Jump to content

Talk:Srebrenica massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 59.102.49.226 (talk) at 03:12, 13 November 2018 (→‎Excuses for genocidal mass-murder? Smearing of the Dutch troops?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Whole article is propaganda

Frankly, the entirety of this page and section is nothing but propaganda. I served for UNPROFOR in that region and trust me, the number of Serb victims in the area was not "falsified" or exaggerated. According to the RDC, 3,500 Serbs were killed of which 1,000 were civilian victims. The entire article presents massively one side of the story (and I understand why, of course) but nonetheless this is supposed to be educational for people, not a pity parade or a propagandistic attempt to deny ALL ELSE that happened before and after the events in July 1995. This page honestly has almost no academic value to, really, anybody but Bosnian Muslims or Bosnian Muslim nationalists. Indeed, the entire page seems to have been written with the blind nationalism of the 1990's revisited, of which the Muslims certainly fell prey to back then. In any event, the entirety of this article is comically one sided. It is as if the Bosnian Ministry of Information wrote the article themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.187.101.222 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you unsigned above. I have moved the Renaming heading and put in another - I hope that's OK. Plenty of evidence that shows the "Srebrenica massacre" was a fraud, but it's quite hard to find discussion by just Googling (wonder why). Here's one article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-srebrenica-massacre-was-a-gigantic-political-fraud/5321388. Bougatsa42 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, you are a FRAUD. To begin with, you never served in UNPROFOR. The number of Serv victims is bogus and falsified because if know Serves, they would have shrines to these so called victims. Point us to these so-called victims. There plethora of evidence supporting the truthiness of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.156.40.48 (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm - whole article is propaganda and one sided view. Sources are very questionable and unreliable. Article represents Bosniak side of story, exclusively, not objective facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XerJoff (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC) — XerJoff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Bougatsa42, Edward S. Herman is not reliable, at least not on the topic of Srebrenica and Rwanda (he also openly denied the Rwandan genocide). Herman and co. allow themselves extraordinary latitude in dismissing vast quantity of information, cherry picking certain things (which often are true—uncontroversial even, among knowledgeable scholars), thus supposedly exposing Americas conspiracy to dominate the entire world. Uglemat (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uglemat, You have not explained why Edward S. Herman is not reliable. It's curious that you dismiss out of hand the idea that the powerful want more power, though not relevant to this discussion. Bougatsa42 (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps per WP:FRINGE? BytEfLUSh | Talk! 06:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed fringe. Bougatsa42, I don't actually dismiss the idea that the powerful want more power. Having studied America's policy (including coups it has instigated), I am of the opinion that America is culturally inclined to expand, in effect a continuation of manifest destiny, but this tendency is at bottom opportunistic, and American policy makers (just as the American public) are often very ignorant and opinionated, especially about international affairs. In short, the US is not the rational and ominous earth-conquering machine that it is sometimes made out to be. The basic problem with Herman's work is that, having assumed that all media is biased, they then set out to prove that reality is totally opposite. Then, in the case of Rwanda, they devour the tendentious "research" of Davenport & Stam, and totally swallow what the lawyer of some génocidaires is telling them. They ignore that no respectable scholars of the region deny the genocide, and they do not ask themselves why, never questioning themselves. They find some principled scholars such as Filip Reyntjens and—in their own words—"cite them in their areas of strength", that is, whenever they are not talking about the "fictious" genocide. How do they explain that virtually no scholars share their view? In their comical formulation, the scholars have failed to "free themselves from the early deluge of propaganda" (both quotes taken from their Enduring Lies from 2014, p. 8). In fact, it is Herman and Peterson who have failed to "free themselves" from their own hubris. Uglemat (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "powerful want more power", so we ignore the fact that the Serb forces hugely outnumbered and out-gunned the defenders and 'temporary residents' of 'Srebrenica, ignore masses of historical, documentary and physical evidence, and simply 'leap into the dark', that the whole event was some sort of US/Bosnian 'stitch up'? Obvious explanation really!.
Many details about 'Srebrenica' can legitimately be disputed, but to dispute that large scale killing of unarmed, (mostly) non-combatants took place there is about as fringe as "were the moon landings faked?". Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself appears to be a fair representation of what is known. But the lede is massively slanted to one point of view.
  • Whether the massacre of men and deportation of women and children should have been described as "genocide" is debatable (which is covered in the article); the lede gives only weight to the ICTY point of view.
  • The lede does not mention the revenge aspect of the massacre and it should. The Bosnian-government forces in the enclave were alleged to have committed their own atrocities. Research has found that the extent of these has been exaggerated by VRS propaganda (and this is covered very well in the article). The ICTY made the point that revenge did not justify the massacre.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the debate about whether or not it should be called a genocide is kind of besides the point. If you look at the definition of genocide in international law, it is actually very broad, and lots of other massacres qualify as genocide as well (these massacres happens outside of europe, usually, and most people therefore don't care. The Kibeho massacre is a case in point). Unfortunately, the crucial element in that definition is the intention of the perpetrator, which is always hard to assess, and it hardly makes a difference to the victims (see for example the functionalist/intentionalist debate among scholars of the Nazi holocaust, still not concordant as to what the Nazis were thinking). As concerns the issue that women and children were spared, this doesn't mean it cannot be called a gencide, again because the definition is broad. We might recall that sparing women and children is not without precedent among perpetrators of genocide. When the german Einsatzgruppen began their slaughter (mobile killing operations) in the eastern territories in mid-1941, their original mandate was not very well defined and in fact some units spared women and children at the start of their mission. Thereafter, they became increasingly radical. Uglemat (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two different international courts (ICJ and ICTY) have considered whether the Srebrenica events fall into the definition of the genocide per the 1948 Convention, and found it to do so. Then, if others think they know better how to interpret international law, they can put forward their own positions and publish them - without any pretense to obtain "equal space" or alike on Wikipedia, since that would be affording them undue relevance. --Dans (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


"Disputed"

The article suggests that the Dutch peacekeepers had a duty to protect the Bosniaks, but in fact they were just to monitor the exuction of the treaty of 1993 which was broken by the Bosniaks because of the actions of nasser oric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange2000 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the sentence 'Dutchbat soldiers in Srebrenica failed to prevent the town's capture by the VRS—and the subsequent massacre"because Dutchbatt soldiers didn't have the task to prevent a capture, it was not in the task. the task was to monitor the disarmament of the Bosniaks, not to prevent capture of the town, that was the task of NATO plains an they failed to bomb the Serbs, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange2000 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about how the Dutchbat soldiers "failed to prevent the town's capture by the VRS—and the subsequent massacre" can be interpreted as a statement of fact. Anyways, please cite reliable sources for the information you add. This is especially true when the information is controversial. Your point of view is that it was not in Dutchbat's mandate to protect the enclave, and had no oblication to stop the Serbs. Even if that is true, it is certainly controversial. Please back it up with good sources. Wikipedia does not allow original research. And please spend some more time on your edits to make sure they are of a high quality. You currently break wikitext syntax, make lots of typos, use sources which does not back you up, even though such sources exist, etc. Uglemat (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First my apologies, hdn't seen this message. I can show original resolution we had to work with in Dutchbatt II, but it's the same as the Un has, it's this one; https://undocs.org/S/RES/819(1993) Point 10 is the piece in which both parties had to ensure the safety of the UN troops, it doesn't say protection of the civillians. As a UN soldier you learn ( we had 3 months UN training) the priciples of peacekeeping. The most important is that you don't take sides. Protecting is taking sides. here's the UN charter for peacekeeping. I also can show the UN handbook we used, but it's in Dutch, you wont understand. This is the official UN webpage and these are the mandates of UN soldiers ( wear a blue helmet) https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mandates-and-legal-basis-peacekeeping UN soldiers may only use force when they have to protect themselves, they are not allowed to engage in combat by themselves, only to protect the mandate. The reason for Srebrenica was Disarmament of the muslim population. The serbs were the victems in that area. The interview between Karremans and Mladic is about the weapons, Karremans shows the list how many weapons they had taken from the muslims. That was the job in Srebrenica. Disarmament of the muslim population to protect themselves as general Morillion has also stated in the Hague in 2004.

This is the original mandate for ROA, but only when fired at; https://undocs.org/S/RES/836(1993) Doesn't talk about protection. I think people don't understand the mandate of UN soldiers, they can;t work as regular soldiers and they don't interfere in matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange2000 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source that talks about protection of the eneclave Srebrenica by UNPROFOR troops, the mandate doesn't talk about protection, the resolution doesn't talk about protection, so why is the Wikipedia article talking about protection? The neutrality of the article is questioned from know, Why is only the english wikipedia talking about protection when the mandate doesn't imply protection?

This is resolution 819 https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930416a.htm

10. Further demands that all parties guarantee the safety and full freedom of movement of UNPROFOR and of all other United Nations personnel as well as members of humanitarian organizations;

This is resolution 824 https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930506a.htm This is not about protection;

Further declares that in these safe areas the following should be observed:The immediate cessation of armed attacks or any hostile act against these safe areas, and the withdrawal of all Bosnian Serb military or paramilitary units from these towns to a distance wherefrom they cease to constitute a menace to their security and that of their inhabitants to be monitored by United Nations military observers; Full respect by all parties of the rights of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and the international humanitarian agencies to free and unimpeded access to all safe-areas in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and full respect for the safety of the personnel engaged in these operations

This is resolution 836 https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930604a.htm point 5 is not about protection;

Decides to extend to that end the mandate of UNPROFOR in order to enable it, in the safe areas referred to in resolution 824 (1993), to deter attacks against the safe areas, to monitor the cease-fire, to promote the withdrawal of military or paramilitary units other than those of the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to occupy some key points on the ground, in addition to participating in the delivery of humanitarian relief to the population as provided for in resolution 776 (1992) of 14 September 1992,

According to Dutch Minister of Defence at the time, Relus ter Beek, and hissuccessor Joris Voorhoeve, Dutchbat's mission was mainly humanitarian, which explains why the soldiers were not heavily armed. https://www.bradford.ac.uk/social-sciences/peace-conflict-and-development/issue-21/Srebrenica---a-dutch-national-trauma.pdf

In their work Lessons from Srebrenica, Honig and Both attempt to reconstructthe drama in order to conclude what should have been done differently. The authorsmainly criticize the international community for the escalation of events in Srebrenica, speaking sceptically about the 'United' Nations. According to them, the United Nations failed because moral incentives led to the formation of unrealistic goals, and because of the lack of collective will of the international community to use any degree of force.16 They claim that neither the instalment of safe areas nor the prevention of ethnic cleansing were feasible objectives, because the U.N. members lacked the political will to enforce security, and to risk more victims or hostages among their own soldiers than they had already sacrificed. https://www.bradford.ac.uk/social-sciences/peace-conflict-and-development/issue-21/Srebrenica---a-dutch-national-trauma.pdf

This wikipedia article suggest a protection of UN troops without providing an official source. So if they had to task or mandate to protect ( only protect freedom) how can it be a failure

All the tasks are clear in the mandate, Monitoring, provide humanitarian ade, but not providing protection for the civil population, the Resolution was the protection.--Orange2000 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for most people, if it was in the mandate of UNPROFOR to "deter attacks against the safe areas", the protection of the civilian population in Srebrenica (a "safe area") is clearly implied, notwithstanding the disobedience of Naser Orić. To be honest, it seems like you have developed intricate rationalizations for your own role in the events in Srebrenica (you write that you were a member of Dutchbat). If that is the case, I don't blame you, as it seems Dutchbat was in an impossible situation, and has probably received more blame than deserved. You mentioned the failure of NATO to back you up with air power. I must mention that Wikipedia is pretty strict when it comes to a conflict of interest. Uglemat (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was ordered not to protect the people, clear orders of Genral Couzy and the high commad of the UN. Any partition would lead to more shootings at UN soldiers, which was happening around bomb alley. I served mostley with th Staff in Busovaca and in Zepa as a monitor. Your implying that we don't understand a mandate, that's also insulting. If there was mandate to protect the civilians it should have been mentioned in the resolution. Without any form of resolution or mandate you have no authrity to react. Your suggestion about my role is just Argumentum ad hominem. The rticle implies a protection without showing any source that supports that allegation of protection. At the time of Dutchbatt III i was in the Netherlands but the mandate was the same for all troops in Bosnia. I have shown the documents so the article is not neutral. It's out of date, because the Ducth court has changed it's ruling already. Wikipedia should be a nutral source supported by real sources, not just assumptions from people. UN personell is not allowed to interven, everyone who served with Un knows. The quistion should be what you conflict of interst is? Can you show me one source in which it is written and from the UN were it is said that UN troops had the task to protect the Bosniaks in Srebrenica, just show me to convince, i have shown the documents which supports that UN troops had no task to protect. Your are implying that the UN took part in attacks against the Serbs, that would mean the UN was not disarming the Bosniaks ( maintask). Never seen such a stubborn person. It's clear you don't understand UN peacekeeping and the resolutions if you still keep repeating. And no your not aware there were 4 Dutch batallions. Not everyone in Bosnia served in Srebrenica, it was a big enclave. At last i will give you agin the most important detail of the resolution, if your going to deny this phrase it's pretty sure there is ina conflict of interest.

10. Further demands that all parties guarantee the safety and full freedom of movement of UNPROFOR and of all other United Nations personnel as well as members of humanitarian organizations;

https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930416a.htm

--Orange2000 (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for your service. However, there are a few problems with your arguments about this topic. While I will take most of your reply as a personal experience that's not meant to be used as a source, there are still a couple of issues.
  • Your suggestion about my role is just Argumentum ad hominem. If you mean the conflict of interest, it's not ad hominem. It's a valid issue that must be brought up.
  • The rticle implies a protection without showing any source that supports that allegation of protection. The article states that Dutchbat didn't protect the civilians in Srebrenica, since that's what the reliable sources state. Could you point the section that is not covered by a RS?
  • Wikipedia should be a nutral source supported by real sources, not just assumptions from people. Sources that Wikipedia uses are written by people, I think we can agree that it's the way the things work right now. However, WP:SYNTH refers to taking multiple sources, doing your own investigation and coming up with a conclusion. If WP:SYNTH is happening, please point us to the part of the article where an editor has used primary sources to deduct a conclusion that is not supported by WP:RS.
  • UN personell is not allowed to interven, everyone who served with Un knows. That fails WP:V. Ask anyone that knows about this is not a reliable source. If it's such a common knowledge, there must be a secondary source somewhere.
  • Can you show me one source in which it is written and from the UN That's a primary source. It should be avoided if secondary sources are available.
Note that I'm not stating you are necessarily wrong, it's just that we need more secondary sources to support your claims. byteflush Talk 01:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 1999 Secretary-General report (searchable version here, although with incorrect page numbers) discusses the mandate. According to the report, the mandate of UNPROFOR was "unclear" because the Security Council couldn't agree on whether it should confront the Serbs militarily (paras. 41–45). For example, "It is essential to note that [UNSCR 836] explicitly eschewed the use of the words 'protect' and 'defend', and asked UNPROFOR only 'to occupy some key points on the ground' and linked the use of force to the phrase 'acting in self-defence'. ...some members of the Council nonetheless took a broader view of the resolution." (para. 79). Para. 95 notes, "The Secretariat believed that there was unanimity among the sponsors [of UNSCR 836 (France, Russia, Spain, the U.K., and the U.S.)] that the extension of the UNPROFOR mandate to include a capacity to deter attack against the safe areas should not be construed as signifying deployment in sufficient strength to repel attacks by military force. UNPROFOR’s major deterrent capacity, rather than being a function of military strength, would essentially flow from its presence in the safe areas." Interestingly, the idea of disarming the Bosniaks in Srebrenica seems to have been an UNPROFOR initiative, apparently meant to protect the enclave from the Serbs (para. 59). The Force Commander of UNPROFOR seems to have been particularly opposed to fighting the Serbs, because "one cannot make war and peace at the same time" (para. 51). This suppors what Orange2000 is saying about the lack of mandate, especially as it was passed down to the soldiers, as the Force Commander had a particular point of view which he presumably passed down. At the higher echelons, there seems to have been more ambiguity. There must be secondary sources which discussed this well. Maybe the word "failed" should be changed to something more matter-of-factly, like "did not". Uglemat (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Triumph of the Lack of Will" (1997) may be a good choice for further research (haven't read it myself, but I suspect it's a good book). Uglemat (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement Dutch Commander in Chief Lietenant general Hans Couzy on Dutch (televison) NOS news 24-01-1994

"Als de bevolking wordt aangevallen dan is het zelf maximaal dekking zoeken en buiten die strijd blijven"

Aerticle Harvard International Review

"If the population is attacked then it is maximum coverage and remain outside that struggle"

Defenders of the Dutch peacekeeping battalion (Dutchbat) at Srebrenica rightly point out that the soldiers had no chance of defending the town against the larger, better-armed force of Bosnian Serbs.

Resolution 836 designated Srebrenica a "safe area" and empowered UNPROFOR troops only to deter, rather than actually repel, attacks on safe areas. NATO air power could be called in only to "support" the peacekeepers. Protection of Bosnian civilians was no one's responsibility.

...the abandonment of Srebrenica cannot be attributed solely to the actions of member states. By consciously employing a narrow interpretation of their mandate,...

Janvier and Akashi argued that the use of air power would not be the best interpretation of the mandate; afterwards, the all-important mandate was subordinated to the safety of the Dutch troops. In either case, the goal was to avoid the use of force at all costs, no matter how high.

http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=854

--Orange2000 (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the document in which Kofi Annan also stated that the UN soldiers take cover in case of an attack and not participate, to make it more clear is impossibkle, the evidence the article is not correct; https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB519-Srebrenica-conference-documents-detail-path-to-genocide-from-1993-to-1995/Documents/DOCUMENT%2004%20-%2019930423.pdf

--Orange2000 (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The very first line - genocide

The description of the Srebrenica Massacre as a genocide in the very first line is rather non-neutral and inconsistent with the remainder of the article. While the ICTY and ICJ decisions were that the events at Srebrenica did constitute genocide, as noted later in the article such a labeling has been contested by a number of genocide scholars and other public figures.

Given that the ICTY/ICJ rulings and description of the events as genocide by most authorities are noted later within the introductory paragraph, I believe it more prudent for purposes of neutrality and consistency to substitute the word "genocide" for "killings" or "massacre" in the first sentence.

I in no way wish to minimize the events that took place at Srebrenica, as they do, by most reasonable standards, constitute an act of genocide. However, for the sake of encyclopedic integrity, I believe another wording is appropriate for the introductory line as the current one implies a level of consensus akin to, say, the characterization of the Holocaust as genocide - that is not the case.

Scrumptiousmuffin555 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Scrumptiousmuffin555[reply]

Excuses for genocidal mass-murder? Smearing of the Dutch troops?

It seems that a blocked, troll-ish editor (TryDeletingMe) has chosen to be an apologist for the genocidal murderers by inserting questionable details which excuse them, e.g. victims were mostly "military aged" men/boys, & the UN is to blame because it should have disarmed the defenders and tackled the army of killers. The edit was made on 26 Sep 2018 by TryDeletingMe and remains. In addition, the subsequent sentence that claims that the Dutchbat force "failed" to act and stop the massacre would appear to be profoundly misleading because (if I remember correctly) their 'rules of engagement' specifically & legally forbade them to do anything more than observe (apart from self-defence). Tragically, they complied with military discipline & obeyed their orders. Anyone interested in this? 59.102.49.226 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=868581414"