniaks surrendered. The Bosniaks refused to surrender.


 * The first line about the VRS attack is true. However, according to the book "The Death of Yugoslavia" the second part about the Bosniak forces refusing to surrender is not true.


 * According to the book:


 * On April 12th 1993 the VRS launched an intense attack on the town that killed approxemently 56 people; including children playing on the football field.

(Source: Yugoslavia Death of a Nation, by Laura Silber and Allan Little pg. 269)
 * On April 14th the Srebrenica authorities asked that a message be smuggle out to the UNPROFOR headquarters in Belgrade.

Quote: "The Commander told me that they had decided to surrender. He said it was not simply the shelling in the center of the town but that their defensive lines had collapsed. They looked desperate and finished." (Source: Yugoslavia Death of a Nation, by Laura Silber and Allan Little pg. 271)


 * On April 16th Mladic, Sefer Halilovic and a Cedric Thornberry met to discuss the surrender and mass evacuation of Srebrenica.

(Source: Silber and Little pg 272) The evacuation of Srebrenica in 1993 never took place, because just the previous night (April 15th) the UN had declared Srebrenica a safe area. The Safe Area agreement was: 1. Serb forces were not requied to pull back from their achieved lines 2. A ceasefire was agreed in effect at 5:00 A.M 3. The Bosnian Gov't forces would be disarmed and provided for the deployment of 140 Canadian troops to collect weapons. 4. The Serbs agreed to allow the helicopter evacuation of 500 wounded. These would be selected by UNPROFOR in the presence of two doctors from both sides. 5. All helicopters would be required to stop in the Serb held town of Zvornik, regardless of the condition of the wounded. (Silber and Little page 273)

Therfore, it does appear as if the ABiH was preparing to surrender. Furthermore, the line about the ABiH "refusing to surrender" as it is stated in the article, is not even sourced. Gardenfli 20:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Secretary-General's Report to the General Assembly on the fall of Srebrenica ("Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly resolution 53/35 - The fall of Srebrenica", United Nations A/54/549 of 15 November 1999 - http://www.domovina.net/srebrenica/page_005/unsrerep.pdf) describes the complexity of the situation in which the Security Council was passing the safe area resolution while UNPROFOR was negotiating its own pragmatic solution on the ground with the two parties - so the declaration of Srebrenica as a safe area and the agreement on the details of its implementation were not a single process:

''52. Before the Security Council had time to finalize its position on the concept of safe areas, events on the ground demanded further action. The High Commissioner for Refugees wrote to the Secretary-General on 2 April 1993 that the people of Srebrenica were convinced “that the Bosnian Serbs [would] pursue their military objective to gain control of Srebrenica” (S/25519). She noted that evacuation of non-combatants from Srebrenica was one option, and that these people were “desperate to escape to safety because they see no other prospect than death if they remain where they are”. She stressed, however, that the Bosnian Government authorities were “opposed to continued evacuation of people, which they see as designed to empty the town of its women and children in order to facilitate a subsequent Serbian offensive”. Under the circumstances, Mrs. Ogata concluded:'' ''“I believe we are faced with two options, if we are to save the lives of the people trapped in Srebrenica. The first is to immediately enhance international presence, including that of UNPROFOR, in order to turn the enclave into an area protected by the United Nations, and inject life-sustaining assistance on a scale much greater than being permitted at the moment. ... Failing that, the only other option would be to organize a large-scale evacuation of the endangered population in Srebrenica.” (S/25519)''

''53. The Secretary-General transmitted the High Commissioner’s letter to the Security Council, after which extended consultations took place among the members of the Council. Broadly, the members of the Council that were members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, represented principally by Pakistan and Venezuela, proposed strong action “to reverse Serb aggression”, and initially favoured two lines of approach: tightening sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and lifting the arms embargo established under Council resolution 713 (1991) as it applied to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Explaining the latter proposal, the non-aligned countries argued that the embargo was hampering the right to self-defence of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina.''

''54. The non-aligned countries tabled a draft resolution to this effect, which the President of the Council decided would be put to the vote on 26 April. Events on the ground, however, were overtaking the Security Council’s consultations. '''On 13 April 1993, Serb commanders informed the representative of UNHCR that they would enter Srebrenica within two days unless the town surrendered and its Bosniac population was evacuated. On 16 April, the Secretary-General’s Special Political Adviser, Chinmaya Gharekhan (who represented the Secretary-General in the Security Council), informed the Council that he had been in contact with the Force Commander of UNPROFOR and that United Nations military observers stationed in Srebrenica had reported that the town had not yet fallen, but that the authorities there had offered to surrender on three conditions, namely, that the wounded soldiers be airlifted out; that all civilians be evacuated; and that safe passage be guaranteed to all military personnel, who would walk to Tuzla.' [my emphasis]

''55. There was considerable confusion in the Security Council, with the representative of one Member State indicating that he had heard from national sources that Srebrenica had already fallen. After extended debate, '''the Council on 16 April adopted a draft resolution tabled by the non-aligned members, as resolution 819 (1993) in which it demanded that “all parties and others treat Srebrenica and its surroundings as a safe area which should be free from any armed attack or any other hostile act”. It also demanded “the immediate cessation of armed attacks by Bosnian Serb paramilitary units against Srebrenica and their immediate withdrawal from the areas surrounding Srebrenica”, and further demanded that “the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia immediately cease the supply of military arms, equipment and services to the Bosnian Serb paramilitary units in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina”. However, no specific restrictions were put on the activities of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Upon learning of the resolution, UNPROFOR expressed concern to the Secretariat that the regime could not be implemented without the consent of both parties which, given Serb dominance, would certainly require Bosnian Government forces to lay down their weapons.' [my emphasis]

''56. The Security Council, although acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, had provided no resources or mandate for UNPROFOR to impose its demands on the parties. Rather, it requested the Secretary-General, “with a view to monitoring the humanitarian situation in the safe area, to take immediate steps to increase the presence of the United Nations Protection Force in Srebrenica and its surroundings”.''

57. Thus, the Security Council appeared to rule out Mrs. Ogata’s evacuation option, and instead condemned and rejected “the deliberate actions of the Bosnian Serb party to force the evacuation of the civilian population from Srebrenica and its surrounding areas as well as from other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of its overall abhorrent campaign of ‘ethnic cleansing’”. [my emphasis]

58. Following the adoption of resolution 819 (1993), and on the basis of consultations with members of the Council, the Secretariat informed the UNPROFOR Force Commander that, in its view, the resolution, calling as it did for the parties to take certain actions, created no military obligations for UNPROFOR to establish or protect such a safe area. [my emphasis]

What then follows is an account of how UNPROFOR on the ground then negotiated its own pragmatic agreement with the Bosnian Serbs and the ARBiH:

D. Srebrenica demilitarization agreement of 18 April 1993

59. While the Security Council was speaking out strongly against the actions of the Bosnian Serbs, 'UNPROFOR was confronted with the reality that the Serbs were in a position of complete military dominance around Srebrenica, and that the town and its population were at risk. UNPROFOR commanders, therefore, took a different approach from the Council, convincing the Bosniac commanders that they should sign an agreement in which Bosniac forces would give up their arms to UNPROFOR in return for the promise of a ceasefire, the insertion of an UNPROFOR company into Srebrenica, the evacuation of the seriously wounded and seriously ill, unimpeded access for UNHCR and ICRC, and certain other provisions (see S/25700).''' Representatives of the Bosnian Government were apparently divided as to how to proceed. According to General Halilovie, then Commander of the ARBiH, President Izetbegovie was in favour of the UNPROFOR proposal, which, as he understood it, meant that the Bosniacs would hand their weapons over to UNPROFOR in return for UNPROFOR protection.'' [my emphasis]

''60. The text of the agreement was negotiated in Sarajevo on 17 April 1993, and was signed by General Halilovie and General Mladie early in the morning of 18 April. The Force Commander witnessed the agreement on behalf of UNPROFOR. The agreement laid down the terms under which Srebrenica would be demilitarized, though it did not define the area to be demilitarized. Halilovie has since stated that he understood the agreement to cover only the urban area of Srebrenica, and not the rural parts of the enclave. UNPROFOR seems also to have understood the agreement in this way. The Serbs, however, did not. The agreement also called for the deployment of UNPROFOR troops into the area by 1100 hours on 18 April in order to secure a landing site for helicopters which would evacuate wounded personnel from Srebrenica; for the monitoring of the ceasefire in Srebrenica and those areas outside the town from which direct fire weapons could be brought to bear; and for the establishment of liaison with authorized military leaders of both sides.''

[re odd names - the UN printer obviously had problems with B/C/S diacritics]

--Opbeith 22:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop the Vandalism! Stop the Lies!
Who changed 'estimated' to 'at least' in the opening sentence????! That link provided is a link to the official SARAJEVO list..... .... .... I'm sure that's not biased! I'm not even going to bother changing it..

I'm so sick of this article... I give up.


 * WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE WAR WAS HORRIBLE (referring to Bosnian War)
 * BOTH SIDES COMMITTED ATROCITIES
 * BOTH SIDES ARE GUILTY
 * BOTH SIDES ARE VICTIMS

But goddamit, people have to stop spreading garbage about what happened, or the two sides will NEVER get beyond ugly nationalism and hate that keeps them from being the friends they one were....

One last comment: This entire article is based on a biased portrayal of what happened in Srebrenica in the form of a film. If films like this keep getting made, that not only portray one side of the story, but also make up stories and exaggerate claims (such as casualty counts), then HATE WILL PREVAIL and many people will be misinformed due to BIASED accounts... but most importantly... two peoples who should love each other, and take care of each other, and watch each others backs, and eat burek together, and go to Bijelo Dugme concerts together.... will only sit on opposite sides of the fence... waiting for the next opportunity to strike...

What a sad world... Only the truth will unite Bosnians and Serbs... Spread the truth, Stop the lies... I'm done with this article. Stop The Lies 08:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

No need for POV status as all info presented is accurate
Srebrenica genocide info/references are overhelmingly tied to the ICTY court judgments etc, and there is no need for POV status. Obviously, some people want to disrupt the truth from seeing light, but thanks to Wikipedia's anti-vandalism and anti-edit-war policy, the article is slowly (but steadily) becoming better. The point is - there is no need for destruction of article, and admins must deal with people such as KarlXII. There is no reason to let those people continue their vandalism, deletion of whole paragraphs, edit wars, etc. It's such a disruption and it must be changed. Lock the article, do something, don't let vandalism prevail. Thank you. Bosniak 09:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter if the information is accurate or not, it is a matter of how it is presented and what information is presented. See my list of disputed issues above and you will get a feeling for what it's about.KarlXII 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"estimated 8000" vs "at least 8000" killed
I advocate using "an estimated 8000" instead of "at least 8000" killed. Why? Estimates seem to vary between 7000 to more than 8000. Thus the word "an estimated 8000" seems fair. Here are some examples:
 * "Accounting for Genocide: How Many Were Killed in Srebrenica?", European Journal of Population, Sept. 2003. It concludes that "We conclude that at least 7,475 persons were killed after the fall of Srebrenica." and
 * HRW ("“Safe Areas” for Srebrenica’s Most Wanted; A Decade of Failure to Apprehend Karadzic and Mladic, June 2005) uses ther words "between 7,000 and 8,000"
 * The Enclyclopedia Britannica says "more than 7,000" http[://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9403267/Bosnia-and-Herzegovina]
 * CNN referst to "up to 8,000" ("Srebrenica: 'A triumph of evil'", May 2006)
 * BBC writes "more than 7,000" ("Timeline: Siege of Srebrenica")
 * Domovina.net cites "Around 8000" ("Srebrenica : Introduction", May 2002)
 * NIOD report writes that "The Yugoslavia Tribunal concluded that between 7000 and 8000 men were executed, although this does not allow for the possibility that some will have died during the march for any of a number of other reasons. Based on the Bosnian Serb figure of approximately 6000 'prisoners of war' captured by the VRS, it seems that of the 7500 missing persons, approximately 6000 faced execution while the others met their end through some other cause." (NIOD report, Part IV, Chapter 2:20, "Review")
 * ICTY in its judgement against Krstic writes "between 7,000 – 8,000" (ICTY, April 2004, para. 2)

So, based on the above it would seem that "more than 7000" or "between 7-8000" are the most commonly cited figures and that, therefore, "an estimated 8000" would be a good wording. Remember, Wikipedia is not the place for Original research. This has nothing to do with "relativization" or any such thing. It is about presenting the facts as stated by reliable and respectable resources. Consistently pushing for higher figures is "politicization" (see what wikipedia is not: a soap box).KarlXII 13:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Compare this statement with the statement about MacKenzie. KarlXII/Osli73, you are such a chameleon. Now you say "It is about presenting the facts as stated by reliable and respectable resources." For all your posturing, you do not have the intellectual nor moral highground. When it suits your purposes, you are constantly trying to give unreputable sources as much credibility as you can get away with. And then you object to describing women forcibly taken from their homes and forced into prostitution as "enslaved prostitutes". What would you describe them as, "consenting sex workers who have undergone an aggressive recruitment"? And now you want to go in circles about how to describe the likes of Seselj, Karadzic, Mladic, and Milosevic? Who the hell are you to claim that you care about Serbs and Serbia and then try to dilute the language such that the above mentioned men are only described as "Serbs"? They are not representative of Serbs. They are representative of a radical nationalist fringe that has held Serbia captive for way too long. They do not represent all Serbs. For the sake of the citizens of Serbia and those of Serbian culture, we must make a distinction. We must be clear that nationalist Serbs do not represent all Serbs. No wonder people simply get sick of you. Fairview360 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fview, what are you talking about?
 * what "posturing" and "moral high ground" are you talking about?
 * who are these "enslaved prostitutes" you are talking about and when did I even mention (or not mention) them?
 * in what way am I going in "circles" about Seselj, Karadzic, Mladic and Milosevic?
 * have I ever claimed that I "care about Serbs and Serbia"?

The only people who seem to get sick of me are nationalists (such as yourself) who are unable to carry on a civilized discussion.KarlXII 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. 2. It is a prime example of your posturing when you rhetorically ask when did you mention "enslaved prostitutes" when you wrote those very same words -- "enslaved prositutes" -- the same day in a previous comment. Of course you remember.
 * 3. You are characterizing describing anyone as a "nationalist Serb" as POV language. So how does one make the distinction between all Serbs and those such as Seselj, Karadzic, Mladic, and Milosevic?
 * 4 OK. I stand corrected Osli73/KarlXII has never expressed any concern for Serbs or any other citizen of the former Yugoslavia.


 * Lastly, characterizing me as unable to carry on a civilized conversation is another example of posturing on your part. I'll now return to responding to proposed edits at face value. Fairview360 18:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The 8,300 figure referred to by Emir Arven and quoted in the article is a total for the number of people confirmed missing in the region of Srebrenica. This includes also people killed in combat during the trek to Tuzla or even before the main attack on the enclave as well as other people who have just not been accounted for. KarlXII 20:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If no one can come up with any/a number of credible and well known sources using a figure above 8000 then I propose that we change the text back to "an estimated 8000".KarlXII 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There obviously is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding this number. I would advocate using 8000 because 8300 implies a level of precision that simply isn't there.  Some have estimated 7000, others have estimated as high as 10,000.  Also, for general impact of the article, 8000 vs. 8300 isn't substantially different.  The point is that its the largest case of genocide in Europe since WWII.  If a respected third party report (eg. US Government, Red Cross, UN etc...) can be cited to give a harder number, I'd be all for using it, but in the absence of such a source, I think "approximately 8000" or "an estimated 8000" is the correct language to use. Mgunn 12:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Given all the evidence at this point given by reliable sources, either "at least 8000" or "an estimated 8000" is, I believe acceptable. However, I believe it puts the article on more solid ground to say "an estimated 8,000". There are examples of credible sources saying "at least 8000" (see archives). However an estimated 8000 is far more common. The introductory paragraph gives the number of confirmed missing or killed (8,373) so the reader is given all the information they need to reach a conclusion about the actual number killed as a result of the massacre. Fairview360 18:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What the heck happenned to all the images?
Can someone give a justification for what happenned? Mgunn 18:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the edit history. The images were removed because they were copyright violations. —Psychonaut 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe there are too many photos in the article. I just removed one, but I wonder why all of these photos are here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Four comments: KarlXII 09:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A number of the images are quite obviously from a television program called "TV P1".
 * A large number of the other images are also very likely from various news agencies (AP, etc).
 * It would be nice to have some confirmation that their use here is legitimate and does not break any copyright issues
 * I agree, the article does feel a bit overloaded with images. Less is more!
 * There was a lot of different uploaders of the TV screenshots, which have been slated for speedy deletion by someone else. Most of the memorial photos look free, but it doesn't hurt to check them out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just had to remove a few pictures of the memorial since, on the Commons (where I admin at), the photos were determined not to be created by the uploader. However, I found which could be used under a public domain license (as a photo of the US Government). Would this work? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, now the concern is about all of those TV screenshots. I assume we can use some under fair use, but my question (as a non-Serb) is this; what value do some of the photos have? I seen several screenshots of the UN forces; maybe one could be needed. I am just suggesting things now, since I know this article is highly contested. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 11:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Breaking news
Serbian War Criminal Prosecutor, Vladimir Vukcevic admitted that Scorpions were part of Serbian Security Foreces which participated in genocide. He said that it is impossible to deny that fact. Here is the video interview for Bosnian TV (click "11.12.2006." for watching in the following page: ). Emir Arven 19:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the link Emir Arven. I do not speak Bosnian. Can you summerize the main points/quotes? I'm currently trying to look up information about the Scoprions as well. Human Rights Watch recently published a document on the Milosevic trial, and the involvement of some of the state security apparatus in the war in Bosnia. However, on a very cursory glance at the paper, I only found one reference to the Scorpions. I do however have some quotes etc. about the particpation of the JNA, and Serbian MUP in the ethnic cleansing of E. Bosnia, especially in 1992-1993 including the Srebrenica area (Bratunac-Srebrenica-Zvornik-Vlasencia (sp?) ) Gardenfli 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, they presented number of documents that were hidden by Serb authorities which showed that not just Scorpions had been part of Serbian Security Foreces or MUP of Serbia, but also other units. They also showed that all unites were controlled from Belgrade, orders, plans for attack etc. If you are interested for your research for that documentation, you can send an e-mail to Bosnian TV: [politicki.magazin@rtvfbih.ba] Emir Arven 18:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I just want to say that this person under nick KarlXII is sockpuppet (earlier know as Osli) who is Swedish Serb who keeps denying the genocide. Emir Arven 18:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Gardenfli, while it seems clear that the Scorpions were formally a unit of the Serbian military police it is absolutely not clear under who's orders and under who's control they were active in Srebrenica. This IWPR article goes into quite a bit of depth on the issue, saying:


 * The question that will necessarily arise at the tribunal, should the tape showing the executions be admitted into evidence, is under whose command the Scorpions operated in the summer of 1995 when they are alleged to have killed the six Muslim men and boys in Trnovo. The prosecution at the tribunal claim that the Milosevic-led Serbian security authorities were in charge of the unit, while the former Belgrade leader has insisted that it was under the control of the Croatian Serb authorities.


 * According to IWPR sources, the Scorpions at the time of the atrocity were formally part of the 11th Corps of the VRSK, the Army of the Republic of Serb Krajina, the self-proclaimed Croatian Serb statelet.


 * Medic, in testimony given a few years ago in a case involving one of his former comrades, said the Scorpions unit was formed in 1991, initially to provide security for the eastern Slovonian oil fields. He added that in 1996 it became a reserve unit in the Serbian Public Security Service Special Anti-Terrorist Unit, SAJ.


 * This was confirmed last week at the Milosevic trial, when witness General Obrad Stevanovic, the former Serbian assistant interior minister, told the court that “the earliest point that [the Scorpions] could have been [subordinated to the Serbian interior ministry] would have been after the end of the war in Krajina, after mid 1996 or perhaps slightly earlier [that year]”.


 * A recently published report by the Serbian organised crime department into links between the Scorpions and the Belgrade authorities says that the paramilitary unit did not come under the command of the SAJ until March 1999.

In conclusion, it would appear to be pushing it to label the Scorpions as "special state security forces of Serbia" as it implies that they were indeed under Serbian state control while this is far from established.KarlXII 09:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fview, I agree, "from Serbia" is clearer than just "Serbian". As for expanding on this in the article, do you have any suggestions for a good text? In that case the Wiki article which deals with them (I believe I saw a reference to one in the archives) should be adjusted accordingly. The "Scorpions" in this text should also be linked to that article.KarlXII 14:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If we are all in agreement that the Scorpions were a unit of the Serbian military police as this discussion appears to indicate, then it would make sense that we would all agree with presenting them as such in the intro. We all agree that units of the US military are in Afghanistan. Just because some of them are under the command of European officers as part of NATO does not change their status as units of the US military. Hence, I changed the intro to "special state security forces of Serbia". Or it could be "a unit of Serbia's military police". I believe most would assume that during the actual massacre the Scorpions were following orders from Mladic's command. That is not the issue. The issue is that Serbia aided and abetted VRS and their actions. If one is going to argue for the description a "paramilitary unit", it should say "from Serbia", not Serbian since that is ambiguous. So, KarlXII or Osli73, if you are going to edit back to "paramility unit" then please say "from Serbia". Fairview360 15:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've now edited to "paramilitary unit from Serbia" which I think we can all agree on. Whether or not they were controlled by Belgrade and if so, to what extent, will have to be dealt wth separately. The comparison to US troops in Afghanistan isn't really correct, as in this case we are talking about a paramilitary unit in a disintegrating state with unclear control of the armed forces.KarlXII 09:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate the fact that I'm sounding like Milošević's advocate (and there's a link somewhere around, where that argument is used on his trial), but they were not a unit of the Serbian military police. They became a unit of Serbian police only in 1996, when Arkan's "Tigers" and Simatović's "Red Berets" were pulled from Eastern Slavonia and stationed in Kula. Before that, they were basically paramilitaries, although under strong auspice of Serbian RDB (state security) by its "gray eminence" Jovica Stanišić and operative command of Franko Simatović, and they were "leased" to formal command of VRS and Krajina forces during the Bosnian and Croatian wars. So, officially, there were a "NSU" (No Such Unit). Ostensibly, "Scorpions" were created to control and protect the resources of the oil industry of Krajina, and under formal command of VRSK (Army of Krajina) at the time of Srebrenica massacre. Again, I don't want to serve as an advocate of Serbia, but the proofs direct endorsement of the Srebrenica massacre by the Serbian government are moot: while, on one hand, they publically condemned the Karadžić's and Mladić's policies and even imposed some kind of trade embargo at a moment, lots of dirty work was performed underground simultaneously.


 * If you can read Serbian, see the Vreme articles referenced in Jedinica za Specijalne Operacije; they explain a lot of the Tigers/Red Berets/JSO affairs, (although the Scorpions only have a passing mention in part 2, IIRC). Duja ► 16:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add, Vreme does have an extensive English language archive at, http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian%5Fdigest/ I haven't checked to see if that particular article has been translated into English. Gardenfli 05:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, those are only old articles, up to 1997. Duja ► 11:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

in clear need of controversy
I've read through the article, and the latest discussion, and I agree with Stop The Lies that the article, as many, is BADLY in need of focus over the enormous controversies which, while strongly covered up by the news media, at the time and now, are in fact based on huge inconsistencies and lack of evidence for the official version of the whole sequel of events which came to compose the infamous Yugoslav Wars. Indeed, it is silly to accuse Stop The Lies to "seek truth" so that s/he is violating the proviso of "no original research" of wikipedia. I wonder: what we take for good to be included in the article. One is seeking truth, that is, one tries to ascertain it once and for all: i.e. that it presents one only point of view over a matter, and that was so, and still in large part is so, for this article. And the funny thing is that is exactly what Stop The Lies has been accused of! (I mean to "seek truth")

That is, when are we entitled to take as settled a question? Is it when a judge or a tribunal has ruled over it? I believe I have no need to here to notice that, if that would have been so, then, how many horrible crimes would have gone unpunished (and indeed, how many have gone unpunished). And yet, here, it is said, we are not to judge: but, by selecting out the compelling and well acknowledged evidence against the advocated interpretation of the role of the Yugoslav government during the siege of Sarajevo and the whole period of the wars, it is this - judge - that we are doing. By doing so, by abiding to the opinion of the official authority appointed to judge, we are in high risk of hampering our understanding of the events.

To begin with, there should be a committment from the community to clearly state in the series of article about the dissolution of Yugoslavia, that, in front of a huge quantity of official documents, financial and diplomatic agreements, reports of arms trade, direct testimony, and reporting from the war zone, it is not at all sttled whether the events took place in the way, and for the causes suggested by official establishment opinion: I suggest as introductory remarks this controversial evidence to be inserted before the narrative of the massacre:

(1) by far, the Serb actions were the least violent and the least sectarian of all, indeed, Serbia is now the most multi-ethnic country of the region, and it is so, mostly the positive heritage of the Socialist state, then destroyed.

(2) The war had been consciously instigated by the government of the United States of America, in order: (1) to hasten the dissolution of Yugoslavia, to the aim of take nominal control of the territory of former Yugoslavia, (2) organize fake elections under strict control, (3) to have elected into key positions people favourable to US policies, (4) to surrend the state assets of the former Yugoslav state (that is, of the former Yugoslav people) to private foreign investors and corporations; this is the usual procedure adopted by the government of the U.S.A. in dealing with countries who are not willing to obey to their orders (the official name is "The Salvadoran option". In reference to the terrorist war conducted by the U.S in El Salvador in the eighties);

(3) Kosovo was "described in the New York Times as "war's glittering prize. . . the most valuable piece of real estate in the Balkans. . . worth at least $5 billion" in rich deposits of coal, lead, zinc, cadmium, gold, and silver." New York Times, July 8, 1998.

(4) the Western powers and media stood silently by, while, their paramilitary proxies in the Balkans created the necessary conditions for a direct intervention with UN and then NATO;

(5)the campaign to demonize the Serbs, and their ALLEGED atrocities (since one fact is, as rightly KarlXII points out, to say there was a massacre, and another who actually committed it; and still another whether who is liable for the massacre was committed to it) has been pushed all along by the Western media and politicians, by ignoring all contrary reports, all elementary evidence, that told that the atrocities began well after the NATO intervention; and previously were almost completely pursued by the other parties rather than the Serbs;

(6) the most violent parties in the war seem to be: the NATO forces which backed up, and funded KLA and other separatists factions and guerrilla groups in their terrorist attacks against Serbs to the aim of provoke a reaction, in which achievment they succeeded (the same teechnique is unrelentlesly emplyoed in Palestine, for example);

and so on, and so forth.

I am perfectly aware that, I am now not speaking strictly of the arguments of the discussion, but, at the bottom of the causes and reasons of the war, which eventually led to the massacre, there are interests and ideologies that are a long, long, long way far from the ALLEGED motivation of the war as is official established in "ethnic hatred", which, of course, as it could be said in propagandist wording couldn't had been mitigated, or rather would be incited, by the years of despotic communist rule, in an expression so dear to propaganda tool makers of the Western capitalist public relations industry: they couldn't accept that "Yugoslavia was built on an idea, namely that the Southern Slavs would not remain weak and divided peoples, squabbling among themselves and easy prey to outside imperial interests. Together they could form a substantial territory capable of its own economic development. Indeed, after World War II, socialist Yugoslavia became a viable nation and an economic success. Between 1960 and 1980 it had one of the most vigorous growth rates: a decent standard of living, free medical care and education, a guaranteed right to a job, one-month vacation with pay, a literacy rate of over 90 percent, and a life expectancy of 72 years. Yugoslavia also offered its multi-ethnic citizenry affordable public transportation, housing, and utilities, with a not-for-profit economy that was mostly publicly owned. This was not the kind of country global capitalism would normally tolerate." (references for this quote below)

There was the strong will of economic sacking and ruthless exploitation of human and natural resources, and this is well seen in the aftermath of the war with the wealth of Yugoslavia's people to be "sold off at private firms at garage sale prices". It is the logic of such economic thoeries as that of "rational choice": these people ask: "what could be more expedient to us?" No matter what they go and get it, and human losses, in order of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions, are only a "contingency" and a "collateral damage"(even if the latter expression is more generally used for damage to infrastructures...)

Michael Parenti, well known and respected professor and academic in History, author of more than twenty books and a number of articles, that I do believe a strongly reliable and documented source, writes:

"The dismemberment and mutilation of Yugoslavia was part of a concerted policy initiated by the United States and the other Western powers in 1989. Yugoslavia was the one country in Eastern Europe that would not voluntarily overthrow what remained of its socialist system and install a free-market economic order. In fact, Yugoslavs were proud of their postwar economic development and of their independence from both the Warsaw Pact and NATO. The U.S. goal has been to transform the Yugoslav nation into a Third-World region, a cluster of weak right-wing principalities with the following characteristics:

(1) incapable of charting an independent course of self-development;

(2) a shattered economy and natural resources completely accessible to multinational corporate exploitation, including the enormous mineral wealth in Kosovo;

(3) an impoverished, but literate and skilled population forced to work at subsistence wages, constituting a cheap labor pool that will help depress wages in western Europe and elsewhere;

(4) dismantled petroleum, engineering, mining, fertilizer, and automobile industries, and various light industries, that offer no further competition with existing Western producers.

U.S. policymakers also want to abolish Yugoslavia's public sector services and social programs — for the same reason they want to abolish our public sector services and social programs. The ultimate goal is the privatization and Third Worldization of Yugoslavia, as it is the Third Worldization of the United States and every other nation. In some respects, the fury of the West's destruction of Yugoslavia is a backhanded tribute to that nation's success as an alternative form of development, and to the pull it exerted on neighboring populations both East and West."

The excerpts in this post are taken from Parenti's book "To kill a Nation" Verso Books, 2002, in which all the sources and references needed are cited, and it is STRONGLY reliable, in my opinion. I suggest you to go and see, make up your mind, read something else by the author (there is also an intersting site www.michaelparenti.org on which many articles are found), and test the references cited: you will find no wrong in what Professor Parenti affirms. I also want to say that, we are always looking at these events from a single point of view, (that of the official sanctioning either by justice, or by international authorities such UN) which we believe unbiased, and neutral, but is it so? It doesn't seem this is the case, thus, it should be questioned and placed under scrutiny because what is officially accepted has no guarantee of accuracy (if one is willing to take the burden to check primary sources), which is, as I intend it, one of the purposes of wikipedia. I strongly favor the introduction of such kind of information (since it allows to have a more sound and clear idea about what happened) in all the articles about, at the least, the topic of Yugoslavia's dissolution and subsequent wars, and then the take over of right wing regimes over the whole region, funded and backed by US and UE, by brutally repressing dissent, causing huge poverty, sufferance, unemployment, hunger (and hailed as an example of democracy by official propagandists): the usual and expected results of "structural adjustments" by IMF and World Bank (where it really resides power)to which the whole Balkan region had been subjected; to the detriment of the population of Yugoslavia, and the profit of foreign ultra rich private firms and individuals.

There are many topics which could be dwelved in with success. It is not a question of seeking truth, but to propose debate, since, in the article, judgments are expressed about the events, and, unless one reads the discussion s/he will take those judsgment as true ones: since it is not certain that it is so, this must be CLEARLY UNDERLINED. Protagora 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Protagora 16:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Protagora, you assert that "by far, the Serb actions were the least violent and the least sectarian of all" and claim that "the campaign to demonize the Serbs, and their ALLEGED atrocities ... has been pushed all along by the Western media and politicians, by ignoring all contrary reports, all elementary evidence, that told that the atrocities began well after the NATO intervention; and previously were almost completely pursued by the other parties rather than the Serbs;". The only way that you would be entitled to make these claims is if you were able to refute the evidence that was adduced at the time by for example Cherif Bassiouni and Tadeusz Mazowiecki and has since been substantiated by the findings in various ICTY cases.


 * When you say "... when are we entitled to take as settled a question? Is it when a judge or a tribunal has ruled over it? ... if that would have been so, then, how many horrible crimes would have gone unpunished (and indeed, how many have gone unpunished). ... by abiding to the opinion of the official authority appointed to judge, we are in high risk of hampering our understanding of the events." you are expressing the logic of a looking-glass world. In effect you are saying that some judicial processes are faulty and so we cannot understand events unless we reject the evidence.  Miscarriages of justice certainly exist, but they need to be proven to have occurred, otherwise we are simpling saying that the whole structure of judicial process is in itself meaningless.  You are not entitled to take a short-cut around the evidence because it doesn't suit you.  Refute Bassiouni and Mazowiecki and what you have to say may be worth listening to; otherwise all you are saying is simply that all points of view are equal, whatever the facts. --Opbeith 00:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Višegrad massacre
Started the Višegrad massacre article - stub only right now. --HanzoHattori 15:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Parenti - Serb-crimes Apologist (similar to Diane Johnstone)
Read http://www.bosnia.org.uk/bosrep/report_format.cfm?articleID=1041&reportid=162

I was reminded of this some months later while reading Michael Parenti’s To kill a nation: The attack on Yugoslavia, published by NLR’s sister organization, the publishing house Verso. The book is simply an outright apologia for Milošević and his regime. Period. Thus while it would appear that supporting the prosecution of war-criminals at the Hague Tribunal is unacceptable to NLR/Verso, actually supporting the principal war-criminal himself - orchestrator of the worst acts of imperialist aggression and racial mass-murder in Europe since the death of Stalin - is entirely acceptable.

Conspiracy theorists are generally hard to argue with, especially if they don't trust sources like UN, US government reports, Human Rights groups, ICTY Judgements, etc.

Parenti is an out-and-out apologist and anyone citing him is coming at the issue from that standpoint and we can be pretty certain won't be interested in the truth.

Bosniak 22:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Chomsky
From the article "Others who have denied the massacre include the British magazine Living Marxism and American journalist Diana Johnstone, who have been supported by Noam Chomsky."

This is deliberately misleading and I have edited it. Chomsky has never denied the massacre and the way this sentence is phrased implies that he supports Johnstone's argument versus her right to publish without being censored. Similar to the Robert Faurrison controversy Chomsky was entangled with some years ago, this is a purely a matter of Chomsky speaking up on her behalf because her publisher was pressured not to publish her book. It's a censorship issue and has nothing whatsover to do with the validity or non-validity of her claims about Srebrenica.

More importantly, the source that was cited is the infamous interview with Emma Brockes in the Guardian which lead to the omsbudsman of the magazine to issue a formal apology for the misleading and deceptive nature of her piece. See here: Inoculatedcities 16:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Worth noting that the argument here is the same one used to defend the recent conference in Iran denying the Holocaust.Fairview360 15:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * More worth noting is the essential and critical centrality of freedom of speech to any academic endeavor, historical or otherwise. This is the gift of the enlightenment: more important than any particular position taken in an argument is the mutual understanding by all that one has a right to voice whatever opinion one likes without fear of censorship or violent retribution. As Voltaire said "I don't agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." To Chomsky and indeed to myself, Freedom of speech is a larger issue than the narrative of Srebrenica or the European holocaust or any other grotesque atrocity and by citing the recent racist "conference" in Iran in the context of my comments re: Chomsky, you are implying that anybody who would defend such unsavory comments from official censorship necessarily is advocating the controversial opinion, which is complete nonsense. I would defend one's right to espouse Leninist or Nazi or anti-Martian sentiments even though I might find them deplorable solely because the alternative -- official state or self-censorship -- is even more deplorable. This is such an obvious and essential truism that I'm embarassed to have to explicate it here. Inoculatedcities 01:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak's reply --- True. Chomsky has never denied Srebrenica massacre, but he has certainly denied Srebrenica Genocide. He is a very manipulative individual, and my Jewish friends are no fans of his genocide denial either. Bosniak 06:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Chomsky may not refer to the Srebrenica massacre as a "genocide" per se, but this does not make him a denier by any means. As the user below this comment has noted, this is a semantic and often politically-motivated argument and "genocide" is a subjective and emotionally-charged term. No doubt Chomsky is a very controversial figure in the US and Israel -- he's considered much less so in the rest of the world -- but again, referring to your Jewish friends being "no fans of his genocide denial either" you are implying that he is a holocaust-denier! These are serious accusations so where is the evidence for such grand claims? Where in his countless books does he ever, ever make such statements? I for one would love to see.


 * Readers interested in the extent of this mudslinging and the similarity it bears to another incident in Chomsky's career would be wise to read up on the Faurrisson affair. Inoculatedcities 01:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Something new --- Thank you for correcting that imperfection, when I read it I found it hard to believe what the article stated and, after reading his sources, came to the same conclusion that you did about the legitimacy of saying that Chomsky denied the entired massacre. To Bosniak, there is a significant difference between a 'massacre' and a 'genocide' the difference is purely in linguisitic terms rather than actual real terms. Chomsky is NOT a holocaust denier nor does he deny that Srebrenica contained a horrible crime. HOWEVER, denying that a GENOCIDE took place is something else altogether. Drawing on something that I am infinately more familiar with, the Ukrainian community has a similar debate going on in it. Was the state-made famine of the early 1930s a crime or a genocide? Many Ukranians (and others) will claim it was a genocide. However, in my opinion, it was NOT (not saying that it was not a crime) because there was not a desire to wipe out the ENTIRE Ukrainian population. As a result, although it was a crime, it was NOT a genocide (in my opinion). Merely by having the opinion that Srebrenica was not a genocide in no way makes Chomsky a manipulative individual or a Holocaust denier; instead, it appears as though he has a more selective (and probably better) use of the word 'genocide' than the vast majority of people who write on the topic. 69.158.52.63 06:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Alex (New User)

Alex, "genocide" is not a matter of your opinion. "Genocide" is a crime under international law whose substance is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, approved by Resolution 260 A (III) of the General Assembly of the UN on 9 December 1948.


 * (a) Killing members of the group;
 * (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
 * (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction **in whole or in part**;
 * (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
 * (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

[**...** - my emphasis]

ICTY rulings in trials such as those of Krstic and Krajisnik have shown how difficult it is to prove the crime of genocide. The evidence that proves murder, crimes against humanity, etc. does not necessarily prove a crime to have been one of genocide, and beyond that it is even more difficult to prove the intent to commit genocide. In previous discussions here we have seen how Mladic and Karadzic were aware that their enterprise was one that would be seen as genocidal and in particular Mladic put forward his suggestions as to how to confuse and confound allegations to that effect.

Nevertheless, after very careful consideration of the facts established before it and the arguments put to it (and it is worth reading the Court's deliberations on Krstic, Krajisnik, etc.), the ICTY has concluded that genocide was perpetrated at Srebrenica.

Inoculatedcities, Chomsky's argument is that defence of free speech is a legitimate cause. Of course - freedom of speech and an openness to the questioning of facts and the challenging of views is the basis of academic discourse and its goal, the search for truth.

However championing Faurisson and Johnstone is not the same as defending free speech. Faurisson and Johnstone go beyond simply challenging a received view. They deny accepted facts without producing adequate evidence to call those facts into question.

Chomsky defends their right to do so. He goes beyond simply defending Johnstone's right to challenge facts, he commends the merit of her work.

From the extracts that I have read it is clear that whatever Johnstone's treatment of the facts her writing is selective, partisan and slackly argued. Chomsky has shown himself very determined to hold the targets of his criticism to account for their failings and his willingness to overlook the similar failings of others pursuing specific lines of argument calls his impartiality into question.

Holocaust denial and genocide denial in the face of proven facts is essentially intellectual fraud. Chomsky's unwillingness to confront that issue in relation to Faurisson and Johnstone leaves him open to the charge that he is going beyond the defence of academic freedom and effectively lending his support to them in their separate enterprises.

--Opbeith 09:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)