Is there anyone who can explain why Srebrenica massacre is being pushed as a genocide, except for political reasons...

Is there anyone who can explain why Srebrenica massacre is being pushed as a genocide, except for political reasons? Isn't this qualification just devaluating the definition and meaning of the genocide, as the most serious crime? Official numbers say that about 8000 men had been killed. But in the verdict of general Mladic, he is found guilty for killings of about 2000 people. And please, i'm interested in normal answers of why is this event considered to be a genocide, not shit like "muh Serbs are evil" or "mudslimes aren't people, they deserved it". My guess would be that the UN wants to demonize the Serbian side(maybe because of ties with Russia?) in the war and indirectly delegitimate the Serbian entity-Republica srpska in Bosnia. What do you think?

Other urls found in this thread:

un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I'm more interested in why Serbs get all the blame when Greek volunteers flew a fucking Greek flag there

Greece is a NATO member.

Because Srebrenica was one in a series of crimes which were part of an attempted genocide.

I don't understand why you wouldn't consider it a genocide, it's the deliberate killing of people because of their ethnicity as part of a campaign to try and ethnically cleanse Republika Srpska (a campaign which was pretty successful given that it made a significant difference to the demographics of the area).

>My guess would be that the UN wants to demonize the Serbian side(maybe because of ties with Russia?)

Russia is a powerful part of the UN and a member of the security council, that's no more of a "normal" response than the other silly things you listed.

I've seen that. Wonder what happened to those guys, because i haven't heard of any Greek convicted for Srebrenica
Genocide is basically the crime above all other crimes. Most important part of genocide as a criminal act is a "genocidal intent"-there has to be intent to destroy some ethnic, religious, racial group...how can massacre of only Srebrenica men above 14 or 15 years lead to destructiom of Bosniaks? It is a war crime, but hardly a genocide.

There has to be some intent to destroy in whole or IN PART the ethnic group and the massacre of the men was accompanied by the forced transfer and widespread abuse of tens of thousands of women, old and children. It was part of a campaign to ethnically cleanse Republica Srpska.

The thing is it's not that clear those guys were killed because of their ethnicity with the intent to desteoy their ethnic group ( that's the full definition of genocide, the intent to exterminate is key...and tgat is disputed to this day by Serbs ), or as retaliation for previous killings of thousands of Serbs around Srebrenica ( which doesnt make it a genocide, but makes it a generic war crime ), or if a large portion of them died in fights with Serb army during their retreat from Srebrenica ( which makes it no crime at all ).
Srebrenica being a part of a larger project is not relevant. What is relevant is why were those people killed. And the Hague tribunal made some disputable interpertations of the definition of genocide which is dubious even for liberal Serbs.

Namely, one of the acts of genocide is "destruction of a people in whole or in part" with the "intention to exterminate the group just because it's what it is" ( genocidal intent for short ). The thing is, lots of people died in fights with VRS and victims are exclusively male which makes this "destruction of the part of a part of a group" which is a legal gray area and open to interpretation. Furthermore, the combat and retaliatory causes for killings kinda mitigate the stance that there was clear genocidal intent ( especially when you consider the fact that Mladic sent women and children safely to Muslim territory, without any harm ).

But the fact remains that at least a war crime happened there and yhat Muslims made around 70% of Srebrenica population and today they make up 50%. But then again, doesn't the fact that they weren't exterminated despite the fact they were under Serb control negate that there was genocidal intent? Or maybe it didn't happen because of foreign pressure?

TL;DR
Hague made some dubious interpretation and the existence of genocidal intent can be disputed due to various facts.
Pic semi related.

>or if a large portion of them died in fights with Serb army during their retreat from Srebrenica
You can discount that one, the Bosnians fucked off and ran away under advice from a Dutch guy because he was under the assumption NATO airstrikes were coming

Because people believe it was a genocide. Duh.

But Boshniak politicians are using it heavily for political points. It gets downright disgusting sometimes with all the victimhood mentality shit they spew.

The definition is here.....

un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html

....and as I have pointed out here it's clearly been met.

Probably the last (you) I am giving on this thread as the posts being made in response are deliberately non-factual and silly.

Honestly, I'm only introduced to the basics of this dispute and can only speak regarding legalistic nitpickings. As far as a Serb narrative goes, I've described it in full. Are facts it is based on true or just "alternative facts" is beyond my knowledge. All I can say is that "our side" sounds credible, but it's hardly bulletproof. That's where we enter the gray area where my national bias kicks in, so I choose not to delve too deep here as this is reaaaaly a touchy subject even on an individual level.

Yeah, he told them to retreat but that doesn't exclude fights during the retreat ( as they are a part of it in military strategy in retreat after all )

I don't think over 6000 people died in a well organized and barely contested retreat in a declared "safe area" under Dutchbat control user, that's just fucking silly

because they systemically killed all the non serb males they could find and a lot of the women too, and the general intent was to wipe out the ethnic group making it a instance of ethnic clensing

the thing is these things didnt happen in some way 'by definition'
we all called it 'ethnic clensing' because thats what it was, and anyone alive during the 90is knows what that was about

now if you have a specific definition of genocide then you can kill as many people as you want as long as you constantly reference the definition, kind of how cia tortures people exactly so it isnt 'torture by definition'

but mladić wasnt on about that, he thought they would ultimately win, which they did in a way since RS is still there, so they just went and killed people for days on end and even filmed it, so the reason why it dosent fit 'genocide by definition' is because they didnt even bother with the definition if you get what i mean

also the difference betveen 'killing enemy soldiers in retreat' and exterminating civilians gets a little blurred in such situations, one way or the other they executed thousands of unarmed people

its a little fucked up discussing these thing in current year, even OP post shows signs of baiting, but what makes it a problem to explain is that these things are so obvious to anyone who was around back then, we all know, croats, bosnians, serbs, there was no secret about it, serbs were getting rid of all non serbs in serb held areas, croats returned the favor, and bosnians did whatever they could to reciprocate, its what happened, srebrenica is a distinct thing just because the fucking umprofor base was there so people congregated around it hoping for protection, but then the fucking swedes just up and ran leaving a whole multitude of bosnians in the hands of fucking četniks

and its not 8000, the body count is closer to 10000 today, they are finding more bodies on a dayly basis

"Part of a part" is not the same as "a part of". It's a gray area thst Hague now filled ( so legally speaking it is a genocide ). But conditions under which the interpretation was made are dubious ( I think the interpretation happened in the verdict agaimst Krstic? ).

Listen dude, I just presented the "my side" narrative to which even I am sceptical. At least you can offer arguments for anons to read.
Also, you're talking to a lawyer here so "textbook defimition" non argument won't work, as tbe definition is not disputed. It's the interpretation of it that is ( not legally anymore though ).

Not 6000 during tge retreat. I remember it being like 2000-3000 from the fights and the rest for blatant killings of unarmed POW and civilians. But don't hold me on that ( as I just cant remember where I got those numbers ) and it still doesn't change anything when it comes to genocidal intent.

This. A good summary.

i thought the number stopped gtowing after 8000? I've been out of the loop for awhile.

I believe even the Serb estimate is around 7000, which is higher than the official estimate

Ugh, no. It's below the official estimate of "8000 and even more". Serb estimate goes to 3000 died in fights and tbe rest is "just a war crime".

Honestly, you cant trust anyone here as every side has a vested imterest in inflating/deflating numbers. Look up the chaos about Jasenovac. The numbers varied from 100.000 to around a million by various sides. Some Croats minimized it to 20.000 as I recall ( when the number is around 100.000 ).

Expect the same mamipulation here and try ignoring numbers for at least...50 years.

as a croat i see the whole hague thing as disgusting and hypocritical

personaly im not much triggered by hypocrisy in general but its the whole attitude and atmosphere of it that makes me sick

we fought, raped, tortured and slaughtered each other like proper human beings do, have done and will do as long as human beings exist, all sorts of horrifying shit went on, especialy in bosna it was just dehumanising horror, ok, but now some eurocuck fucks are going to sift and filter all that trough their shitty 'definitions' and legal bullshit, i mean that debases and humiliates every single victim and every single fighter on every side involved

its not like we dont know what happened and who did what to who, none of us need some bunch of effeminate faggots to define our history for us by declaring this officially that and that officialy this, who the fuck are they to say shit about shit

i dont know, it makes me angry, when i hear a serbian general got sentenced it makes me angry just as much as when i hear a croat one got sentenced, thats none of their buisness, and what, oh now hes gonna spend the next 5-10 years in a 3 star hotel, whoa man they realy got him for those war crimes man, oh but šešelj got out cause he said he got a bad bubu, but then they told him he must be a good boy and come back as soon as they call him and he said yes mister hauge judge sir off course and then they let him out on good faith, a suspected war criminal, because apparently he claimed hes got like what, cancer or something, then few days ago fucking praljak drinks poison nazi stile in the middle of the courtroom, how the fuck could he get that even, the fuck were the guards doing, i mean i know you can smuggle anything into jail if you bribe the right people but thats supposed to be the hague, theres supposedly war criminals there, they are all acting like its a fucking juvenile delinquent centre, its all a fucking sharade, its humiliating for all of us

Isuse Kriste, šta si se uvatija baljezgat ovde daj se smiri. Nekoherentan si.

pa di ču baljezgat nego tu jebote, de se ti smiri

Crime of genocide =/= genocide in colloquial use.
There was no ''Bosnian genocide'', but Srebrenica massacre can qualify as a an act of genocide.