Milosevic on Trial

[David Floyd]

So Sherman DIDN'T force prisoners and civilians to march in front of his army to set off torpedos (mines)? Really?

And you care to post documentation on the rest of it? Because I assure you I can probably find counter-documentation.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So Sherman DIDN'T force prisoners and civilians to march in front of his army to set off torpedos (mines)? Really?

Hell, I never even heard about that until just now.

And you care to post documentation on the rest of it? Because I assure you I can probably find counter-documentation.

Might be hard, most of my documentation comes from the books Lies My Teacher told me(a American History Textbook critique) and Lies Across America(about various museums, road markers, and National Parks)

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Good!

I say get the bastard for life. His actions were direct violations of international law, and I think for once, we should say the genocide is wrong.

Unfortunetly Europe doesn't use the death penalty

This is a farce of a trial.
I emigrated out of Serbia because of that bastard, but the trial he is getting is just as fair as the one he organized in absentia for Clinton.
Lot of what he is saying is bollocks, but some lines are classics:
"You accuse me that moving troops to Kosovo after NATO attack suggested our attempt to exterminate Albanians. Where should have we moved them? To Hungarian border?" LOL
Btw, OneFootinTheGrave, Croatia can take high moral ground once it admits that your president Tudjman was a fascist. Unlike Croatia, Serbia still has some minorities left.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Rambouillet was a treaty that no leader of a souvereign state could have signed. It was about Yugoslavia giving up its souvereignity as a state. No one does that without losing a war. Rambouillet was designed to be impossible to accept for the Serbs. It was the same kind of unfair ultimatum we -Austrians- presented to the Serbs in 1914.

Rambouillet was just about giving NATO an excuse to attack. Madeleine Albright wanted to have that war.

She admitted on German TV that she needed Racak 'massacre' to 'galvanize' support for the action.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by paiktis22
just read about the KLA training by american and british forces long before there any idea about albanian expulsion. Also thousands of ethnic serbs were made to live Croatia. Why is this not qualifyed as ethnic cleansing for example?

it is an orchastrated attempt to swift all the blame to miloevic whereas the mani responsible remains NATO, USA and EU as accomplishes.

Just read some of the articles.

Imran, typical reaction you know nothing but waht they fed you so it has no weight.

Paiktis, Tudjman
1) is a typical genocide denier
2) said that he was happy his wife 'was neither a serb nor a jew'
3) ethnically cleansed the state (there were almost 12 percent of the serbs in croatia before the war)


it was interesting to see del ponte show a map of 'territories milosevic occupied in croatia' as if he colonized them with martians. even more strange is that UN forces came there later to protect local (serbian) population and that Z-4 UN peace plan (which local serbs idiotically rejected, despite Milosevic's pressure, because it called for integration with Croatia) gave them elements of statehood.
now, either milosevic did not commit aggression and genocide or he did with the assistance of the whole of the UN. in the later case, UN is in a schizophrenic position because it should put UN Secretary-Generals or members of the Security COuncil on trial because they solidified 'results of aggression and genocide'

Sure, this is not a legal argument, simply logic

[Fidel]

Why is BBC suspending video feed when Milosevic shows results of NATO bombing on the screen? Pointless as it is, it does not mandate censorship

[Roland]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

On the other hand, Yugoslavia was certainly a federation; there is no doubt about that.

One with a constitution that allowed for secession, I think ?

LR ?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Here you have the charges for Kosovo

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ii990524e.htm

at the bottom you have the victims in name that were known from 1999. More than 3500 killed in that brief period before NATO intervened. 740 000 were forcibliy being removed before NATO action. Did you need more after wars in Croatia and Bosina? What do you think would have happened next?

La Russo.. Croatia has still some 1/2 million Serbs left, and you are the largest minority at around 10% and so what?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Roland


One with a constitution that allowed for secession, I think ?

LR ?

Correct, every republic had the constitutional right to separate after a referendum in Croatia more than 80% of the votes were for independance.

As for Croatia, before UN intervention Serbs have kicked out everyone non-serb from 1/3 of the territory they occupied. That was war supported by Milosevic and JNA directly but not officially, and during that time many war crimes were committed too.

Un just came to separate the sides which finally gave us on the remaining 2/3 a bit of peace.

As far as Tudjman goes, you know that I don't like him either, but he did not ethnically clense the state, still 10% Serbs there and all otheres that were there before.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Rambouillet was a treaty that no leader of a souvereign state could have signed. It was about Yugoslavia giving up its souvereignity as a state. No one does that without losing a war. Rambouillet was designed to be impossible to accept for the Serbs. It was the same kind of unfair ultimatum we -Austrians- presented to the Serbs in 1914.

Rambouillet was just about giving NATO an excuse to attack. Madeleine Albright wanted to have that war.

Actually Kosovo had a separate status in Former Yugoslavia as well as Vojvodina, they were not directly a part of Serbia. Milosevic took out their souveregnity during his reign, so not too much would have changed there to what it was prior to Milosevic.

No one can conquer his own country. That they contested the breakup of Yugoslavia is an entirely different thing. Had Germany and the US not -very prematurely- recognized the new entities, it would have been seen as the civil war it really was. Milosevic never attacked a foreign country, and as to who was 'right' in the civil war, this issue is at least in doubt.

Civil was as it really was? Wow. Yugopslavia was only formed in 1918, with different nations making a federation under the Yugoslavian King - Serbian before that- since that was suitable for them than. However every entity had it separate history and the right for seccession if its people wanted it. That is what happened in 1990 wiht Croatia and Slovenia first and later Bosnia and Macedonia. Civil War... no way.

SO you would permit killing thousands of people in front of your eyes by some militant dictator and his administration without doing anyting. Pehaps you woted for Heider? no?

Ehhh, to my knowledge they haven´t yet found any victims that were

-clearly Albanian,
-clearly non-combatant,
-clearly not killed by KLA/NATO.

In other words, there is no proof that Albanian civilians have, in fact, been slaughtered by the Yugoslavian Army.

More than 3500 clearly Albanian victims, non combatant killed by the Serbian army. And 740 000 made refugees in this short time before interwention.

Kamrat, if Milosevic did commit crimes against humanity, he should certainly answer for them. The question is if that was really the case. The second question is if a tribunal that is paid for by the Soros Foundation and the United States (mostly) and that is not allowed to look into violations committed by NATO should be considered unbiased.

true, that is why he is having public trial so everyone can see it and he has full right to defend himself and his actions if he can prove them right of course. But a man with the just cause would surely defend his cause and give good reasons for the thousands of dead. No?

[Jack the Bodiless]

DinoDoc:

Because they let sentimentality overcome the good sense and respect for international law that Europeans usually prize so highly in thier zeal to become the air force for a dope dealing, terrorist army formenting rebellion in a sovereign state.

Erm... didn't the USA recently serve as the air force for a dope dealing, terrorist army formenting rebellion in a sovereign state?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Erm... didn't the USA recently serve as the air force for a dope dealing, terrorist army formenting rebellion in a sovereign state?

In a civil war where we actually had a material interest in the outcome. Something which I do not conceede in the Kosovo conflict.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Well, it could be argued that the Europeans had a material interest in not having a genocidal maniac ruling a country in their midst.

...Which would make it a NATO interest. NATO does not exist to serve US interests: it's an alliance of countries which have agreed to support each other's interests. It works both ways.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Ehhh, again no. He was elected, and he didn´t fight any wars before the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Hm, that doesn´t make it better. And in the end his own people thought he was a dictator...

[Imran Siddiqui]

He has been put into a bad light by a really l--o--n--g propaganda campaign.

Uhh... he actually is a horrible excuse for a human being. Standing on the fields of Kosovo Polje and announcing the supremacy of the Serbs. He's a man that believes in ethnic heirarchies and that the Serbs are a superior race than Albanian Muslims or Croat Catholics.