Slobodan Milosevic Has Died In Prison

Originally posted by Lanton
And donkey's don't like strawberries. The man was obviously guilty of the charges brought against him, but process is process and every man and woman should get a fair trial.

Originally posted by Indy

Originally posted by Lanton
And donkey's don't like strawberries. The man was obviously guilty of the charges brought against him, but process is process and every man and woman should get a fair trial.

Well OJ was obviously guilty and he walked. So we can't assume that this guy would have been convicted. Remember the basic human right is that you are innocent until proven guilty. So until the time he gets convicted he is only "accused" which means nothing. And what would the attitude have been had he been found not guilty? People too often make up their mind in advance that someone is guilty and they just want to skip the trial and go straight to the execution. And how often have people around the US been released from prison years later because of a wrongful prosecution?

Originally posted by Lanton

We're not talking about a single murder or rape here; we're talking about genocide.

Srebrenica: Reposted (FTS) (by Soj)


Imagine this for a moment, ok? Just imagine... imagine that the people killed from Srebrenica didn't die in a "genocide" but in a series of massacres. Would that make them any less dead? Would it change how they died, or who killed them? No of course not. The only difference is the label, and it's quite a powerful one.

A massacre is a tragedy. A massacre is an outrage. A massacre is a terrible event. A massacre is one of the horrors of war, which occur in all wars. But genocide is something else... it raises the bar to a whole new level of "evil". As an advocate for peace, I'm always slightly puzzled by this concept that there is "right" war and "wrong" war. Like roadside bombs in Iraq are somehow "wrong" but Apache gunships are "right" somehow. So massacres, shelling of residential areas of towns, rape, terror tactics to get residents to flee (i.e. ethnic cleansing), destruction of houses of worship, historical buildings and monuments, bridges, hospitals - even the bombing of refugee camps - somehow these are "ok", or at least tolerated aspects of war.

It's quite well documented that all sides participated in the above activities. More than a million people are displaced from that war because another ethnicity or group used terror, mayhem and death to frighten them into fleeing from their home. But see all that is "ok" or at least relatively "ok", because it was done by all sides. It's when it comes to this topic of genocide that the ball game changes, because just one group did it, and they did it just one time, over a period of just one week, with their victims coming from just one town.

If it was just an "ordinary" series of massacres, then it wouldn't even have been commemorated earlier this week. Do you see the irony of that? Hundreds of thousands of people are just as dead from the same war, killed under different circumstances, but only the ones from Srebrenica are commemorated by world leaders and given extensive media coverage.

In other words, that title "genocide" really does make a huge difference. It makes the dead from Srebrenica some kind of extra special dead and it makes the perpetrators an extra special kind of evil.

The problem with questioning whether or not it was genocide is that it makes one look like one is defending or justifying these people's deaths. It's like people who talk about how German POW's were treated in Allied camps after the war... if you criticize it, then you must be defending Nazism and Hitler. It's quite rational however to say that both Nazism was horrible and the way many German POW's were treated was also wrong. Not wrong on the same scale, but wrong nonetheless.

Massacring unarmed men is unquestionable wrong and horrific and I condemn it. But that doesn't make it genocide.

Originally posted by Lanton
So what's the Bosnian Genocide then; a figmant of the imagination of the Western media?

In fact, the Hague tribunal's officialy defined the Srebrenica massacre as genocide.

Originally posted by Hellmutt
Slobby himself complained about "strong drugs in his system" just a day before he died. He wrote a letter to the Russian Foreign Minister: "They would like to poison me. I am seriously concerned and worried"...

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Hellmutt
Slobby himself complained about "strong drugs in his system" just a day before he died. He wrote a letter to the Russian Foreign Minister: "They would like to poison me. I am seriously concerned and worried"...

I tell you something is not right with all these events prior to his Natural death.

Why would somebody wanted to silence him, what did he knew that was so important.

I really take the genocide or war or whatever it has been called and compared to what is going on in other regions in the world.

Is more people dying in Africa right now and that is also a genocide and nobody wants to call it that.

But depending what region of the world you are and who is the people been decimated thats what counts when it comes to justice now a day.

Originally posted by Indy
And what would you call the US killing over 100,000 Japanese civilians? Sounds like genocide to me. At best it would be considered a "crime against humanity". What else would you call the deliberate targeting of civilians in an effort to influence a government?

Originally posted by Indy

Originally posted by Lanton
So what's the Bosnian Genocide then; a figmant of the imagination of the Western media?

In fact, the Hague tribunal's officialy defined the Srebrenica massacre as genocide.

Was there a genocide? How many of us were there to witness it? I'm guessing none of us on this site. And where is the evidence that Milosevic placed the orders for the killings that supposedly occured?

That is why you have a trial. If a genocide occured you have to prove that Milosevic was responsible and not a member of his military. He may have been responsible. He may not have been. Imagine how people would feel if it were revealed that he had nothing to do with it. But something tells me that people would still want him to be found guilty even if the evidence suggested otherwise.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Originally posted by Indy

Originally posted by Lanton
So what's the Bosnian Genocide then; a figmant of the imagination of the Western media?

In fact, the Hague tribunal's officialy defined the Srebrenica massacre as genocide.

Was there a genocide? How many of us were there to witness it? I'm guessing none of us on this site. And where is the evidence that Milosevic placed the orders for the killings that supposedly occured?

That is why you have a trial. If a genocide occured you have to prove that Milosevic was responsible and not a member of his military. He may have been responsible. He may not have been. Imagine how people would feel if it were revealed that he had nothing to do with it. But something tells me that people would still want him to be found guilty even if the evidence suggested otherwise.

Shhhh man, the MSM says its so... don't rock the boat man. They tell you what to think and you just go on and do it..

Now that we agree here, I say too, where is the case against him? Still don't see it here? Some are suggesting that it is all his efforts at delay but he isn't a professional lawyer and he is literally fighting all of Europe and the NWO.

Tell me, is he that smart or did they have that little on him? I say it is the latter and I'm waiting for the proof of it.

Originally posted by Indy

Originally posted by Lanton
So what's the Bosnian Genocide then; a figmant of the imagination of the Western media?

In fact, the Hague tribunal's officialy defined the Srebrenica massacre as genocide.

Was there a genocide? How many of us were there to witness it? I'm guessing none of us on this site. And where is the evidence that Milosevic placed the orders for the killings that supposedly occured?

That is why you have a trial. If a genocide occured you have to prove that Milosevic was responsible and not a member of his military. He may have been responsible. He may not have been. Imagine how people would feel if it were revealed that he had nothing to do with it. But something tells me that people would still want him to be found guilty even if the evidence suggested otherwise.

Originally posted by Indy
Was there a genocide? How many of us were there to witness it? I'm guessing none of us on this site. And where is the evidence that Milosevic placed the orders for the killings that supposedly occured?