Text of report in English by Serbian news agency Beta website
Belgrade, 29 March: According to a poll conducted by Marten Board International agency, 53 per cent of respondents categorically oppose extradition to the Hague tribunal.
The same poll showed that 13.3 per cent of those questioned were in favour of extradition, 10.5 per cent expressed their general support, 6.3 per cent said they were indifferent, while 10 per cent of the respondents mainly opposed extradition.
According to the agency's analysts, the large number of those who strongly opposed extradition to the tribunal was due to the deaths of Milan Babic and Slobodan Milosevic, allowing the political engagement of Ramush Haradinaj, and the influence of the anti-tribunal lobby in the country and the lack of an adequate counter-campaign.
Based on the poll, the most important issues for more than half of the respondents were social problems - the living standard was cited by 38 per cent and unemployment by 26.3 of those questioned. Only 7.4 per cent of the polled were concerned about Kosovo, 2.3 per cent about cooperation with the tribunal, while relations between Serbia and Montenegro were cited by only 1.2 per cent of the respondents.
An overwhelming 74.1 per cent of those questioned were for joining the EU and 67.1 per cent the Partnership for Peace Programme, while membership in NATO was backed by 26 per cent and opposed by 45.4 per cent of those surveyed.
The opinion poll was conducted on a sample of 1,185 adults in Serbia, without Kosovo, from 20 to 27 March.
Source: Beta news agency website, Belgrade, in English 29 Mar 06
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Mir an article like that should come with a warning such as: "this article depicts the authors view, the context of this article does not include of the whole newspaper/website/etc." What if someone was googling Kosova for the first time and read that article, that person wouln't know that 100% of that article is crap.
Please, don't use the phrase "denazification" if you are not ready to explain us who orchestrated Nazi and similar policies in Balkan region in last 20 years and which nation feel consequences the most...
Then, we can go further on this subject.
For decades Albanian and Kosovo political leaders tried to pursue a
independent state they call "Great Albania", no matter of international recognized borders and no matter of how much it will cost.
If opposing that idea and consequences beyond that is a nazification process, than every nation, USA, Spain, Turkey or Albania are equally states with nazi policies as Serbia is.
No double standards, please...
The state in the Balkans that tried to create a greater state by any means possible was not Albania.
It was the Serbian state that tried to create "Greater Serbia" by genocide, murder, ethnic cleansing and expulsions. That criminal state went even so far as to burn dead bodies in Mackatica factory in order to destroy evidence. Just like the original Nazi Third Reich.
So please get your fact straight before typing rubish. The only Nazi state in the Balkans was Serbia with its project of "Greater Serbia". That's why we can talk about denazification of Serbia.
Hopefully that will come one day. But judging from the serb posters here it will take a long time...
Tosi
Sweden
In other words, 47% are traitors.
hahaha :P:P i love it.
Fact. almost no serb left in Kosovo.
Fact. A terrorist is chosen "prime minister"
Fact. Kosovo today under ocupation is safeheaven for most of the crimminal activity in Europe.
Fact. All kosovo albanians are crimme prone because of ancient traditions which are considered crimmes by modern standards .
Fact. Almost half of actual kosovo albanian population is actual albanians who run away from Hoxa and later from corrupt commuist rulers.
We can go to exausting lengths in regards of "charm and hospitality" of the Kosovo albanians,lately the world has started to waken up from the manipulated biased media against the serbs.CNN,BBC,FOX,ABC,NBC and other anti-serb lobby are losing ground against facts that are emerging little by little. The final outcome for the Balkan tragedy may very well be very different from the expected one,for in politics there are no surprises but yes surprised.
Facts. Convince
Lobby. Persuade
Tosi,
if Serbian former politicians wanted "Greater Serbia" Serbs would already got it. Idea of Milosevic was smaller Yugoslavia where
he would be next Tito. From former communist apartchik expecting to try to make "Greater Serbia" is nonsense which resulted the way we saw it.
In case of Hague, opposing is not related to the "denazification" process, it's related to the fact that trials in Hague with live broadcasting around the world showed that charges are politically motivated, with no real desire to find out what happened during this 15 years and with numbers of strange decisions ranging from delaying the process against Seselj for 3 years to allowing Haradinaj to be active in politics. Not to mention death of 4 Serbs in Hague, two of them in short term, one of them because of bad medical care. Justice served, right?
Dardania2006,
to speak about different accent and
lacking of will for the project of
"Great Albania" is a little bit childish. We throw sanctions on Bosnian Serbs when they not acted in common manner, we 're in bad relations with Montengro, but we 're still in one country, we respect each other, eventually one day B.Serbs will join, so some differences can't stop wider historic idea. Every nation if it has resources will act like imperialist nation, look at the history.
Albania on one side have no strong economy but have important lobbysts and growing population that can be used in future for implementing the idea of greater state. Will Serbia allow such a scenario, that we'll see.
gujgli
"if Serbian former politicians wanted "Greater Serbia" Serbs would already got it. Idea of Milosevic was smaller Yugoslavia where
he would be next Tito. From former communist apartchik expecting to try to make "Greater Serbia" is nonsense which resulted the way we saw it."
Slobo may not have been a nationalist to the bone (he and his wife were communists) but still, he was riding the wave of the extreme nationalism that exists in Serbia. So when other republics wanted to get out of the sinking ship, slobo reacted by war.
Even in Slovenia where there were virtually no serbs, I remember demonstrations from the serbs who were saying that they would not let Slovenia go. But that ended pretty quickly and Slovenia left. Then came the rest and we all know what happened.
He was trying to hold Yugoslavia togethet but not for some other reason but domination of serbia all over the republics of Yugoslavia. If that is not creating "Greater Serbia" I don't what is. And when the republics wanted to go their own way he unleashed JNA and serbian local forces. Every region that was inhabited by serbs was serbia by definition. No matter where that territory was, everything was considered serbia. That is trying to create "Greater Serbia".
Tosi
Sweden
Tosi,
"Slobo may not have been a nationalist to the bone (he and his wife were communists) but still, he was riding the wave of the extreme nationalism that exists in Serbia. So when other republics wanted to get out of the sinking ship, slobo reacted by war."
I remember a little bit different situation
and little bit complex than that. First, if you want to go indepedent from Yugoslavia i can understand that, but dealing with the Serbs in those republics in terms of throwing them from work and discriminating them only because they are Serbs, that is unacceptable.
I must remind you of 500 000 Serbs slaughtered in Jasenovac Croatia '45, so that was not helping at all. Breaking apart like Czechoslovakia is great solution but Croatian political leaders by no means were ready to give Serbs some sort of autonomy except later in the war (Z4 plan).
Let i remind you that Serbs were majority in Bosnia and in all population in Croatia 30% were Serbs, but as political leaders they were ignored. Ignoring their human rights plus bad history can't make them really happy at that moment.
One more thing, Croats, Muslims and other nations or religions never had any problems in Serbia when the war
was going on. Same goes for Albanians. their shops in Serbia especially in Belgrade were untouched. If that is Nazi policie,
i'm ok with that.
"He was trying to hold Yugoslavia togethet but not for some other reason but domination of serbia all over the republics of Yugoslavia. If that is not creating "Greater Serbia" I don't what is. And when the republics wanted to go their own way he unleashed JNA and serbian local forces. Every region that was inhabited by serbs was serbia by definition. No matter where that territory was, everything was considered serbia."
I quess you 're not mentioning Macedonia because it's not good for
your arguments or simply can't remmember? Why the Serbs didn't engage in war with Macedonia? Serbs are there also, and not in that small number. Did Milosevic tried to
occupy Macedonia, as long as i remmember Macedonia must be in that "Greater Serbia" by any means.
It's not that he was pursuing "Greater Serbia", he was only tried to protect Serbs in territories where they were in danger to be killed.
Because of his mistakes and intervening from US, he didn't do it in Croatia and Kosovo, but he somewhat done it in Bosnia.
If serbs were prosecuted in other republics, which I've never heard up until now, I'm sure there were other ways of dealing with that other than start a war.
Does the alleged kicking of serbs out of their jobs justify Vukovar? Or shelling Dubrovnik just to spread terror?
And I think the Jasenovac "argument" is dubious at best. To start a mediveal revenge against people who had nothing to do with camp is crazy.
And now back to Bosnia. Nobody said that there should be a Bosna without serbs, there have been serbs there for a long time. But how do you justify Omarska concentration camp? Or shelling of Sarajevo for three years? Was Sarajevo a military target? I don't think so.
Bad history and discrimination, as you call it, is NOT a justification for terror. No matter how you twist that.
Regarding Macedonia, personally I think that the only reason for not attacking Macedonia was due to the circumstances. This is, of course, speculations, but after Bosnia, the West was scrutinizing Slobo more and he couldn't afford to launch another war.
We all saw the great orthodox love between Serbia and Macedonia with the bishop Jovan deal...
Here are some similarities
Omarska - concentration camp
Grbavica - massrapes
Vukovar - destruction of towns
Srebrenica - no comment
Sarajevo - thre years of constant shelling and snipers on innocent civilians.
Batajnica - massgraves with Albanians transported from Kosova and buried under a police barrack
Mackatica - the burning of Albanian bodies to leave no trace of murders.
If you don't call that Nazi behaviour, I don't know what to say.
Tosi
Sweden
Tosi,
"If serbs were prosecuted in other republics, which I've never heard up until now, I'm sure there were other ways of dealing with that other than start a war."
If YOU didn't hear earlier about discrimination, that doesn't mean that discrimination didn't occur. Now, i can start writting here 10 pages about that period but i quess media war done some job already instead of me.
"Does the alleged kicking of serbs out of their jobs justify Vukovar? Or shelling Dubrovnik just to spread terror?"
It was not "alleged kicking" it was real, the country breaking apart, neighbour kills a neighbour, with the help of history of bad blood between Serbs and Croats, what do you expect? Similarity = passion, Balkan wars were never been pretty.
It's important that we discuss about the cause of war not the war itself.
"Regarding Macedonia, personally I think that the only reason for not attacking Macedonia was due to the circumstances. This is, of course, speculations, but after Bosnia, the West was scrutinizing Slobo more and he couldn't afford to launch another war."
Wrong. Serbian officers and military equipment pulled off from Macedonia long before anything in Bosnia ever started.
"Omarska - concentration camp
Grbavica - massrapes
Batajnica - massgraves with Albanians transported from Kosova and buried under a police barrack
Mackatica - the burning of Albanian bodies to leave no trace of murders."
Operation Bljesak
Operation Oluja - 250000 refugess, massrapes and massgraves
Ozren - beheadings by mujahedins
Brod, Sijekovac - concetration camp
Bratunac - massgraves
Skelani - massgraves
Kravica - massgraves
Lora Split - tortures, killings
etc.
etc.
About war crimes against Serbs on Kosovo i can't write here because there is no enough space, but if you 're interested here's the link:
http://www.srpskapolitika.com/zlocin/
foto-arhiva.html
I hope that democrats on this site will not delete the link. That will show are they capable to run democratic society or not. :-)
"If you don't call that Nazi behaviour, I don't know what to say."
By that criteria, US is Nazi state, Britain is Nazi state, Turkey is Nazi state etc...Then you question why Serbs are opposing Haque tribunal? When US soldiers come in front of the tribunal in Hague to take responsibility for their bombardment and killings of innocent people in Serbia, than i'm ready to support extraditions of serbian officers in Hague also.
And don't tell me now that Milosevic was guilty for that bombardment, because than the Husein is guilty for Iraq, Ho Chi Minh for Vietnam, Noriega for Panama, tommorow Ahmadinejad for Iran.
I naively believed that UN justice stands for all, but it's obviosly element for manipulation between great powers on the charge of small ones.
At the end, is the Hague tribunal place for exploring the truth about the dark periods in our lives, or place where the big guy can wash his bloody hands then turn the lights off and blame the wife...
Unfortunately, I think it's second.
gujgli
I said I never heard of that but that doesn't mean that didn't happen, that's right.
However, you still haven't answered how bad history and discrimination can justify what Serbian army and paramilitaries did.
Neighbour killing neighbour started after the serbian propaganda started. Slobo and the serbian PR-machine were masters at igniting ethnic hatred in many places. Seselj and Arkan were sent to Bosnia and Croatia to hold ultranationalistic meetings. Slobo did the same in Kosova from 1987.
In one meeting on 1992 I heard Arkan say that the Muslims (Turks) had occupied Serbia and that's why now the Serbs will take revenge on Muslims for 500 years. What have the todays Bosniaks to do with Ottomans? Or todays Croatians with Jasenovac?
The serbs used bad history to ignite ethnic hatred in order to get a pretext to attack the republics. If you don't see that it's a shame. That's intent to start a war, not "defend" your people.
"Operation Bljesak
Operation Oluja - 250000 refugess, massrapes and massgraves
Ozren - beheadings by mujahedins
Brod, Sijekovac - concetration camp
Bratunac - massgraves
Skelani - massgraves
Kravica - massgraves
Lora Split - tortures, killings"
Can't you elaborate more on these alleged crimes? Or maybe give some links? Like I said before, if there were real evidence the world press would have a feist day.
Not to say that crimes were never commited against serbs. But never in scale, organisation and intent to destroy as the serbs did to others. That's one big difference.
And, like somebody else pointed out, during Oluja most of the serbs who left Croatia were not forced. Some had probably committed crimes, others didn't wanna live with Croats.
I don't think anybody will delete your link here, it's a pretty liberal site.
The biggest problem with Hague is that they try to organize a court in the same way as ordinary courts. That doesn't work as we all saw by slobos political speeches at the Hague. He was supposed to defend himself from charges not hold speeches. And they allowed him, and that's why the trial dragged on for ages. So I don't see Hague as biased, on the contrary, they allow suspects to much court time.
The Hague was set up to try and find exactly what happened during that bloody decade. Too bad many suspects were allowed to use that forum as a political podium. Instead of finding the truth, we are now left with unfinished verdicts.
Tosi
Sweden
Here is a good article for the Serbs to read and understand:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/02/ING1FHVMUJ1.DTL
"Bad men, dead men at Bosnia's Omarska
The new Auschwitz no one had imaged
We sat at a table near the window overlooking a slim patch of river -- a rather unremarkable river, except in the way it slithered by unnoticed on its way out of town. The air was still, so thick and still, and it was intolerably, menacingly hot on this summer day. My colleague and I downed our coffee, and having finished our breakfast, hung around a bit longer to go through the stack of newspapers in front of us.
We were journalism trainers, and the local weekly newspaper in this east Bosnian town had begun a popular series in which a victim of a war crime was profiled each week, including those who had spent time in the nearby Omarska concentration camp. The editor said printing the survivors' accounts was a way for the community to begin to heal, and to document what had happened.
It was our job to critique the stories journalistically: Were they fair? Had facts been verified when possible? How many sources were interviewed? Was the coverage and presentation too sensational?
Despite the oppressive heat, our waiter had restless energy. He kept circling back to us, asking if we needed more juice, more coffee, more water, and then he'd circle back to the counter and eye us from there. I remember him -- his dark thinning hair, his dark eyes, his round face, his compact body. When it was clear we were about to leave, he came back to our table for the last time, tapped his finger on the newspaper's front page photo of a suspected war criminal, and started muttering.
"He says that's a bad man," said my colleague, translating. "He said that man did horrible things to the people here."
The waiter, with his dark brown eyes, crouched down to me, his Bosnian face fronting my American one, pointed to an emptiness in his mouth where some teeth had been beaten out, and said quietly, "Omarska."
And then his brown eyes began to cry.
Omarska is the horror that was never supposed to happen again after Auschwitz. It is the oily blackness of soulless madmen who crack their brothers' backs, beat them, starve them down to ghastly skeletons, and worse.
A survivor, Rezak Hukanovic, writes of the torture in his book, "The Tenth Circle of Hell."
"Thirst, hunger, gang rapes, exhaustion, skulls shattered, sexual organs torn out, stomachs ripped open by soldier assassins of Radovan Karadzic."
If the late Slobodan Milosevic was the mastermind of the Bosnian war, Radovan Karadzic was it's premier architect, organizing such camps as Omarska (which he would mockingly label an "investigation center" when reporters came snooping about) to ethnically cleanse a region of its non-Serbs.
In May 1992, intense shelling in and around Omarska forced residents to flee their homes. Upon doing so, many were captured by Serb forces and either killed on the spot or marched off to one of the handful of concentration camps in the area.
The Omarska camp operated for about three months, in which time, the U.S. State Department estimates, up to 5,000 people were killed. Those who were able to return home found their houses occupied by Serbs.
Bosnia has three main ethnic groups, Bosniaks (Bosnian-Muslims), Croats and Serbs, and under Josip Broz Tito's communist regime, ethnicity was essentially a nonissue to the people of Bosnia, as in the rest of Yugoslavia. People married each other, worked together, lived in the same villages and neighborhoods, leaving ethnicity a matter only for the census-takers.
But mighty Milosevic's calls for a Greater Serbia ignited a nationalist flame that shined like a beacon for the likes of Karadzic, who schemed ways to ethnically cleanse vast territories of Bosnia for the purpose of uniting them with Serbia.
This was the third of four wars Milosevic would carry out against his own people, killing hundreds of thousands, and eventually snuffing out the existence of Yugoslavia itself.
Serbs were not the only war criminals to emerge from the Bosnian conflict; Bosniaks and Croats also shoulder blame for shameful acts, a fact many Serbs feel is unjustly overlooked. But it was Milosevic's Serb soldiers who shot like snipers at civilians during the siege of Sarajevo, who killed, execution-style, nearly 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica in a matter of hours, and who left us the disturbing legacy of the Omarska concentration camp.
I was in the central city of Tuzla the night a helicopter lifted off from there carrying a captive Milosevic to The Hague. The following morning, I walked around the city -- its once charming main streets now pockmarked by mortar attacks -- and tried to read faces for signs of joy, vindication, relief. The faces gave away nothing, nothing at all, and I thought maybe the war had taken it all from them.
The day his trial started, I sat on a stool in a Bosnian cafe and watched the Bosnians as they stonily watched Milosevic. The country is now divided into two entities, and I was in the Serb-controlled part, waiting to meet a dear friend, a Bosnian-Serb editor who lost both of his legs in a car bomb attack for reporting about war crimes. He had received several death threats before the 3-pound bomb was placed under his car on his birthday, and I asked him once why he risked his life for war criminals.
"The best thing for Serbs here," he told me, "would be to distinguish between war criminals and Serbs as a whole. Not every Serb is a war criminal."
My friend nearly died exposing the crimes, but the most wanted criminal remains free. Most think Karadzic now lives in a mountain cottage in Serbia, with 20 or more footmen to buy his food, his coffee, his wine, his clothes and his beloved books, because he is, after all, a poet.
No one has found him yet. He slithered away unnoticed, swimming with the current of Omarska's river of tears.
Patti McCracken, a frequent contributor to Insight, is based in Austria"
Tosi
Sweden
Tosi,
"However, you still haven't answered how bad history and discrimination can justify what Serbian army and paramilitaries did."
Ok, picture this, one third of your family was massacred in Gradiska Bosnia 50 years ago from Nazi comrades Croats - Ustase, you didn't meet your grandad because he was without head long before you born, and now 50 years later, in that same country, your father got kicked from work because he is Serb, your country is now called the same as Nazi NDH in WW2, and your neighbour Serb just got killed across the street from his neighbour Croat. I hope you got some picture what is man capable to do when it's put in that position. It's all out civil war, it's evil circle where war crimes were committed on both sides. Problem is when you blame one side for all by collecting arguments ad hoc with strong support from governments outside.What are their reasons, we saw it later.
"Neighbour killing neighbour started after the serbian propaganda started"
Wrong, it was quite opposite. And serbian propaganda is not different than croatian or later albanian propaganda.It's legal tool, especially in war.
"In one meeting on 1992 I heard Arkan say that the Muslims (Turks) had occupied Serbia and that's why now the Serbs will take revenge on Muslims for 500 years.
Come on, don't pull that rubish statements from Arkan, warlord who only went to the war for gold and money, like Bosnian Musa Topalovic Caco or Albanian Ramus Haradinaj and Hasim Taci. What that idiots spoke at the time i really don't care.
"The serbs used bad history to ignite ethnic hatred in order to get a pretext to attack the republics. If you don't see that it's a shame."
In what republics? Once again, Macedonia? There goes your theory. Again, you must learn the complex history of Balkan nations to have a chance to understand the present time.
Anyone who think that for example, independent Kosovo will mark the end of wars in former Yugoslavia is dead wrong. Problem of Serbs without their human rights in Kosovo, Croatia or Bosnia must be solved sooner or later. From frustrations you got anger, from anger you know what.
"Can't you elaborate more on these alleged crimes? Or maybe give some links? Like I said before, if there were real evidence the world press would have a feist day."
World press? Hmm, that sounds good, but ain't working, press from the west already chosen one side and we lost the media war, so...I can arrange some links or text for you but world press, sounds too much idealistic.
"Not to say that crimes were never commited against serbs. But never in scale, organisation and intent to destroy as the serbs did to others. That's one big difference."
Nice, from serbian Nazi policie we came to the 'not to say that crimes...against serbs'. Only, i'don't like your criteria for scale and organization of war crimes. Victims are victims, you named it, i named it, but i' don't see Hague as honour judge. Simple as that.
"And, like somebody else pointed out, during Oluja most of the serbs who left Croatia were not forced. Some had probably committed crimes, others didn't wanna live with Croats."
Yes, they got candies and postcards on the border too.
Sorry but this is way tou much for my stomach! Oluja was executed only for one reason, to kill or force out
remaning Serbs. It's war crime operation even to the Hague standards. I'm not interested in their view of justice but they charged all croatian military and political leaders solely on this war crime operation. From Tudjman to Gotovina.
"The biggest problem with Hague is that they try to organize a court in the same way as ordinary courts. That doesn't work as we all saw by slobos political speeches at the Hague."
From political accusations you defend with political speeches. There is no evidence that he ordered any of that war crimes or he knew about them,they accuse him of some Greater Serbia rubish idea and on the end, everyone who watched the trial saw that prosecutor stance on genocide was almost rejected by the judges even in the middle of the trial. Anyway, he died as a innocent man, and Hague did a magnificent job for him, he died bravely fighting for truth about Serbia, in the eyes of the majority.
"The Hague was set up to try and find exactly what happened during that bloody decade."
No, but to rewrite the events on behalf of US mistakes and their aspirations in this part of the world. When their soldier, come in front of the tribunal for murdering kids in Serbia and Iraq etc...than we can talk about victims and justice for real. Otherway, it's pure disqusting politics with high price in terms of our lifes.
gujgli
What you are saying happened in Croatia was much worse in Kosova during the whole period from WW2 to 99. Oppression, deportations to Turkey, imprisonment, killing of Albanian activists abrod, poisining of schoolchildren, you name it.
But Albanians did hold on to a pacific resistance with Rugova for a long time. They didn't start destroying towns or shelling old cities (of course, we were not armed during that time). UCK came later because serbs oppresion became even worse.
So despite all you described, it's still NOT justifiable to do what Serbs did. Bad history and sporadic killings (first you said only discrimination) is not enough for that behaviour.
The serbian propaganda was/is in a league of it's own. The state controlled media worked for spreading the states intrests. And the Serbian Academy started already in 80s forming the new nationalistic policy which is the continuation of "Nacertania" plan.
Arkan and Seselj were sent and more or less controlled by Milosevic. They were given free reigns to ignite ethnic hatred in order to escalate the conflict.
You cannot compare that to Thaci and Haradinaj who were fighting for their country. Their fight was not an adventure to get rich, but a deadly fight to survive both personally and as people. That is one big difference that you seem to forget(despite talking about the complexities of the Balkans).
Every war leader was not the same. Arkan, Seselj, Legija and other criminals were sent to plunder, ravage and terrorize by Slobo. Others defended their country. Big difference.
Just cause ONE republic escaped the war, does that exclude everything else? I don't think so.
With the PR-machine in place and minions spreading unrest in former republics, the Serbian state prepared the ground for an assault. That's intent and organization, which is the main argument for accusing Serbia of attack, genocide and intention of destroying a country.
You don't like the world press? There is more to it that just anglo-american media. The French maybe, or the Russians would be very happy for that. But I don't think many cases will hold water...
Again you miss my point, just because crimes were commited against serbs doesn't exclude the Serbian Nazi policies. Once again: concetration camps, massgraves, burning of bodies (not happened in Europe since WW2), expulsion of 800.000 Albanians from Kosova, some by train which reminded of pictures from WW2.
There is more than enough there to connect the Serbian state with nazi policies.
The Hague is not a political forum and that's why I don't think prisoners should keep speeches in there. If they don't comply then just remove them and let their attorneys do the defence.
Political speeches can be made and discussed in other forums, not in the court of law.
And there is a lot of evidence linking Slobo to Mladic, Karadzic and Babic. All that will be used by Bosnias case against Serbia, be sure of that.
"Anyway, he died as a innocent man, and Hague did a magnificent job for him, he died bravely fighting for truth about Serbia, in the eyes of the majority."
If you really think that way, then there is no point discussing with you. If you still think Slobo is innocent, despite lack of court verdict, then I'm afraid everything is in vain. Denying his terror reign doesn't make you a patriot but just a simple history revisionist.
Tosi
Sweden
mir
"It wasn't Arkan's statement it was Mladic's."
I saw a footage from a meeting where Arkan said those words. Maybe Mladic said those too, I don't know. Mladic used to speak of Bosniacs as Turks though...
"However speaking even as a (patriotic) Serbian, there is still Srebrenica which by now is simply a matter of proving who led it not IF it happened. Those acts CANT be justified in any way. Killings of grown men I can understand somewhat because of the fact that most have compulsary military training (which makes them dangerous). But there were 16 year old kids who obviously werent old enough to have any type of military training and were killed. That is not justifyable. It is a war crime. No way to spin it."
Kudos to you!
As another Serbian put it in the article I posted:
"The best thing for Serbs here," he told me, "would be to distinguish between war criminals and Serbs as a whole. Not every Serb is a war criminal."
Tosi
Sweden
Mir,
"However speaking even as a (patriotic) Serbian, there is still Srebrenica which by now is simply a matter of proving who led it not IF it happened. Those acts CANT be justified in any way. But there were 16 year old kids who obviously werent old enough to have any type of military training and were killed. That is not justifyable. It is a war crime. No way to spin it."
Who said that's not war crime? It's war crime, but why is the one war crime more important than the other? Why 2000 victims are more valuable than 7000? Why nobody condemned the war crimes against Serbs? Here, i condemn all war crimes that someone executed on 'behalf of Serbs' but for that crimes we must hold the trials in Serbia not in Hague, like in case of Ovcara, Strpci, Skorpioni etc.
Tosi,
"What you are saying happened in Croatia was much worse in Kosova during the whole period from WW2 to 99. Oppression, deportations to Turkey, imprisonment, killing of Albanian activists abrod, poisining of schoolchildren, you name it."
I believe so, but not without a cause.
In general, Serbs and Albanians are in somewhat similar position, they have one land and many fellow citizens in neighbour countries that are living like minorities. Serbs (Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia), Albanians (Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia).
Throughout the history both nations tend to coopt that people in one state, that's nature process and Albanians are succeeding in that goal for now, Serbs not, that's difference.
"But Albanians did hold on to a pacific resistance with Rugova for a long time".
Calls for independent Kosovo and Greater Albania was estabilished since Prizren League in 1878, but Albania and Albanians throughout that period never had a knowledge or sources to implement it. From 1945 till 1990 over 200 000 Serbs fled Kosovo and that's the result of very wise Tito politics to wear out Serbia and cut of her wings. Violent demontrations by Albanians, terrorist attacks, attacks in military barracks (Keljmendi case) financing the political and military strugle from criminal money from Europe streets, all that proves that Albanian movement was anything but pacific. Yet i agree, Rugova's moves are in comparation to Ceku's and Taci's, very Gandish. If Rugova's politics was not overrun by this gangsters, maybe bloody war in Kosovo never started.
"And the Serbian Academy started already in 80s forming the new nationalistic policy which is the continuation of "Nacertania" plan."
It's simply a view of where Serbia stands and what can be Serbs vital interest in the future. There was no call for violence, wars or endangering the others.
But on the other end what can you tell us about Prizren league manifest and plans for Greater Albania?
"You cannot compare that to Thaci and Haradinaj who were fighting for their country. Their fight was not an adventure to get rich, but a deadly fight to survive both personally and as people."
Yeah right, when i'm already acting as a hero, i can form a camp for torturing Serbs in Lapusnik or i can behead one or two men. Great heroes? Bravo!
"Just cause ONE republic escaped the war, does that exclude everything else? I don't think so."
I want to guide you to Macedonia case, because there we saw the real Albanian intentions. Milosevic wasn't in Macedonia, there was no angry Nazi Serbs, but there was angry Albanians ready for paniliric agenda that leave Macedonia stunned, shamed and divided on two parts. One more down, many to go.
"You don't like the world press? There is more to it that just anglo-american media. The French maybe, or the Russians would be very happy for that. But I don't think many cases will hold water..."
West press, read as i wrote. Russian press is neutral, but who is listening the Russians anyway. Russian Duma passed the resolution where demand end of Hague tribunal, what happened? Nothing.
"The Hague is not a political forum and that's why I don't think prisoners should keep speeches in there."
Again, when you present the real evidence, i got a laywer, when you
present the political charges i hold political speeches.
"If you really think that way, then there is no point discussing with you. If you still think Slobo is innocent, despite lack of court verdict, then I'm afraid everything is in vain."
Principe of Anglo saxon law is clear, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. My opinion is that he is politicaly responsible for many things in Balkan wars. But i don't want that judge of his work must be someone who also has bloody hands in grey war years. I wanted his trial in Serbia not in that Hague circus that calls himself Hague tribunal.
"Evidence but not proof" are you stupid or something? Learn english first moron.
Main Entry: proof
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: evidence
Synonyms: affidavit, argument, attestation, authentication, averment, case, certification, cincher, clue, confirmation, corroboration, credentials, criterion, cue, data, demonstration, deposition, documents, dope, establishment, exhibit, facts, goods, grabber, ground, info, lowdown, nitty-gritty, paper trail, picture, reason, reasons, record, scoop, score, skinny, smoking gun, substantiation, testament, testimony, trace, validation, verification, warrant, wherefore, why, whyfor
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
Shithead!
Post a Comment