UKC

Found guilty of genocide including the Srebranica massacre.

He's been sentenced to 40 years in prison.

He is 70 years old, so he won't be coming out.

Evil evil man

In reply to Trangia:

Good. He deserves nothing less.

In reply to Trangia:
Nah, stitched up by a NATO kangaroo court, Tony Blair,Gen, Wesley Clark et al as well as Hans Dietriech Gensher should have been jailed as they are the ones who bombed civilians in Serbia and in Gensher's case the war in Yugoslavia was to quote "Gensher's war".

When does Blair,Bush, Cameron and all the other NATO war criminals get imprisoned for their evil ?

In reply to Redacted:

Welcome back, try and not get banned quite so fast this time.


Oh dear...


Don't hold your breath.

In reply to Redacted:

Karadzic stitched up?? You are way off beam there!!

In reply to Redacted:

Welcome back to Planet Earth.
Staying long?

In reply to Redacted:

God I hate Serb nationalism.

In reply to abr1966:

How so ? And if he is guilty then why are none of the above ? Or is your "Beam", only shone toward non-Nato countries ?

In reply to Removed User:
Muchos gracias ,It's been a couple of years but it is good to be back and let battle commence

In reply to Redacted:


In Bush's case, never. Imagine the people who run America as old style Hollywood studio owners and US presidents as their stars. They may have contempt for their stars (whom they regard as figureheads) but they won't allow the presidency to fall into disrepute because it's such a potent symbol of authority.

So that's Bush safe. And (by association) it's Blair safe also.

Mick

Anyone interested in what happened and the basis of the verdict can read the judgement summary:
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/tjug/en/160324_judgement_summary.pdf

Whether or not others committed crimes, denial of Karadzic's crimes is contemptible.

In reply to Redacted:

I'll be very clear with you....I spent time in Bosnia at the time ( I will not say in what capacity) and have seen first hand what happened....and interviewed Bosnian Serb militia who were very clear and open about where their orders came from. I'm no apologist for Blair or any other politician, however, I'm very sceptical about your assertion and would be keen to hear anything you have to say relating to why you believe he has been stitched up.

In reply to abr1966:
There was a war on and when local Muslim warlords massacre complete Bosnian Serb villages and then go and hide safely in their UN safe havens then you will get reprisals or do you think otherwise ? The USA was supporting everyone against the Serbs for no reason other than to attack the people who wanted to keep Yugoslavia together and because they were communist. The amount of lies in the western media about the Serbs was incredible this I remember vividly. Karadzic and Milosovic were doing exactly the same as Izetbegovic (the Islamist extremist) and Tudjman (the Ustashe fascist) but because those extremists had the backing of the US empire then they could do anything they wanted.
Remember the Serbs being accused of "Ethnic cleansing", another US buzzword when the real ethnic cleansing operation was with Croatian fascists working with Nato to attack 20,000-30,000 Krajina Serb families out of Krajina.Murdering thousands but that is ok.

In reply to Redacted:

He was found guilty by a UN Tribunal after a 5 year trial which you have referred to as a 'kangaroo court'!
I'm sure there are plenty on various sides of a complex multi dimensional conflict who are guilty of numerous war crimes but to deny Karadzic's part is very naive....

In reply to Trangia:

This Nato and Ustashe fascist action of ethnic cleansing that murdered thousands of Krajina Serbs was genocide and are the perpetrators at the Nato kangaroo court of the Hague ? No of course not.

In reply to abr1966:

Lets not go down the road of personal attacks please I didn't attack you so please reciprocate in kind, the Hague is a Nato kangaroo court...funded by Nato countries and it has explicitly said when asked why it wont prosecute Nato war criminals that....

"It trust what Nato does".

In reply to Redacted:

[citation needed]

In reply to Removed UserGnT:


So thoroughly is the Tribunal a NATO creation that when Canadian lawyer Michael Mandel and later Amnesty International tried to get the Tribunal to investigate war crimes connected to NATO's bombing of civilian targets, the Tribunal appointed lawyer William Fenrick directly from his post as director of law for operations and training in the Canadian Department of Defense, to undertake the investigation. Fenrick's report, which astonishingly relied almost entirely on NATO documents, absolved NATO entirely. The report explained that it had been assumed "that the NATO and NATO countries' press statements are generally reliable and that explanations have been honestly given."(8) NATO said it didn't commit war crimes, and Fenrick, an ex-NATO lawyer, accepted his former employer at its word. End of story.

In reply to Trangia:

40 years for genocide is ridiculously lenient .

The sentence should have been life for such a crime, whether he was 18 or 80. A very worrying sentence .

In reply to Redacted:

As usual I disagree with your one way view of events.

However one thing we do seem to agree on is that those responsible at NATO and the UN who came up with a policy where the world stood by and allowed Karadzic and his muderous henchmen butcher women and children seem to have gotten away with it. Shame on them (us).

In reply to Redacted:



I will not enter any further discussion with you however.

In reply to Redacted:

I would have hoped your point might be Karadzic was pretty evil, but arguably NATO were involved in some bad stuff as well.

That would require you to accept blame falls on him, as well as acknowledge that conflicts are somewhat more complicated than Russia Today likes to make out.

I suspect, though, that your point is you believe Karadzic was innocent, whilst NATO was the evil party.

In reply to Redacted:

Hi Mary Doll - hiya!

In reply to Redacted:

Where do you get your crap from? Abr 1966 tells us he was there at the time and saw first hand what happened. Were you there? If not, why do you argue with him? What are your credentials for disagreeing with what he writes? Or is your "evidence" second hand?

In reply to Redacted:

That'll be why his daughter killed herself when she found about what he'd done? I think the evidence against him is pretty strong to be fair.


I can't argue about Bush and Blair when it comes to Iraq, or disagree that all war is evil by nature, but Radovan is too.

In reply to Trangia:
I think Redacted follows the Russian/anti-western/anti-NATO line, which needn't be a bad thing if it means other facts which we might not be aware of are posted, and within what she posts is a passionate dislike of unfairness and that kind of thing, but she won't at all accept (for instance) things like how terrible for the LGTB community Putin's anti gay propaganda laws are (with linking paedophilia into the wording too), or the kind of climate which now exists in Russia, despite first hand evidence from GLTB people of being persecuted and how the laws affect them, and it not taking much thought to work out how something like that could be bad for LGTB people, from being a fan of Putin it seems. So it can be difficult to discuss something with her when she's decided that the point of view she has come across is correct - or is 'the whole truth' when it isn't necessarily so. (Nobody's perspective is the whole truth either, but if an ex solider has interviewed people who said their orders came from Radovan, that's hard to argue with.)

If you keep that in mind it makes more sense.

Back to Radovan anyway...

In reply to Trangia:

I spent a year in the Yugoslavian Crisis Cell within the Defence Intelligence Services in the MOD.

This was just when Dayton had been signed. The focus was heavily on two things:

1. Ensuring compliance with the Accord.
2. Pursuing war criminals.

Notice I didn't say "Serbian War Criminals." Our remit was to build a body of intelligence and evidence in order to bring them all to justice.

Anyone who spent any time close enough to first-hand accounts of what was going on will consider that 40 years for Karadzic was barely justice at all. Let me point to you to the Omarska death camp which was run by the Bosnian Serbs in 1992 and saw thousands of non-Serbs processed there as part of the campaign of ethnic cleansing.

I can tell you that the survivors' accounts from Omarska make harrowing reading, particular those based around the "White House" where murder, torture and rape were the norm.

Omarska was a part of systematic, industrial scale ethnic cleansing and was part of a mass of war crimes committed in Bosnia - in this case by the Serbs.

There can be zero defence of ignorance here. Zero. Karadzic bears absolute responsibility and accountability for this campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing. There were hundreds of detention camps which the Serb leaders had to know about, but more importantly the policy of ethnic cleansing came from the very top and was "championed" by the likes of Mladic and Raznatovic.

This crime that NATO and many western leaders shares is one of not intervening sooner to prevent more bloodshed.

In reply to Redacted:


Except that it didn't. The "Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" * reports sources that were a bit more varied:

"In attempting to assess what happened on the ground, the committee relied upon the Human Rights Watch Report entitled Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign and upon the documented accounts in the FRY Ministry of Foreign Affairs volumes entitled NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia. The committee also relied heavily on NATO press statements and on the studies done by Mr. Ekkehard Wenz."

I'd be more convinced by your argument if the source that your quote came from backed up your claim. Or if this "NATO kangaroo court" didn't take evidence from a document entitled _NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia_ : funny way of doing a whitewash, that.


( * Which is where that quote comes from. It's available to read here: http://www.icty.org/en/press/final-report-prosecutor-committee-established-... , because, y'know, citations )

In reply to Removed UserGnT:

So basically al, you are saying is that I didn't put a citation and that I didn't include a lot of stuff that you did. Well that's like saying to someone who answers a question about the bible..."oh you didn't quote the entire bible" It's ludicrous. I showed a typical quote from someone involved in the case that backs up my paraphrasing that "we trust what Nato say". And that I did.

It is indeed a Kangaroo court which is bought and paid for by Nato countries and wealthy western individuals,here is an example-

The Tribunal itself, through its senior officials openly brags about its particularly close ties to the American government. In her remarks to the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on April 5th of this year, Judge Gabrielle Kirk Mcdonald, President of the Tribunal, and an American stated, "We benefited from the strong support of concerned governments and dedicated individuals such as Secretary Albright. As the permanent representative to the United Nations, she had worked with unceasing resolve to establish the Tribunal. Indeed, we often refer to her as the "mother of the Tribunal". If she is the mother then Bill Clinton is the father, as Louise Arbour confirmed by her action of reporting to the President of the United States the decision to indict Milosevic two days before she announced it to the rest of the world, in blatant violation of her duty to remain independent. Further, she and the current prosecutor have made several public appearances with U.S officials, including Madeleine Albright, and both have openly stated that they rely on Nato governments for investigations, governments which have a great interest in the undermining of the Yugoslavian leadership.

In 1996, the prosecutor met with the Secretary-General of Nato and the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe to "establish contacts and begin discussing modalities of cooperation and Assistance". On May 9th, 1996 a memorandum of understanding between the Office of the Prosecutor and Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) was signed by both parties. Further meetings have taken place since including that of the president of the Tribunal with General Wesley Clarke. The memorandum of May 9th spelled out the practical arrangements for support to the tribunal and the transfer of indicted persons to the Tribunal. In other words, Nato forces became the gendarmes of the Tribunal, not UN forces, and the Tribunal put itself at the disposal of Nato. This relationship has continued despite the Tribunal's requirement to be independent of any national government and, therefore, group of national governments.

The Tribunal has received substantial funds from individual States, private foundations and corporations in violation of Article 32 of its Charter. Much of its money has come from the U.S. government directly in cash and donations of computer equipment. In the last year for which public figures are available, 1994/95, the United States provided $700,000 in cash and $2,300,000 worth of equipment. That same year the Open Society Institute, a foundation established by George Soros, the American billionaire financier, to bring "openness" to the former east bloc countries contributed $150,000 and the Rockefeller family, through the Rockefeller Foundation, contributed $50,000 and there have been donations from corporations such as Time-Warner, and Discovery Products, both US corporations. It also important to know that Mr. Soros' foundation not only funds the Tribunal it also funds the main KLA newspaper in Pristina, an obvious conflict of interest that has not been mentioned once in the western press.

The Tribunal also receives money from the United States Institute for Peace for its Outreach project, a public relations arm of the Tribunal set up to overcome opposition in the former Yugoslav republics to its work and the constant criticisms of selective prosecution and the application of double standards; objections which have obvious merit and which are never answered by anyone at the Tribunal or by any of its sponsors. The Institute for Peace is stated to be " an independent, non-partisan federal institution created and funded by Congress to strengthen the nation's capacity to promote the peaceful resolution of international conflict." .Established in 1984 under Ronald Reagan, its Board of Directors is appointed by the President of the United States.

The Tribunal also receives support from the Coalition For International Justice whose purpose is also to enhance public opinion of the Tribunal. The CIJ was founded and is funded by, again, George Soros' Open Society Institute and something called CEELI, the Central and East European Law Institute, created by the American Bar Association and lawyers close to the U.S. government to promote the replacement of socialist legal systems with free market ones.

These groups also have supplied many of the legal staff of the Tribunal. In her speech to the Supreme Court, Judge Mcdonald said, "The Tribunal has been well served by the tremendous work of a number of lawyers who have come to the Tribunal through the CIJ and CEELI..." It is also interesting to note that the occasion of Judge McDonalds speech was her acceptance of an award from the American Bar Association and CEELI. In the same speech she also said," We are now seeking funding from states and foundations to carry out this critical effort."

The new prosecutor Carla Del Ponte, on September 30, at a press conference, thanked the director of the FBI for assisting the tribunal and stated "I am very appreciative of the important support that the U.S government has provided the tribunal. I look forward to their continued support." On September 29th, in response to a question as to whether the tribunal would be investigating crimes Committed in Kosovo after June 10, or crimes committed by others (meaning Nato) in the Yugoslav theatre of operations, "The primary focus of the Office of The Prosecutor must be on the investigation and prosecution of the five leaders of the FRY and Serbia who have already been indicted." Why this "must" be is not explained. Why, if the Tribunal is impartial wouldn't it be just as focussed on Nato war crimes, the war crimes of Clinton, Schroeder , Chirac, Chretien etc? Why did it still need to investigate to support the indictments against the leaders of the government and military of Yugoslavia if there was already evidence to justify those indictments?

Well, we can speculate why when we consider that the last prosecutor, Louis Arbour, who was asked to investigate all Nato leaders for war crimes, instead accepted a job from one of them, the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien. She now sits in the scarlet robes of a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, a lifetime appointment, her reward for handing down the indictment against Mr. Milosevic, despite the lack of evidence and (if you believe the reports of the Spanish and RCMP forensic experts recently returned from Kosovo) the continuing lack of evidence of the systematic crimes he is accused of.

On April 19th Judge McDonald "expressed her deep appreciation to the U.S. Government for its pledge of $500,000 for the Outreach project which was announced on April 16 by Harold Koh, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State.

In reply to Trangia:
This Nato kangaroo court was mostly created by the freak of nature that is Madeline Albright who famously thought it was right to murder 1/2 a million Iraqi babies and children by the USA and UK.

She walks free and Karadzic is jailed ???
In a court of her and Clinton's making.
Sick.

In reply to Trangia:
200,000 Krajina Serbs were attacked in their homes and driven away by a Nato/Ustashe ethnic cleansing operation ( the biggest by a mile in the whole conflict)which murdered thousands of Krajina Serbs.

The US,Germany and the UK started this war by forcing Yugoslavia to be ripped into pieces, that's just the way the USA and UK empires like things when confronted with a strong nation.

"Internmant camps", "Rape", the mudjahidean that the islamist crackpot Izetbegovic was bringing in were beheading Serbs, mutilating them and conducting constant rapes and massacres in their torture camps, so were the Croat fascists.But all the western press would do would be to shout about Serbs and stay 100% quiet about the Islamist fascists and the Ustashe fascists that we were supporting throughout.
Jeez we even hired a famous NY PR company to conduct it.

In reply to Redacted:

If you are just going to regurgitate content from other websites, at least quote them:

http://www.oldsite.transnational.org/SAJT/features/impartialtribunal.html

http://www.swans.com/library/art5/zig013.html

In reply to off-duty:


I notice on their international associates http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Transnational_Foundation_for_Peace_and... our old friend Prof. Chossudovsky is listed, perhaps not surprisingly. What was his Canadian anti-NATO anti-West website called that Bruce always used to link to? Something to do with globalization.

In reply to Redacted:






I'm not sure that quoting a notoriously dubious, and retracted, figure like "half a million babies" makes your argument any stronger.
It just highlights a bit of cherry picking.

http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/the-iraq-sanctions-myth-56433

In reply to Redacted:

So in summary,
A) it's a kangaroo court
B) the kangaroo court should try the UK/US/Madelaine Albright
C) The UK/US others did lots of really bad stuff as well.

None of which (true or not ) particularly addresses:

D) Karadzic' guilt - I haven't seen a discrediting of the evidence against him, or a claim that mass murder of civilians is self defence.

In reply to Jim C:


Out of curiosity, what practical value do you see in a longer sentence? Whether it's 40 years, 400 or 4000 the meaning is crystal clear, he's an old man who will live and die in prison.
jk

In reply to Redacted:

let me get this right- you are in fact saying reprisals are not only to be expected, but they are justified? ill add my support to abr1966 here, and id listen to what he has to say. you are a poorly informed conspiracy theorist. you clearly have no understanding of what happened before, during or after the war and id bow out of this conversation. your opinions are a disgrace.

In reply to jkarran:




It is the crime of Genocide, if the doctors had said that he was going to die in 2 months we would not give him a 3 month sentence just so he would die in prison.

Such a crime should have a life sentence. (no matter what the perpetrators life expectation are)

In reply to Jim C:


Thanks but that isn't actually an answer to my question.

Maybe I'm a little dim or this is just one of those things where we don't all see the world the same way but 40 years is a long sentence however old you are and for Karadizic it is a whole life sentence and that is obvious. Giving him 'life' (just to be clear, I'd be ok with that, I'm not arguing *against* it) would change little if anything; it's not going to deter the next monster from taking his path and it doesn't change Karadizic's experience of justice.
jk

In reply to Trangia:

Perhaps the sentence is also that he will be guaranteed 40 years of life, in custody, with visits from parties of victims.

In reply to Trangia:

I'm disappointed that this bastard has got off the hook. One of the worst of a very bad bunch. And he chickened out of a duel with Emir Kusturica.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35933468

In reply to Removed User:



But according to redacted this is a kangaroo court, only set up to convict....

In reply to off-duty:
" I'm not sure that quoting a notoriously dubious, and retracted, figure like "half a million babies" makes your argument any stronger.
It just highlights a bit of cherry picking."

It would seem that you are the one accusing me of your own vice lol

The figures of dead children range from 200,000 to 530,000 killed by Anglo-American sanctions on Iraq. This is all over the place from all sorts of sources, the one you state from the Lancet that one of it's authors decided to retract the first figures is just one of many that don't.

"So in summary,
A) it's a kangaroo court
B) the kangaroo court should try the UK/US/Madelaine Albright
C) The UK/US others did lots of really bad stuff as well."

A) Obviously.
B) The Nato kangaroo court should have tried the accused 50 Nato war criminals that international lawyers had filed a case against instead of throwing it out saying we trust Nato, Albright like Clinton is a war criminal and should be in prison, like all US and UK leaders.
C) Really bad stuff /are the centre of evil in this world.

Oh and obviously quoting from another site speaks for itself and doesn't require a link to it, or does it for you ? And since when does quoting become "regurgitating"? I suppose when you made a link to an old site that to was "Regurgitating"?

No, that is reserved for someone who points out the hell that your beloved British empire inflicts on the world in order to keep our benefits.

In reply to tom84

If you would like to argue the points I raise then I will show you how much of a conspiracy theorist I am. Everything I stated is the truth so go on and prove me wrong or just name call if that is all you are capable of, I couldn't care less either way.

In reply to Redacted:

Are you saying Karadzic is innocent? Or that he isn't innocent but the leaders of the NATO countries are worse?

And you don't "quote" if you don't put the text you are quoting in quotation marks and say where it is from (either a citation or, on-line, a link). Otherwise it is just copying and looks like you are trying to pass off someone else's work as your own.

In reply to Redacted:







I agree that there's probably a sense that 'Our wars are good wars', but this doesn't directly relate to Radovan's guilt (or lack of it).

I'm thinking the place to start would be if possible to look at the evidence which was submitted, on which he was found guilty.

In reply to Redacted:


I'm thinking that if there are people who haven't been found guilty who should have been, it's a shocking injustice, but it almost seems like you acknowledge that Radovan K(I can't spell it) could have been part of armed responses to attacks from others (which he's now been tried for) ?

In reply to TobyA:
I don't have time for a large explanation but he may well be guilty of some crimes but if he is then so are hundreds of others in the USA,UK and EU as well as Croatian fascists and islamist Turks. And as far as anyone who is not a British empire nut can see then yes we are guilty of much much worse.

I won't even mention the quote as it is ridiculous to think I would know all of that internal knowledge about the Nato kangaroo court and who funds it.

Tim yes I am saying that the UK,US and Germany as with most wars are behind the destruction of Yugoslavia in the first place and that it would not have happened if we had not demanded the break up and fostered the Islamist crackpot Izetbegovic and the Ustashe fascist Tudjman.The majority of Muslims wanted to keep Yugoslavia but we would not have that. We have attacked all countries who were socialist after 1991 if not before, this was another in the line. Karadzic was trying to protect his people from the barbarism of the Islamists and the fascists supported (As always ) by Nato.

For Off Duty - who says the figures of the murdered Iraqi children is " notoriously dubious ", are the numbers from this article 3 years after a "retraction", by ONE person of the final figure of 500,000 murdered by US and UK sanctions still " notoriously dubious ",there is a recent book written on this barbaric attack by the USA on Iraq and her children and the 1/2 a million we murdered,I will look it out in time.
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9

In reply to Redacted:

FFS answer the question. Is Karadzic a war criminal regardless of whether others are also criminals?

In reply to Redacted:


What's your source for the claim on what yugoslav Muslims wanted? And the UK wanted nothing to do with Yugoslavia as it broke up thinking it was another NI waiting to happen, the UK actively did nothing as Yugoslavia fell apart. You really should read Unfinest Hour by Brendan Simms.


I actually think you know this is utter bollocks, at least you must know it if you really know anything about the Yugoslav wars, it's not even like when you and Bruce used to defend Milosovic as some sort of socialist hero: Karadzic always was a national romantic fascist and ethno-supremicist and nowt else.

In reply to TobyA:

Given Russia's caginess of NATO (for whatever reasons), it can seem like Redacted is taking the viewpoint of Russia to the exclusion of others.

It's an interesting thread...

In reply to Timmd:

Is Shona back?

In reply to aln:

Shona aka Gudrun

http://www.ukclimbing.com/general/search.html?cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&a...