NATO, when will it stop

[tovaris]

Today marks the 17 year aniversery of the NATO bombing of Serbia and Montenegro, then known as Yugoslavija, which went on for 78 days.

It is these days when we are also a witnes to the atacs in Bruxels, and the masive militarization of the Benelux.

This makes me wonder. Can NATO be stopped? How much damage and ilegal terorist acts will they still be alowed to do unpunished? Should Clinton and NATO heads at the time face trial iin the Hague for war crimes? What is the position of the EU towards NATO?

[Vlerchan]

I can understand NATO officers not finding the chance that there might be a repeat of the Bosnian genocide desirable.

[Irishperson15]

I doubt something like NATO can ever be stopped when the establishment government in countries such as the USA and the UK would back them and supply troops etc. It is always based on greed and self-interest so organisations such as this will always be driven to act bu some form of want.

[Porpoise101]

https://youtu.be/x4sqMNHZxjI
Relevant?

Anyways, I think NATO is anachronistic. While the US was super power in the 90s we should have made bffs with Russia. As for Yugoslav wars, I think it is expected that ethnic cleansing happens. It always happens in partitions of once united nations. Look at India partition. Or post WWI Thrace. Or Israel-Palestine. Actually, even look at any of the Middle East. So I'm generally against partitions like that if they are not already clean cut.

Now, as long as US is afraid or dominant, NATO will stay.

[Exocet]

Stronk Serb I'm very sorry that my country participated in the coward attacks against Serbia.

[Stronk Serb]

I can understand NATO officers not finding the chance that there might be a repeat of the Bosnian genocide desirable.

The court in Hague ruled that there was no genocide, look at the Karadžić verdict. Also the whole bombing action was illegal since it wasn't sanctioned by the UN. Also what NATO did in all of Yugoslavia is a prolonging of the humanitarian disaster there. Also they supported genocidals, it's not like the Muslims and Croats were innocent. Srebrenica was an UN controlled arms-free zone, before Mladić, Naser Orić (Bosniak commander) killed 4500 Serbs in Srebrenica, 10000 total with the surrounding area. Ratko Mladić decided that if the Bosniaks will play dirty, he will too. He captured Srebrenica and until 2008, the total body count was 1500, mostly males which matches the amount of Bosniak troops. Suddenly, after 2008, investigators miraculously found more and the body count was up to 8000. Sounds fishy to me, since Srebrenica is a very small town.

Stronk Serb I'm very sorry that my country participated in the coward attacks against Serbia.

There were French people protesting it. I found one poster funny, it said 'Clinton, fuck your wife, not Serbia'. It shows that there are good people in the world. Also I find it funny how we beat the Foreign Legion on Košare, it's still sad how 90 years before the Frenc government backed us in WWI, but now stabbed us in the back. Aren't they supposed to be the best of the best or something?

[Vlerchan]

The court in Hague ruled that there was no genocide, look at the Karadžić verdict.
No. It was ruled that Karadžić didn't possess genocidal intent himself - though was guilty of multiple crimes against humanity - on the basis of insufficient evidence. However it was overturned this week (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-warcrimes-bosnia-karadzic-idUSKCN0WP2ZW) and he was determined to have committed genocide.

Nonetheless the Hague - alongside other bodies - has consistently affirmed and reaffirmed that what occurred was genocide regardless of what sentences are handed down to various officials.

Also what NATO did in all of Yugoslavia is a prolonging of the humanitarian disaster there.
I find this a pretty dubious proposition.

Naser Orić (Bosniak commander) killed 4500 Serbs in Srebrenica, 10000 total with the surrounding area.
Please provide verifiable evidence supporting this claim. Thank you.

I'm also hoping for non-partisan evidence. Preferably from somewhere like the Hague - which did try Orić by the way.

He captured Srebrenica and until 2008, the total body count was 1500, mostly males which matches the amount of Bosniak troops.
DNA profiling (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/srebrenica-massacre-bosnia-anniversary-denial/398846/) has linked 6827 bodies to the list of those reported missing during the episode. We are certain that at least 6827 people were killed and the strong likelihood is that it was 8500.

Sounds fishy to me, since Srebrenica is a very small town.
It had a 1991 population of close to 30,000 Muslims.

[phuckphace]

He captured Srebrenica and until 2008, the total body count was 1500, mostly males which matches the amount of Bosniak troops. Suddenly, after 2008, investigators miraculously found more and the body count was up to 8000. Sounds fishy to me, since Srebrenica is a very small town.

I haven't heard a statistic that implausible since Nuremberg (just kidding)

but for realsies though I feel like NATO could be re-purposed for a noble cause under the right leadership rather than dismantling it - a cause like fighting the enemies of the West (which in turn requires that said enemies don't literally run it). NATO in its current form exists to keep Europe in line with the globalist agenda and kill off any efforts toward nationalist goals. but think how much things could change for the better if we boosted European nationalism instead - all them neoliberal tears overspilling the Netherlands' dykes (lol)

[Stronk Serb]

Vlerchan

Also the article you provided is pretty anti-Serb biased. It calls all Bosnian Serbs conspiracy nuts and fools.

Warning, graphic content.



http://www.telegraf.rs/english/1616431-the-brutal-atrocities-of-naser-oric-with-bare-hands-he-gouged-out-the-eyes-of-serbian-civilians


http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/naser-oric-charges-win-no-applause-in-bosnia-09-03-2015

He was acquitted. The first sentence was for two years for killing three Serbs which is absolute bullshit. The men under his command and he killed a lot more.

http://fbreporter.org/2015/07/09/the-real-srebrenica-genocide-not-reported-by-the-corrupted-media-was-the-brutal-mass-murder/

[Exocet]

I haven't heard a statistic that implausible since Nuremberg (just kidding)

but for realsies though I feel like NATO could be re-purposed for a noble cause under the right leadership rather than dismantling it - a cause like fighting the enemies of the West (which in turn requires that said enemies don't literally run it). NATO in its current form exists to keep Europe in line with the globalist agenda and kill off any efforts toward nationalist goals. but think how much things could change for the better if we boosted European nationalism instead - all them neoliberal tears overspilling the Netherlands' dykes (lol)

Please vote Trump and get your soldiers out of Europe. Let Latvia,Estonia and whatever else be under Russia's rule,who gives two cents about them ?
It's something like 2 years ago that I knew the existance of Estonia.

[Stronk Serb]

cAtg_h-d05I



Please vote Trump and get your soldiers out of Europe. Let Latvia,Estonia and whatever else be under Russia's rule,who gives two cents about them ?
It's something like 2 years ago that I knew the existance of Estonia.

About two years ago, I thought that Latvia and Lithuania are the same thing.

[Vlerchan]

http://www.telegraf.rs/english/16164...bian-civilians
That's a pretty horrible source. This is one of the headlines on the front page.

HALF OF RATKO MLADIC'S BRAIN IS NOT IN FUNCTION, THEY'VE KILLED HIM IN THE HAGUE, HE NO LONGER HAS EMOTIONS!
This is the creepy SECRET of the Hague Tribunal! (http://www.telegraf.rs/english/1689215-half-of-ratko-mladics-brain-is-not-in-function-theyve-killed-him-in-the-hague-he-no-longer-has-emotions-this-is-the-creepy-secret-of-the-hague-tribunal)

Nonetheless this doesn't support the original claim made. I am aware that Orić is being charged with a number of extrajudicial murders. I guess we'll see to what extent the claims made in this article come to light then.

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/naser-oric-charges-win-no-applause-in-bosnia-09-03-2015
Better source. Doesn't support the claims I'm contesting nonetheless.

He was acquitted. The first sentence was for two years for killing two Serbs which is absolute bullshit. The men under his command and he killed a lot more.
I can agree that he should have gotten more time for the murder of prisoners. I can also agree his men probably killed Serbian civilians. Nonetheless it is nowhere - absolutely nowhere - near the region you originally cited.

http://fbreporter.org/2015/07/09/the-real-srebrenica-genocide-not-reported-by-the-corrupted-media-was-the-brutal-mass-murder/
Did you read this source. The fact that it's throwing around terms like "Islamofascist" makes it entirely suspect off the bat.

The real Srebrenica Genocide not reported by the corrupt, racist pro-Islamist-Nazi Western corporate-controlled media, was the brutal mass murder – using axes, knives, daggers, sledgehammers, iron bars, flamethrowers and explosives – of 3,870 Serbian elderly men, women and young children in and around the town of Srebrenica and its adjoining towns and villages (Bratunac, Skelani, Milici, et al) as well as the town of Gorazde.

ibid.

No actually I can't keep reading this. It's such thrash it doesn't even deserve a critique.

Go find a source by a reputable historian that doesn't need to throw a half-dozen snarl words into his opening sentence to garner readership. Thank you.

Let Latvia,Estonia and whatever else be under Russia's rule,who gives two cents about them ?
Russia doesn't have a natural geopolitical anchor other than it's climate. Ceding territories disproportionately extends the advantage of this.

---

Edit:

I missed this. Sorry.

Also the article you provided is pretty anti-Serb biased. It calls all Bosnian Serbs conspiracy nuts and fools.

The important part of the article was it reporting on a research study into the massacre.

You can ignore the opinion which accompanies it. But it, for clarification, refers to those as nuts and fools, who aren't accepting the evidence. There's nothing anti-Serb about that assertion.

Nonetheless here's a report from the Balkan Insight which you linked in your last post.

Of the 13,000 persons identified by DNA in Bosnia, 6,414 were DNA identifications of persons missing after the 1995 fall of Srebrenica.

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/10-000-still-missing-15-years-after-end-of-war-in-bosnia

[Porpoise101]

I think about the genocide in general, all sides ethnically cleansed through expulsion (look at Croatia), but I think the Serbs at least instigated the mass killings. The only place that I see the Serbs as true victims was in Kosovo.

[Stronk Serb]

Vlerchan
Porpoise101




http://en.europenews.dk/Naser-Nasir-Oric-Srebrenica-War-Criminal-detailed-list-of-his-attacks-on-Christians-80676.html




http://srpska-mreza.com/Bosnia/Srebrenica/Chronicle.html


Here you go.

[Porpoise101]

Vlerchan
Porpoise101




http://en.europenews.dk/Naser-Nasir-Oric-Srebrenica-War-Criminal-detailed-list-of-his-attacks-on-Christians-80676.html




http://srpska-mreza.com/Bosnia/Srebrenica/Chronicle.html


Here you go.
Even in your own source it says the attacks on smaller Serb towns occurred after Srebrenica. This indicates to me that it was retaliatory rather than just continuing a slaughter. I'm not denying that the Bosniaks sacked those towns. Also if I'm not mistaken, even though Srebrenica was in UN land, I think the Serb guy took UN hostages.

Even if this is ALL untrue, this doesn't invalidate my point. Either way, 4,000,000 people were displaced on all sides, and Bosniaks were removed from some towns through killing. A report can't hide the dead.

[Stronk Serb]

Even in your own source it says the attacks on smaller Serb towns occurred after Srebrenica. This indicates to me that it was retaliatory rather than just continuing a slaughter. I'm not denying that the Bosniaks sacked those towns. Also if I'm not mistaken, even though Srebrenica was in UN land, I think the Serb guy took UN hostages.

Even if this is ALL untrue, this doesn't invalidate my point. Either way, 4,000,000 people were displaced on all sides, and Bosniaks were removed from some towns through killing. A report can't hide the dead.

What retaliation? All these are documented to have happened between 1992 and the end of 1995 (the time of the Srebrenica massacre). Naser Orić first occupied the city and began to terrorize it.

[Vlerchan]

http://en.europenews.dk/Naser-Nasir-...ans-80676.html
n preparing this article Reporter is deeply indebted to Milivoj Ivanisevic and his book "The Chronicle of Our Cemetery" in which everything that occurred from May 1992 to February 1993 in the areas of Bratunac, Milici, Skelani and Srebrenica municipalities is described and demonstrated in a distinctly objective and clear manner.

ibid.

This is sourcing from a conservative message board called FreeRepublic. The post itself sources the work of Milivoje Ivanisevic: a Serbian nationalist and who has also been a notorious Bosnian genocide denier (http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/srebrenica-id.pdf).

... through April 1993 units of the Muslim army attacked more than one hundred Serb villages and hamlets in these four municipalities (70 of the attacks took place through December 1992), killing approximately 1,000 civilians and members of the Republic of Srpska Army (VRS).

ibid.

The critics also invoke unreliable statistics. A spokesman for the ruling Democratic Party of Serbia in the wake of the Oric judgment, for example, claimed that “we have documents showing that 3,260 people were found dead around Srebrenica from 1992-1995.” However, the book Hronike nasih grobalja (Chronicles of Our Graveyards) by the Serb historian Milivoje Ivanisevic (the president of the Belgrade Centre for Investigating Crimes Committed against the Serbian People), uses the significantly lower figure, of “more than 1,000 persons [who] died,” and contains the list, mostly made of men of military age. Among those killed, there were evidently a significant number of Bosnian Serb soldiers who died in the fighting, like in Kravica.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/07/11/orics-two-years

Furthermore (https://books.google.ie/books?id=mQdaAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=%22The+allegations+that+Serb+casualties+in+Bratunac,+between+April+1992+and+D ecember+1995+amount+to+over+three+thousand+is+an+evident+falsification+of+facts. %22&source=bl&ots=DiuLPkBPsd&sig=GVbhjI-MtW-Z-aCD9bHxVpZssnY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO9p3avtzLAhWHqw4KHVXPDycQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=%22The%20allegations%20that%20Serb%20casualties%20in%20Bratunac%2C%20between%2 0April%201992%20and%20December%201995%20amount%20to%20over%20three%20thousand%20 is%20an%20evident%20falsification%20of%20facts.%22&f=false)

---

Nonethless - in concurrence with Porpoise101 - our points remain standing.

[Porpoise101]

What retaliation? All these are documented to have happened between 1992 and the end of 1995 (the time of the Srebrenica massacre). Naser Orić first occupied the city and began to terrorize it.
It was retaliatory because the Serbs captured the town in April 1992, when they began to expel the Muslims. Look, Oric was only at most a third as evil as good ol' Radovan. He should have been punished. But his crime is noticeably less. http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tolimir/ind/en/tol-ii050210e.htm

[tovaris]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbPGkX5L7RQ

I can understand NATO officers not finding the chance that there might be a repeat of the Bosnian genocide desirable.

Whelll if they dont want us to commit genocide in USA they should give themselves up to Hague.

[thatcountrykid]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbPGkX5L7RQ



Whelll if they dont want us to commit genocide in USA they should give themselves up to Hague.

Youve gotta be kidding

[sqishy]

I don't want to talk about Trump, and this may not be relevant enough, but why did he say recently ( in the past few days) that all NATO countries should 'pay up' or leave?

Be aware I know little on this, so context is what I'm seeking some help with, also any sense from Trump if possible.

[Vlerchan]

I don't want to talk about Trump, and this may not be relevant enough, but why did he say recently ( in the past few days) that all NATO countries should 'pay up' or leave?

Be aware I know little on this, so context is what I'm seeking some help with, also any sense from Trump if possible.
European states invest a much smaller portion of their GDP into defence than the U.S.: in the view of some Conservatives the U.S. is subsidising the defence of these states.

[Porpoise101]

I don't want to talk about Trump, and this may not be relevant enough, but why did he say recently ( in the past few days) that all NATO countries should 'pay up' or leave?

Be aware I know little on this, so context is what I'm seeking some help with, also any sense from Trump if possible.

Well he's saying that the countries where the US stations troops don't spend enough on their own defense. So he says they need to support themselves before getting any American help. He also extended the sentiment to the Japanese and (South) Koreans but also said they need to have nukes.

Personally I don't agree with him on the nuclear proliferation, but I think some nations need to pitch in more, either troops or weaponry. But that is in the case NATO is a legitimate "defensive alliance" rather than a tool for Americans to get influence in Europe.

[sqishy]

Vlerchan Porpoise101

Thanks for the replies; makes more sense to me now.

[tovaris]

Youve gotta be kidding

Why would i be?

[thatcountrykid]

Why would i be?

If I recall correctly most of the EU is part of NATO and NATO has done quite a lot of good. It garuntees security for member nations and also polices them in a way.

[Stronk Serb]

If I recall correctly most of the EU is part of NATO and NATO has done quite a lot of good. It garuntees security for member nations and also polices them in a way.

And it turned Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia and Syria to what they are now.

[Vlerchan]

And it turned Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia and Syria to what they are now.
With the collapse of Iraq we saw the fall of a budding regional-hegamon that might have been capable of setting oil prices upwards. In Syria, we were seeing the end of a regime that were going to put the Russians into the Mediterranean, perhaps out most important geopolitical asset.

I'm not so sure about Libya. That just seemed a mess (damn French).

But let's all be honest about Iraq and Syria. Ba'athist dictatorship only ever postponed what was inevitable. The US didn't create the Middle East. It sure destabilised the Middle East but then we just got to see the worst of the poor political norms that underline their governing structures, that always existed. The Ba'athists were never cultural-hegamons and as soon as their institutionalised advantage waned at all, they were dead as a political force.

First chance they got, Iraqi and Syrian citizens were shooting at government officials, and too large of the time, this was beneath the banner of radical religious groups.

---

It's also more-than-arguable that NATO was of considerable value where it operated in South-East Asia, East Asia, and East-Central Europe.

[thatcountrykid]

And it turned Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia and Syria to what they are now.

We attempted to help the Iraqis and afghanis but they won't help themselves. Lydia and Syria I can't speak on because I haven't followed that too closely

[Porpoise101]

Like Vlerchan, I do not believe the US/NATO were totally responsible for the collapse of order in the Middle East. Most of the damage was done by Ottoman, British, and French colonization and division. The rest of the damage was caused by crime, corruption, and American dominance after the fall of the USSR's power.

But the US has certainly ruined and stunted the growth of former French Indochina. Still today, there are millions of cripples and accidents still occur with old minefields. And that does not even count the many who were exposed to carcinogens and chemicals from the US attack on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The poverty and chaos also allowed for human traffickers to take hold too. So sex slavery is an indirect effect of US involvement.

[Flapjack]

I think NATO is a good thing. It prevents smaller countries from being bullied by countries like Russia and I think does a lot, ironically, for world peace.

[Kyle37]

Today marks the 17 year aniversery of the NATO bombing of Serbia and Montenegro, then known as Yugoslavija, which went on for 78 days.

It is these days when we are also a witnes to the atacs in Bruxels, and the masive militarization of the Benelux.

This makes me wonder. Can NATO be stopped? How much damage and ilegal terorist acts will they still be alowed to do unpunished? Should Clinton and NATO heads at the time face trial iin the Hague for war crimes? What is the position of the EU towards NATO?

I'm sorry but I don't think it was ever referred to as "Yugoslavija". Either "y" or "j" god damn. :yeah:

[Kyle37]

And just to add my input into this convo, I think "NATO" is just a code word for "US AMRY". It just seems like a more international effort, but all of the efforts are those of Americans, and the people who allow themselves or were forced to be their sheep. The Serbs were the real victims of the Yugoslav wars, not the Croats or the muslims. Karadzic was just doing his job as a member in a war, while America had them setup the whole time.

[Vlerchan]

The Serbs were the real victims of the Yugoslav wars, not the Croats or the muslims.
What about the whole genocide-thing?

[Kyle37]

What about the whole genocide-thing?

Genocide happened on both sides equally, its just that the western media only reported on Serbs killing others, but were silent about it the other way around. They were the silent victims of genocide and now they have a bad image in the western world, as well as getting the shit knocked out of them in 1999 and no one questioned the American's 'intervention'.

[Stronk Serb]

Genocide happened on both sides equally, its just that the western media only reported on Serbs killing others, but were silent about it the other way around. They were the silent victims of genocide and now they have a bad image in the western world, as well as getting the shit knocked out of them in 1999 and no one questioned the American's 'intervention'.

The intervention was never sanctioned by the UN, so it is not really legal. Also, yeah, almost 8000 Muslims get killed in Srebrenica and the West goes apeshit, but Operation Storm happens which forcefully relocates 250,000-400,000 Serbs, while about the same number (as in Srebrenica) got killed and nobody cares. Also, why is the Armenian Genocide not internationally recognized as genocide, while Srebrenica is? The international law must be more clearly defined. I see problems and loopholes in international law just as I see them in Serbian law. Both need to be fixed. Also a similar number to the kill count in Srebrenica got killed during the intervention, yet nobody cares. The whole conflict was extremely politicised, since all sidrd comitted attrocities.

[Vlerchan]

Genocide happened on both sides equally, its just that the western media only reported on Serbs killing others, but were silent about it the other way around.
I had a conversation about this on the previous page. You're free to address any of the commentaries made.

I would also appreciate if you could, in particular, substantiate the claim that 'genocide happened on both sides equally'.

Furthermore, this line of conversation is also a change from delegitimising the suffering of all those murdered or placed into sexual slavery by Serb forces, who before were cast as not 'real victims'. I'm glad we have that cleared up.

---

The U.S. intervention was ostensibly to stop a genocide against the Kosovans. I can't comment as to whether that would have taken place or not - but that was the intention behind it. Sanders also voted for that - if it legitimises the bombings.

The intervention was never sanctioned by the UN, so it is not really legal.
Sure. I can accept that. Of course I don't actually believe public international law exists in a meaningful sense, as it's unenforceable.

but Operation Storm happens which forcefully relocates 250,000-400,000 Serbs, while about the same number (as in Srebrenica) got killed and nobody cares.
This played out in the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, and we all did care.

In that case, not even the Serbians attempted to pose the number of dead civilians as being close to the numbers killed at Srebrenica.

Also, why is the Armenian Genocide not internationally recognized as genocide, while Srebrenica is?
Your continued whataboutism isn't a significant response to the claims I have made.

I don't deny that what happened to the Armenians was genocide - neither does the legal jurisdiction I live in, if it matters at all - but there's a clear culture of denial of the Bosnian genocide, or if not that: it's delegitimisation as an evident atrocity.

The international law must be more clearly defined. I see problems and loopholes in international law just as I see them in Serbian law.
I can agree that public international law contains pretty significant issues.

We can open up another thread about that if you want.

Also a similar number to the kill count in Srebrenica got killed during the intervention, yet nobody cares.
You seem to be missing the issue inherent to genocide. It's not just killing.

It's the deliberate and systematic persecution, through murder, of an ethnic group.

There's a reason we have a much bigger issue with all the South-Slavs killed by the Nazis, than the non-Jewish Russians.

Furthermore, whilst different countries are throwing around their own politically charged estimates (I have read up to 18000) the odds are the number of Serbs that died was nowhere close to the numbers killed in Srebrenica.

---

Porpoise101: I have a feeling he will be interested in repeating himself.