BBC: Ratko Mladic jailed for life over Bosnia war genocide

#1
Former Bosnian Serb commander Ratko Mladic has been jailed for life for genocide and other atrocities in the 1990s Bosnian war.
It found that Mladic "significantly contributed" to the genocide in Srebrenica in 1995, where more than 7,000 Bosniak men and boys were murdered, the worst atrocity in Europe since World War Two.

He was cleared of a second count of genocide in other municipalities. The other charges included war crimes and crimes against humanity.
So what happened in Srebrenica according to BBC?
In early July 1995, Bosnian Serb forces besieged an area near the town of Srebrenica. It had been designated a United Nations "safe zone" and was being guarded by 600 lightly-armed Dutch UN soldiers.
On 12 July, some 15,000 Bosniak men of military age broke out of the enclave. They were shelled as they fled through the mountains. Some were also killed after surrendering.

Buses then deported an estimated 23,000 women and children to Bosniak territory, while the Serbs separated out all males from age 12 to 77 for "interrogation for suspected war crimes".
Over four days, up to 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were murdered by Bosnian Serbs at sites around Srebrenica.
Let's compare BBC coverage with ... BBC own timeline
In the article we read
On 12 July, some 15,000 Bosniak men of military age broke out of the enclave.
It is not clear were they armed, were they Muslim fighters.
So read BBC's timeline
Timeline: Siege of Srebrenica
12 July 1995: About 15,000 Bosnian Muslim fighters had attempted to escape from Srebrenica overnight and were shelled as they fled through the mountains.
Do you see a difference between 'military age men' and 'Bosnian Muslim fighters'?
 
Last edited:
#2
Good. Him and Radical Caravan were absolute pariahs.
 
#3
Do you see a difference between 'military age men' and 'Bosnian Muslim fighters'?
Yes I can, if you can't your supervisor should send you to Siberia for some remedial English comprehension.

Trying to pretend that the two accounts you present are mutually exclusive is also dishonest in the extreme.

Oh dear another great Pan Orthodox Hero gets his comeuppance, you must be mortified Sergey.
 
#5
He's in his 70s though... So his life is almost over as it is.

Still glad they got him.

Same as these doddering 90yo nazi ex-death camp guards.

If we've got the evidence on them put them before the beak. Even if they're on oxygen in a hospital bed.

None must be seen to 'get away with it'.
 
#6
L
He's in his 70s though... So his life is almost over as it is.

Still glad they got him.

Same as these doddering 90yo nazi ex-death camp guards.

If we've got the evidence on them put them before the beak. Even if they're on oxygen in a hospital bed.

None must be seen to 'get away with it'.
It is a shame that the process takes such a long time.
Eg 70-80 year old mass murderers are quite happy to be in care and have someone wipe their bottom for them.
 
#7
L

It is a shame that the process takes such a long time.
Eg 70-80 year old mass murderers are quite happy to be in care and have someone wipe their bottom for them.
There's many a member of the HoL (and HoC for that matter) who'd pay good money to have that done for them
 
#8
Yes I can, if you can't your supervisor should send you to Siberia for some remedial English comprehension.

Trying to pretend that the two accounts you present are mutually exclusive is also dishonest in the extreme
Of course, they are not mutually exclusive but apparenly BBC step by step is changing its narrative.
Shelling of a column of 15000 of Muslim fighters apparently is a military operation and can not be regarded as a genocide.
But BBC tries to present events happened in Srebrenica namely as a genocide. So 'muslim fighters' have been changed for 'military age men' that could be just peaceful civilians.
 
#9
Of course, they are not mutually exclusive but apparenly BBC step by step is changing its narrative.
Shelling of a column of 15000 of Muslim fighters apparently is a military operation and can not be regarded as a genocide.
But BBC tries to present events happened in Srebrenica namely as a genocide. So 'muslim fighters' have been changed for 'military age men' that could be just peaceful civilians.
This has nothing to do with the shelling of the breakout and everything to do with those industrially murdered in clear breach of the rules of war and human decency after the capture of the enclave. Quibbling about the composition of the breakout column, the knowledge of which may have changed over time is pointless.
 
#10
Shelling of a column of 15000 of Muslim fighters apparently is a military operation and can not be regarded as a genocide.
Killing unarmed prisoners of war in their thousands indisputably is a war crime, however.
 
#11
Killing unarmed prisoners of war in their thousands indisputably is a war crime, however.
Killing even one POW is a war crime (not a genocide but a war crime). But killing of armed combatants is not a crime at all.
About 7-8 thousands of Muslims missed. Were all of them unlawfully killed?
Let's look how BBC-Russian describes it.
Парламент Сербии извинился за убийства в Сребренице
После взятия мусульманского анклава на территории самопровозглашенной Республики Сербской в Боснии и Герцеговины свыше семи тысяч мужчин-босняков, в том числе подростки, не достигшие 18 лет, были вывезены на грузовиках в неизвестном направлении. Впоследствии выяснилось, что их расстреляли, а тела тайно захоронили в безымянных братских могилах.
After the capture of Muslim enclave on a territory of self-proclaimed Serbian republic in Bosnia and Herzegovina, more than seven thousands of male Bosnians, including boys below 18 yo, were driven out by lorries into unknown direction. Later it was established that they were shot dead and their bodies were secretly burried in unknown mass graves.
Remarkably BBC-English doesn't make such a doubtful claim.
Thousands from 15000-strong Muslim column reached Muslim controlled territory. Big and unknown number was killed during the march of the column, when it was shelled. So not all 7-8 thousands were unlawfully killed.
Moreover it looks as attitude of the Serb soldiers to captured Muslim fighters was not bad at all.
Let's read documents issued by the Hague tribunal
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/popovic/tjug/en/100610summary.pdf
On page 153 we read
Bosnian Muslims were taken to a warehouse in Konjevic Polje and held in a guarded room.1323 The captured Bosnian Muslims were provided with water, albeit not enough for everyone, as well as with some beer and cigarettes.1324 They were guarded by three military policemen.1325
Beer and cigarettes? As a preparation to genocide? It is the most strange 'genocide' I ever heard.
But what was behavior of Muslim POWs? Did they try to flee, to capture weapons?
Let's again read documents of the Hague tribunal.
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/popovic/tjug/en/100610summary.pdf
On the same day, Bosnian Muslim prisoners, who were captured or surrendered from the column, close to Sandići Meadow, were marched or transported to the nearby Kravica Warehouse. There, what appears to be a busload of prisoners were initially killed after a prisoner had grabbed a weapon, killing one member of the Bosnian Serb Forces and wounding others.
Can we say that they were unlawful killings?
 
Last edited:
#12
Killing even one POW is a war crime (not a genocide but a war crime). But killing of armed combatants is not a crime at all.
About 7-8 thousands of Muslims missed. Were all of them unlawfully killed?
Let's look how BBC-Russian describes it.
Парламент Сербии извинился за убийства в Сребренице


Remarkably BBC-English doesn't make such a doubtful claim.
Thousands from 15000-strong Muslim column reached Muslim controlled territory. Big and unknown number was killed during the march of the column, when it was shelled. So not all 7-8 thousands were unlawfully killed.
Moreover it looks as attitude of the Serb soldiers to captured Muslim fighters was not bad at all.
Let's read documents issued by the Hague tribunal
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/popovic/tjug/en/100610summary.pdf
On page 153 we read

Beer and cigarettes? As a preparation to genocide? It is the most strange 'genocide' I ever heard.
But what was behavior of Muslim POWs? Did they try to flee, to capture weapons?
Let's again read documents of the Hague tribunal.
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/popovic/tjug/en/100610summary.pdf

Can we say that they were unlawful killings?
So unlawful killings? He got what he deserved then? Look on the bright side.He could end up as Charles Taylor's bitch. ;)
 
#13
What, Muslims in Yugoslavia, are there any left???

Needs to be Turkey next, I hear there are few of their kind in that place too, perhaps just clear up to the Bosporus, it would make a nice Gibraltar mk 2.
 
#14
Can we say that they were unlawful killings?
No, we can't.

An enemy combatant is a legitimate target, even while unarmed or carrying out non-military activity, right up to the point they surrender or are rendered hor de combat. There's nothing unlawful about killing them.

An armed civilian presenting a threat is a legitimate target. There's nothing unlawful about killing them.

A surrendered enemy combatant or a captive civilian are not legitimate targets. Killing them constitutes a war crime. Not an unlawful killing, a war crime.
 
#16
Our KGB Resident should try reading he trial transcript, and judgement. He should find it illuminating, but I doubt it.
As you may see I quoted (to back my point) the judgements approved by the Hague Tribunal. I propose you to do the same thing - to quote transcripts, judgements and so on to back your point.
It's fair play.
 
Last edited:
#17
No, we can't.

An enemy combatant is a legitimate target, even while unarmed or carrying out non-military activity, right up to the point they surrender or are rendered hor de combat. There's nothing unlawful about killing them.

An armed civilian presenting a threat is a legitimate target. There's nothing unlawful about killing them.

A surrendered enemy combatant or a captive civilian are not legitimate targets. Killing them constitutes a war crime.
As in the case with Baha Mousa, for example.
Not an unlawful killing, a war crime.
From my point of view any unlawful killing during a war is a war crime. So I don't see contradiction here.
There is a big distance between war crimes and genocide.
No doubt that all sides in Bosnian and other Yugoslav wars are guilty in numerous war crimes.
But genocide?
Accusations in genocide are clearly politically motivated.
 
#18
But genocide?
Accusations in genocide are clearly politically motivated.
Whether they are or not, they do reflect the reality on the ground.
 
#19
L

It is a shame that the process takes such a long time.
Eg 70-80 year old mass murderers are quite happy to be in care and have someone wipe their bottom for them.
Just to be clear, Mladic didn't arrive at the Hague until 2011. Trial started in 2012. A conviction in (say) 2013 instead of 2017 wouldn't have made much difference, and he's been in detention all that time.
 
#20
Just to be clear, Mladic didn't arrive at the Hague until 2011. Trial started in 2012. A conviction in (say) 2013 instead of 2017 wouldn't have made much difference, and he's been in detention all that time.
Agreed. My point was he had started his vileness in the early 90's, atrocities all done 3 or 4 years later.
So 13, 15 or so years before the cnut comes before a war crimes trial.
That was my point.
And remember, some people on this site knew he was a mass murderer way before a Court case said so .
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top