What would you have done?

Ah right, wasn't too bad of a massacre then.

>execution of captured soldiers than murder of innocent babies in their crib.
>some as young as 8
Kek keep shiling

Let's all be honest, can anyone sincerely say that the world is worse off for a few hundred less mountainbydlos?

>it's okay if MEN get killed but muh precious wymmynz getting hurt, that's a crime ;_;
Cuntcucks truly should hang

Friendly reminder that overwhelming majority of people who died at Jasenovac were males (though some women were victims of rape), and majority of those were soldiers.
No crime no doubt, it was more like an epidemic of typhus killing captured soldeirs than murder of innocent babies in their crib.

>it was more like an epidemic of typhus
Kek

Attached: 1436555297959.jpg (600x635, 204K)

Never send a Dutchman to do an American's job.

Attached: US Soldiers Humvee Panama.jpg (1600x960, 340K)

>Expecting 20 year old Dutch conscripts armed with pistols and submachine guns to fight the Serbs, armed with mortars, tanks and assault rifles to the death to protect the life of a bunch of ungrateful muslims.

And now they sued the state and got their money, as wel as the right to live in our country too.

I say fuck them, and fuck you too.

Attached: dutch pepe.jpg (1832x1754, 949K)

>Republic of the Netherlands

bluffed the serbs

you try anything and any of my men die, NATO will erase Serbia from existence. wanna try it Ratko?

Show evidence for that. I know some teens were shot, but I never heard of 8 year olds.
But that's just false. Majority in Jasenovac were just random Serbs. Those shot in Srebrenica were mostly soldiers. This isn't even a controversial statement. This is acknowledged reality.

youtube.com/watch?v=AHpEs9dVgWs

Not him. Don't know about eight year olds but there were children under 17-18. There are some children here. He even asks one of them something along the line of: "Have you ever slept with a girl?" When he says: "No" the soldiers says, yea, you won't either (ever).

youtube.com/watch?v=1U2_pFnne50

I think its from this, I can't stand to watch it. But if anyone wants to see... well

There were teenagers/children of 13 years or so.
I don't remember reading about 8 year old children shot.
Another thing is that it's difficult to establish how many of these were actually killed at Srebrenica, and how many were added to the number from other places.
Still, majority of those shot were soldiers. Women and children were evacuated.
That doesn't make it a legal action, of course. It's still a massacre. And deportation of women and children would constitute ethnic cleansing.

Can you give me a source that they were soldiers? Are you aware that Srebrenica was demilitarized? Weapons were taken away? Are you still a soldier if you're not armed even if you're old enough to be one?

peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/BA_930418_Agreement on the Demilitarization of Srebrenica.pdf

Here is the document? Agreement between Mladić and Halilović, UN is lying?

I don't deny the mass murders though.
It's horrible, I agree. It happened all across Bosnia.
I don't agree with some narrative, and I refuse to accept that it was Serbs who provoked this conflict.
In reality, the unwillingness of Muslim representatives to compromise in any way, and their idiotic decision to ignore Serbs in Bosnia and break away based on numerical superiority of Bosniaks and Croats, is what provoked the war.
They formed paramilitary force 2 years before the war started.
Their leadership was openly Islamist. It's hard to trust the words of a man who wrote ''The Islamic Declaration''. Izetbegović didn't even win the election, Abdić won the most votes, but he was just sidelined.
Were Muslims killed in Serbia and Montenegro? There was a few isolated crimes, but that's it, they were perfectly fine.
If Muslims didn't rush, and they rushed in order to achieve their own nationalist goals, they wouldn't be killed. They would separate few years later, after West intervenes, and Milošević loses power inevitably. Bosnia would probably be reorganized the same way it was reorganized at the end of war, though it would function better because it wouldn't be a grouping of people who killed each other for years before that.
Muslims are not to blame for the crimes inflicted on them, but they are to blame for provoking the conflict.
This is the sad truth their liberal sponsors in the West and they themselves don't want to acknowledge.
Talk to some of them, give them this line of reasoning. It won't be long before their ''mutlicultural'' perspective vanishes and they start cursing Serbs, which just shows you what is their honest view of Serbs, and this was same even before the war.
Why would Serbs want to live in such a state, with such people, especially if there are no external and internal guarantees?
Carrington–Cutileiro plan was accepted by the Serb leaders. Bosniak leaders withdrew support.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulfikarpašić–Karadžić_agreement

Here's another one.
Details aren't given here, but Bosnia would remain separate, president would be Muslim, army commander would be Muslim, they would have their own army which would be recruited from Bosnians exclusively, Yugoslav army would withdraw, basically they would get everything just so they remain in Yugoslavia.
Who withdrew from this agreement? Izetbegović.
So he abandoned not one, but TWO compromise agreements, and kept pushing for Muslim-dominated unitary Bosnia.
Can you honestly say Serbs were the unreasonable side here before the war?
But again, we come to the problem of Muslim perspective. Outside of empty propaganda made for PR purposes, their view of Serbs is one of filthy Christian serfs who farmed the land of their noble ancestors.

Yes, you're still a soldier, and not everyone was disarmed. My point is not that it wasn't a massacre and a crime, my point is that those shot were mostly soldiers, so it would be akin to shooting POWs, not some unrestrained butchery of everyone Muslim in the region.

And I forgot to say, this first agreement would create UNITARY Bosnia, but within framework of Yugoslavia, and Muslims in Serbia and Montenegro would get autonomy.
Now why would you refuse something like that?
Because Izetbegović didn't give a fuck about Bosnian victims. He went in prepared to sacrifice as many as needed to get his own personal Islamic state. His son got one, albeit diminished in size.
Muslims just won't accept they've been led to slaughter by incompetent radical leadership. This doesn't erase the crimes of Serbs, I repeat, but it does diminish the Serbian guilt for the start of conflict.

>In reality, the unwillingness of Muslim representatives to compromise in any way

Carrington–Cutileiro plan - Izetbegović withdrew signature.

Vance–Owen plan - The President of the Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadžić, signed the plan on 30 April. However, it was rejected by the National Assembly of Republika Srpska on 6 May.

Owen–Stoltenberg plan - Bosnians rejected.

Contact Group plan - Rejected by Serbs on referendum.

So both Serbs and Bosniaks were stubborn.

>Their leadership was openly Islamist.
So the Islamic leadership left people like Jovan Divjak in the top of the army. Also it left a sizeable portion of Serbs and Croats in the army. Really makes me think. I'm not denying that later there were formations that were islamic, but they were a minority.

Everything else you wrote is anecdotal or just plain speculations.

Zulfikarpašić and this is 1991, the situation changed drastically with the escalation of the war in Croatia.

>Can you honestly say Serbs were the unreasonable side here before the war?

I would. Since they attacked Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. I haven't seen the armies of either of that state threatening Beograd or Novi Sad. An armed intervention was the wish of Beograd, not a necessity.

>But again, we come to the problem of Muslim perspective. Outside of empty propaganda made for PR purposes, their view of Serbs is one of filthy Christian serfs who farmed the land of their noble ancestors.

Serb propaganda. Probably some hard lines think that way, but it is the same argument when I would say that all Germans think the filthy kikes made Germany lose WW1. All southerners hate niggers. All Japanese despise Chinese. All Germans were nazies. And so on. Your stereotyping is showing.

>His son got one, albeit diminished in size.

So Bosnia is an islamic state, huh? An islamic state is now everything which has muslims in it. I don't see Sharia in the courts, I don't see mandatory Islamic law, I don't see Serbs or Croats paying the Jizya. I don't see Islam as the state religion. I don't see a Imam when its independence day in Sarajevo. I do see Orthodox priests on state holidays in Banja Luka though, in an official role.

I see Croats and Serbs in official positions in the Federation, especially in Sarajevo and Tuzla. There are a dozen free churches in Tuzla only, when we exclude Catholic and Orthodox. Give me one example where anyone of note called for an islamic state. And please, do not say Islamic declaration since that is a book that is in the rank of Platos Rebublic (Not quality wise but in the sense that its a wishful vision of a single person, not a vision of the Bosniak people)

Vance-Owen and Contact Group plans were AFTER the war started. That's different. These two proposals were made before any bloodshed occurred.
>left people like Jovan Divjak in the top of the army
Useful PR move.
>Also it left a sizeable portion of Serbs and Croats in the army
Why refuse more manpower?
Those Serbs and Croats were tricked.
>Since they attacked Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo
First, Slovenia was JNA, not Serbs. Milošević actually didn't give support to that attack, that's why it collapsed. Troops went in with no ammo. Milošević made a deal with Slovenians for them to leave and cease support of Croatia.
>Croatia
True, Croatia was attacked. However, we have similar ''warning signs'' before the war, like ustaša-friendly officials in the government and alike.
>Kosovo
Kosovo is a separate conflict here. Kosovo was a part of Serbia. Serbs didn't ''invade'' Kosovo.
>Your stereotyping is showing.
I'm Montenegrin. I know plenty of Muslims. I'm friends with some. I'm not retarded. I see beyond their pretending. Of course, I'm not talking about EVERYONE, or even the majority. But many are like that.
>So Bosnia is an islamic state, huh?
It's not, but not thanks to Bosnian leadership, rather Western control. There is a silent Islamization going on though, and this is not evil Serbs who say this, but Westerners too.
>I see Croats and Serbs in official positions in the Federation
Western pressure ensures that, and framework on which current Bosnia is based.
>its a wishful vision of a single person
Problem is that person was the leader of Muslims, and Muslims acknowledged him as their leader.
I never said all Muslims in Bosnia shared his vision. But they went along with it.
It doesn't matter what majority thinks, as long as minority leads them.
Plenty of Serbs opposed Milošević in 90s, do you apply the same principle on them? No, Serbs are evil invaders and genocidal people, all of them.

Also, a question. I usually like to talk history or sources. But, the Ottomans were in Bosnia from 1463 to 1878. Do you think there would be a single Christian in the areas occupied by the Turks if they, or the converts, were hell bent on destroying Christian culture and nations?

Ottoman Empire wasn't ''hell bent'' on destroying Christians, but Christians enjoyed the status of second-class citizens, many atrocities were committed, and in early 20th century 90% of land in Bosnia was still owned by Muslims.
How did Muslims get that land, what do you think?
I don't claim Christians would be destroyed in Bosnia, but they would be marginalized. And given the behavior of West, I'm not sure they would intervene to protect their rights. They certainly aren't doing shit when rights of Christians in ME are endangered. Their interests are elsewhere.

Its funny that you talk about Western pressure so much since the Federation (the backward muslim parts as you probably deem) are very pro NATO and EU oriented while the Republika Srpska blocks any attempt to get closer to NATO or EU because >muh Russia.

If Western pressure is needed then indeed it is needed for RS more than the Federation. Are you aware that an American NATO general stated a few days ago that the "Serbian people" are the greatest security threat to the Balkans right now. Is it again a conspiracy of the whole world against Serbia or could it actually be that you guys are kinda hard to get along with?

express.hr/top-news/nato-general-srbi-su-najveca-prijetnja-europi-14732

And the Austrohungarians made an agrarian reform which basically freed the Christian serfs. It was obligatory. Land especially changed hands in the first and second Yugoslavia as well so your point that land was somehow in Muslim hands in the 90s is void.

Of course we are the greatest threat, we aren't sucking their cock hard enough.
Is this an argument? I'm not sure what's your point here. We aren't gonna just roll over and die.

No they didn't, land was still in Muslim hands. It failed.

Give me a source that it failed in both Yugoslav states. The Austrian one wasn't as successful but the reforms in the first and second Yugoslavia surely were applied. Especially after WW1 when the Croats and Muslims found themselves on the loosing side.

Its not about sucking cock, its about destabilizing the whole region with real politics worthy of the XIX century. Serbian nationalists are stuck in a project of creating a great mono-national country in the Balkans of all places. You are openly flirting with a Russia that is invading countries and poisoning people around Europe. Yet you wonder that NATO deems you as a security threat. Its no conspiracy, its not that you don't want to suck NATO cock, you want to fuck NATO in the ass with your big Russian friend.

>first and second Yugoslavia
I was clearly talking about A-H, and the implications of that on the ''Christians were fine in Ottoman Empire''. That was Ottoman thing, one example of how things worked.
>its about destabilizing the whole region with real politics worthy of the XIX century
Ah, that's the problem. ''XX century politics'' involves Serbs losing everywhere while others gain everything. And you wonder why Serbs are opposed to this?
Why can't Serbs leave Bosnia, but Albanians can leave Serbia?
Answer this simple question.

Your point is void anyway. The Austrian reform might have failed but the Yugoslav ones did not. That means that the land wasn't in Muslim hands for the most part in the 90s.

>Why can't Serbs leave Bosnia, but Albanians can leave Serbia?

Because I didn't see the Kosovars waging a war of ethnic cleansing and absolute destruction on the Serbs of the region. Serbia might have strong historical ties to Kosovo but you were out bred. Big deal. I don't think that Kosovo would ever have been independent if you hadn't like waged three wars on ethnic grounds before Kosovo.

The Serbs couldn't leave Bosnia before because they weren't in control of an area. They were mixed with Muslims and Croats everywhere. You took care of that and now have and Republika Srpska which is mostly Serbian but the world would see an independent RS as a prize for ethnic cleansing. Its not gonna happen. Also, no major power except Russia wants to see a Serb strengthening on the Balkans. Thats why you can't leave.

Also, who wants further mini states? Nothing is easy on the Balkans, why can't the Muslims in Sandžak leave Serbia? Why can't Vojvodina leave?

>ethnic cleansing
Funny, because that's exactly what occurred to Serbs in Kosovo, through late 19th, early 20th century, and during WW2. Serbs were banned from returning to Kosovo by a communist decree after WW2. Same happened in late 90s. In addition to lower birth rates.
But it was legitimized.
Serbs were butchered in Bosnia and Croatia during WW2, some 200-300 thousand people were killed. Communists just pretended like nothing happened, Croats didn't bear any guilt from it, neither did Muslims. Legitimized.
90s come, everyone wants to leave, and Serbs just have to accept it, because it's so XIX century to want to live in the same state and not be dominated by someone else.
In regards to Bosnia, Serbs accept not one, but TWO compromises, that Muslims refuse because they want unitary Bosnia dominated by Muslims. But that's okay, that's not XIX century.
>Sandžak
Sandžak can leave. Problem is, ''Sandžak'' is smaller than what Muslims desire. Most of Sandžak is Orthodox majority, in territorial sense. Muslims are concentrated in the east. That part can leave tomorrow, if they desire so. I don't give a fuck. I don't need them in my state.
>Vojvodina
Vojvodina has no intention of leaving. It's majority Serb. Not even Magyars there want to leave, or even bigger autonomy.

You didn't really answer my question. You just used the more diplomatic version of ''Serbs are evil demons and must be punished''.
Yeah, Serbs don't accept that. There's nothing immoral about that.
Serbian children won't learn in school how Ottoman Empire was a great civilization, or how NDH was an expression of Croatian national desires.

How are you dominated in Bosnia right now? You have the biggest possible autonomy possible? The only domination is that the central government is trying to get you to not secede.

It is true, Serbs were killed in WW2. Muslims as well. Croats as well. But your recounting of past atrocities as reasons to Serb atrocities 45 years later is illogical. Should the black people of America slaughter whites because their ancestors were slave owners?

Bosnia can never be Muslim dominated and the Muslims know that. At least the part that isn't retarded. No one is denying anything to the Serbs. RS lately denied the establishment of a common number for ambulance - 112 - Serb representatives said that this is taking their autonomy. You should accept the fact that Serbs ethnically cleansed in Bosnia. Saying that someone did it to them FIRST 40-50 years ago is NO justification.

>Muslims are concentrated in the east. That part can leave tomorrow, if they desire so. I don't give a fuck. I don't need them in my state.

So, this is your tolerance level? The Serb extremists thought like this in the 90s as well. They can leave to their graves, we don't need them in our state, and our state is Serbia, the majority of Bosnia and Croatia.

>MY STATE

>Serbian children won't learn in school...

No one cares. We don't teach that to our children either.

Tell me, what is a Bosnia dominated by "Muslims"? You are aware that the Bosnian Muslims were a majority even in 1991? I didn't see them establish sharia or try to do it in any timeline from 45-91. Or like, ever? From 1878 to this day there was no serious wish to do that ever. Don't play stupid, Bosnian "muslims" consume more pork and rakija than you. The only one who is trying to portray them as fundamentalists are Serb and Croatian extremists who ride the post 9-11 Muslim hate wave and see that as a good opportunity to get the worlds blessing to finish what was started in the last war.

No. They can leave unharmed and take the land where they are majority.
And it's inevitable. As in any unhappy region, Muslims will sooner or later find the solution to the problems in getting rid of pesky minorities.
To avoid such problems, all Balkan borders should be redrawn on ethnic principle. That way, everyone has their own state, and they are masters of their destiny. Multiculturalism doesn't work.

>PVVfags believe this will happen

The Dutch are a nation of pussies and soyboys. The Serbs tried to overrun two other UN encamptments manned by Welsh and French troops respectively and they were repelled.

bongs and frogs had the common sense to take along heavy weapons. All we had there were FN-FALs and a handful of APCs.

blame our government and the UN for trying "not to be provocative", not the conscripts on the ground.

Oh and I forgot to say

the French, British and Americans had agreed behind our backs to deny the dutchbat airstrikes, in fear for the Serbs retaliating by killing French PoWs.
so much for frogs not being soyboys.

Are you literally me?
ZIP code?

76300

OJ ALIJA ALJO

Id never join the UN pe*ce corps

It's going amazingly well so far

What happened in the balkans in 1995 is the exact same thing that happened to Syria.
The same old CIA modus operandi.

>Foment unrest and a fake revolution
>Cause chaos by arming terrorists to kill people
>Demonize the government/leader of that country for being responsible
>Start a "humanitarian intervention" to fix the crisis

Problem, reaction, solution.
The American deep state is sick and insane. Literally evil to the core.

Engage. The chances that the Serbs would massacre hundreds of NATO troops is very low. If they do, then that basically guarantees a fury filled reaction and the end of the Sprska bullshit.

I doubt the average Dutch conscript would want to risk their lives so that maybe NATO would retaliate against the perpetrators.

It always wonders me that NATO didn't crack down on them earlier with all the hostage taking bullshit they pulled.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bøllebank

>Based Scandinavians

It's a good excuse, but the Dutch hadn't shown any inclination to put up the kind of resistance that would have been required to stop the Drina Corps, even before the airstrikes of 10 July. It really needed to be the other way round to work. The Dutch put up a fight, and then airstrikes support them.

If the Dutch actually expected those strikes to do any serious damage to the Drina Corps without ground action, to the point that strikes alone would have prevented them overrunning positions, they were badly misreading the tactical situation. So call those unrealistic expectations. Airpower was never going to deliver those kind of effects, so even if more of it had shown up (remember, strikes were conducted, they just didn't have much effect), then the Dutch would still have surrendered after saying it wasn't doing enough damage.

You have to be really careful of those kind of "what ifs" and "if onlys" in military affairs. They're great for shifting blame, but then sometimes things happen that allow you to play them out, and you realize, "ohhhhh, totally wouldn't have made a difference."

It was also a frontage of about 3-4km, so within the bounds of what a battalion could reasonably be expected to defend. If the Serbs had pressed the attack then after a day or two of fighting the Dutch commander could still have surrendered if/when things became hopeless, with a good chance the Serbs would still have accepted.There is a long military precedent for such shows of defiance, one of the more recent being Lieutenant Mills defense of the island of South Georgia with an understrength platoon of Royal Marines, against a larger and better equipped Argentine invasion force including a helicopter and a corvette. Mills surrendered after a brief fight, but in doing so he erased the blot on the Marine's reputation that might otherwise have been created by the surrender of the Falklands, and also served notice to Argentina that Britain intended to fight.

That's the thing though, if Dutchbat decided to engage, the battle would be over before Karremans could say 'we surrender'. The heaviest weapons they had were the machine guns mounted on their APCs. they did technically have missile launchers, but they did not have ammunition for them. They were only brought along for their night vision capability.

As a Bosnian I don't blame Dutchbat, the soldiers themselves. They clearly were not prepared for a combat mission. The guys blocking the airstrikes were responsible, but most responsibility lies in the fact that the area was demilitarized as seen in . That basically left only two options for the people of Srebrenica, annihilation or protection from the UN/NATO. We see how that turned out.

The thing is though, a lot of them were conscripts. There would have been a massive outrage in Holland if young Dutch lads lost their lives to defend a people most Dutchmen barely knew about. No parent would have accepted their son's death in Srebenica.

>There is a long military precedent for such shows of defiance
During the Falklands War both parties obeyed the Geneva Convention and the rules of war, it was a very gentlemany affair between two modern militaries that respected each other, only 3 civilians died during the entire conflict in accidental bombings. (British bombings IIRC)

You can't really compare the Argentine military with a bunch of bloodthirsty Serb paramilitaries not bound by any Geneva Convention, who showed they clearly did not give a fuck about anything by overruning a fucking UN safe zone.