This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think it's only appropriate to suggest that commentaries on the article itself be relegated to this space set aside for that purpose. If someone has problems with the neutrality of an article - let's discuss it! And the term "Bosnian Serb Army" is not an expression indicating bias, it's a commonly used name of an actual thing. Timmay 22:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is the "Unfair trial" section in there. It seems to be all speculation in an attempt to exonerate Mr Oric. Unless there are some reputable references claiming that the trial might be biased, I suggest taking the section out. All sides in the Bosnian war claim they are unfairly treated by the ICTY and that trials are biased against them. That doesn't mean this it should be in Wikipedia. Osli73 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems a lot of the stuff in the Unfair trial section comes from a nationalist Bosniak blog, Srebrenica Genocide Blog. It doesn't mean that it is wrong, just that a blog is not generally seen as a reputable source. Osli73 23:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added a new section on Nasir Oric's activities in E Bosnia 1992-1993 as well as the alleged connection between these and the Bosnian Serb counteroffensive, culminating in the Srebrenica Massacre in 1995.
I realize the language is quite emotional (though this seems to be generally accepted as well, see the Srebrenica massacre article) but have added that this information is based on Serbian and Bosnian Serb sources as well as a book published in the US.
If anyone wants to add to the "Naser Oric war crimes revisionism" section (LOL), please feel free. Osli73 09:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I only had a chance to read the first part of this article and have already found some serious errors and false statements. Almost entire section "Naser Oric in Eastern Bosnia" is problematic, specifically in the sense when stating numbers of killings. Looking at the Oric's indictment there is no word on all these crimes [1] and even than we are talking about a trial that is still ongoing and inconclusive. Could we have some sources first before we move on.-- Dado 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, Dado, points 27-37 of the indictment [2] certainly do mention his participation in and burning of the villages mentioned in the article. In sworn testimony at the ICTY trial against Slobodan Milosevic, French UN General Philippe Morillon states that "Naser Oric engaged in attacks during Orthodox holidays and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants.” (my emphasis added). This has been added to the sources section.
Please come up with some specific factual mistakes before putting up the disputed flag. Otherwise, I should be removed. Osli73 10:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I have read the indictment and I agree that there was a certain degree of destruction. That is not what I am disputing. What I am disputing is a precise nature of numbers while no sorces are provided. Indictment list about 6 killings while we have a sentance
"According to testimony by Serbs and Bosniaks in eastern Bosnia, during the period from May 1992 to April 1993 units of the Bosnian army (ARBiH) and Bosniak paramilitary units attacked more than one hundred Serb villages and hamlets killing approximately 1,000 civilians and members of the Republic of Srpska Army (VRS), and wounding between 2,800 and 3,200 Serbs."
This borders hear-say. Who made these testimonies. Where did them make them and were they sworn testimonies that can be applied in the court. The sections goes on to say
"Oric's units and Oric personally massacred 87 persons using knives, pitchforks, blunt objects, by crucifixion, castration, setting on fire and torture and burned and destroyed at least 50 Serbian villages."
Where did this come from? Keep in mind we are talking about victims and a serious accusation that this person is responsible for killing them. You must be dead on and have a reliable and credible source. You have listed two published books which only by its titles could as credible as an average nationalist website. Was any of that admissible in the court?
Now for the opposing view. RDC has recently conducted research on number of Serb victims in Srebrenica area. You can read it here [www.srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2006/05/myth-about-serb-casualties-around.html]. RDC is the same organization that provided recent statistics on the number of victims in Bosnian War and the same RDC that was quoted by the Serb side in their defence at the Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ-- Dado 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Dado,
1. In the introduction to the section I state the sources are problematic and numbers are uncertain. So the reader is aware of this when reading the article. Do you have any better figures for the numbers of killing?
2. Just because the ICTY has not indicted or convicted someone of a crime doesn't mean it has not happened. History isn't determined by the outcome of legal battles. Just because Milosevic was never convicted of any war crimes doesn't mean that they didn't happen.
3. If you have issues with the article, you are welcome to write in the "Naser Oric war crimes denyers and revisionism" section.
4. I have listed the sources I could find, the two books mentioned in the beginning of the article. You are welcome to see if you can find additional sources. What about the report put out by the Government of Serbia (I don't speak/read Serbi-Croatian)? Maybe you could help me with that.
The villages attacked and destroyed under his command are listed in the indictment [3]. Osli73 07:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is absolutely ridiculous. The old, tired, and worn-out story of 3,000+ slaughtered Serbs by rampaging warlord Naser Orić has been discredited left and right by international organizations, professional research, etc, yet here its treated as unquestionable fact. This wouldn't be as much of a problem if we were dealing with a short article, but instead the author felt compelled to reveal "the truth" to the world and write 32kb based around falsifications, lies, and exaggarations. I don't have the time and energy at this moment to attempt to add some semblance of neutrality, integrity, and factual accuracy to what basically amounts to an extensive summary of more than a decade of Serb relativization-focused propaganda, but you make sure you know that as soon as I do I will dedicate my energies to help fix this absolute disaster and train-wreck of an article and dispell this myth once and for all. Live Forever 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous user, I've checked the IDC link on Serb casualties in Bratunac. I'm not sure how reputable and trustworthy their figures are, but I'm certainly willing to include them in the article (alongside the other claims).
Do they only deal with those killed in Bratunac or also elswhere? Are the two figures (IDC and Bosnian Serb) really all that incompatible? There was also the figure of 999 mentioned as well. How incompatible is that? Since there seems to be so much uncertainty, I suggest putting all of the different estimates in. Osli73 09:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted to the previous article, since the only source contradicting the text was from a partisan Bosniak/Bosnian source.
That the ICTY hasn't included the other events in its allegations, doesn't mean that they didn't happen. Milosevic was never convicted of any war crimes - that doesn't mean he's not guilty. There is a difference between history and the law.
Finally, I have included a section, prior to the section on Oric's activities during the war, saying that there are few sources and what sources the text is based on. The indictment at the ICTY are a separate section. If you wish to discuss/contest the information, please do so in the Naser Oric war crimes denyers and revisionism section.
Cheers, Osli73 19:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have discussed the sources for the article in the article as well as given people an opportunity to challenge it. However, this has not really been done (if you disregard the reference to some very partisan Bosnian blogs). If you have issues with the sources, please add them to the Revisionism and denyers section. Please, try to be constructive! Osli73 20:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Osli73 07:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to improve the article. However, it is clear that some (anonymous) users seek to use the page to exculpate Naser Oric, or at least downplay the events in which he was allegedly part of. For example, the "Unfair trial" section was more extensive than the "War Crimes trial" section. Please, don't use Wikipedia to push your Balkan nationalist issues. Osli73 15:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting article. I have two comments:
Any views? Otherwise I would not mind starting to edit the article myself. KarlXII 22:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the testimony of this Morillon, it seems like he did indeed raid villages. The language of used in the original may be a bit flowery (I started trying to tone it down a bit) but I don't think there is any reason to not believe he did attack the villages, as that is what he is charged for (and the Morillon testimony seems to support it as well).
If you don't mind I'll return the older version (the one I had started editing) and continue to edit from there. I found what seems to be a quite good report on the events in and around Srebrenica during the time of Nasir Oric. It's a report by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation called Srebrenica - a safe area. The link is [4]. KarlXII 23:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've tried to edit some of the text, especially to tone down the language. I haven't the strenght to finish it tonight though. KarlXII 01:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Kocum, I've been thinking the very same thing - taking a lot of this stuff into a separate article on the war in Srebrenica and only leave a smaller part on Nasir Oric's role.
KarlXII 18:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
"Flowery in language"? That is only the tip of the iceberg. Setting up the genocide in Srebrenica as some response to "barbaric" raids by berserk Muslims has been a basic foundation of Serb propaganda regarding the Bosnian war. Here, with the goal of making a point following the rejection of his revisionist views on the main Srebrenica massacre article, a Scandanavian user is utilizing Serb sources that examplified this ideology from the mid 90s to write a reactionary article. I'm finding it difficult to adequately express everything that is wrong with this article (there is a lot), but I will try to go through some of the more glaring examples, starting from the top.
I have only begun to list the thigns wrong with this article... I haven't even touched on the section on Kravica, which is a complete fucking joke. Due to all this, I feel the only proper thing to do would be to revert to the last undisputed version. This text right now is garbage; pure and simple. Live Forever 22:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Live Forever, thank you for your comments. I agree that there are lots of things that could be changed, improved and added to this article. The 1000 some Serbs killed is from the Dutch report, so it is hardly propaganda. If you had some more information on his role in Srebrenica, can you provide some data. As for the veracity of the number of Serbs killed, I'm all for putting question marks nest to those. However, I will have to agree with my (presumed) fellow Swede olis73, I think it is worthwhile to try to expand the article instead of cancelling it. KarlXII 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It is worthwhile to expand the article - for instance, the changes made to the first section about Naser Orić's early life and career are completely valid (asides from the fact that they are blatantly taken from copyrighted source material). However, from then on the article is expanded in such a completely wrong direction to the point that I and (I'm sure) many others believe it is completely beyond repair in its current form. As for the (copyright) Dutch source, I never said they were propaganda; I said they were wrong/factually incorrect. The newest research done shows that 13 Serb civilians were killed in Kravica - that is what VRS army records of the event show themselves. And yet the Dutch source in question claims that the raid resulted in the "massacre" of hundreds. What does this say about the authenticity and reliability of this Dutch source in regards to crimes against Serb civilians? What worth is this source when it is exclusively cherrypicked for instances of crimes against Serbs to suit an agenda? Exactly. This article in its (as you say) "expanded" version doesn't work. Its outline, structuring, prose, set-up, and everything else is crafted in such a way that it is impossible to salvage a neutral and truthful article out of it. Live Forever 19:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't see why it should be "impossible to salvage". I will edit it and check with olis73 and you and ayone else with an interest in along the way. OK?
Regarding the Dutch article, it sound a bit harsh to discount all of it simply because there is another study which says something else. What is the source, by the way?
KarlXII 20:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to you to call any unfavorable information on Naser Oric "Serb propaganda". While researching the topic I have noticed that many nationalist Serbs focus on the crimes/actions of Naser Oric as a way of deflecting what happened in Srebrenica in 1995. In my edit of the article I have tried to source all of the statements either to the ICTY idictment or to the Dutch government report. I don't see how that can be "Serb propaganda"? Stating what court documents and government reports say about a person's activities can hardly be called propaganda.
Frankly, you are behaving like sensitive nationalists! Osli73 09:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
For some of you calling something you disagree with "Serb propaganda" is enough to delete it. In my original article I raised the issue of the sources, stating clearly that these were "local Serbian sources" and why. The accounts of those sources seem to be supported in general by the text of the ICTY war crimes indictment. Now, Karl seems to have found a Dutch government report to support his edits, and you're still calling everything "Serb propaganda".
I'm sorry, but please tell me EXACTLY what is wrong with the sources cited or with what SPECIFIC parts of the text you disagree with and why. Otherwise you are just behaving like Balkan nationalists do everywhere else. Frankly, that kind of behavior does not belong here. Try to leave your ethnic hatreds behind and make specific arguments instead of general accusations. Osli73 07:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I have now sourced all of the information to either the ICTY indictment of Nasir Oric or the Dutch government report on the Srebrenica massacre (I'm sorry if you dislike it, but it can hardly be blamed for being biased or unprofessional). Moreover, I do think that Nasir Oric's actions in and around Srebrenica 1992-1993 are relevant to the article, as they formed the background to his indictment by the ICTY. Only stating dates and military decorations is not sufficient.
Osli73 11:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems some (unidentified) users are opposed to any mention of Naser Oric's activities in and around Srebrenica, which, as osli pointed out, are the basis for his war crimes indictment. The contents of this section certainly do seem to be based on reliable & reputable sources. I don't see any reason why this should be called not NPOV or questionable. KarlXII 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
There is still a problem with the section talking about Oric's war activity. While the section is basically an account of killed Serbs the section has no mention of how many bosniak forces suffered casulties given that most of those listed were actually battles. The section seams heavily biased.--
Dado 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Dado, I think the section belongs in there as it describes the actions of Naser Oric during the period for which he is most (in)famous. It also provides background info for his indictment by the ICTY. Not including this stuff would be like talking about Mladic but not his 'activities' in Bosnia 1992-1995.
That it mainly lists Serbs who were killed is because Oric didn't kill all that many Bosniaks (to my knowledge). That is also not what he is charged by the ICTY for. I did include at the end of the section that an estimated 1,000 Serbs where killed but that the number of Bosniaks killed in and around Srebrenica prior to the massacre in 1995 was roughly twice as many.
I think you misunderstood what I meant to say. The section currently portrays killings of Oric out of context as unprovoked rampage over Serb population while not defining that most of these clashes were with the army forces of VRS and most casulties were soldiers. Also I was not refering to Oric killing Bosniaks but to how many Bosniaks were killed in these actions by VRS as that would more preciselly portray the nature of the conflict. However it is obvious that your starting position is that Oric is a madman who was killing anyone including Bosniaks. -- Dado 17:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to edit rather than simply delete everything. However, I find your opinion that any information in the Dutch government report based on Serb eye-witnesses as being false to be a bit too critical. Apparently, the Netherlands Institute of War Documentation has judged the source to be reliable enough to include in its report. The same standards are obviously not applied to e.g. the Srebrenica Massacre article. Osli73 15:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that I have deleted all of the Dutch findings but only those that reference discredited sources. It is same as using original discredited sources with the prettier wrapping. Again we have presented references here that completely refute sources that Dutch selected which weakens their position and credibility, but it does not discredit them completely. They have only as much credibility and independecy in the matter as it is not affected by their stakes in the matter which are minimal (unlike stakes of Serbs or Bosniaks).-- Dado 17:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Dado, regardig the claims that the ICTY is biased against Oric. Do you have any sources for these claims? Who makes them? Has the Bosnian government or any other official body complained? It's just that it seems that nationalists on all sided in the ex-Yugo wars seem to think of themselves as being unfairly treated by the ICTY. So, if these claims are to be given space in the article they should be substantial, not just general complaints by sympathisers and the defence team.
Osli73 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I will look more closely into this next-- Dado 17:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Dado, a couple of comments:
Osli73 10:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW: The indictment does not state whether or not they were civilian or military prisoners. Only the word "Serb individuals" is used to describe them) You obviously failed to notice "(a Serb civilian)" notes by the later names. Meaning the previous "individuals" were not "a Serb civilians", but a military or paramiltary prisoners of war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocoum ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did note that some names had the tag Serb civilian(s) next to them. However, this doesn't mean that those who are not explicitly described as such were military/paramilitaries. Let's not try to read more into the text than what is actually in there.
Osli73 12:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
No, just frustration of losing to the in combat leading to mass murders. Serbs lose in battle -> Serbs respond by slaughtering men in their custody en masse. Not an even isolated incidents, as seen in this further example: Two days later, on 29 May, Golub Eric (World War Two veteran and member of the Serb crisis committee of Kravica) and Milutin Milosevic (police commander of Bratunac) were also killed in heavy fighting near Konjevic Polje as they tried to remove Muslim barricades. The Serbs retaliated by executing almost ninety men of military age in Drinjaèa the following day. [6] It can be called reprisals, hostage executions or collective punishment, but not revenge (maybe in the minds of killers). The Glogova/Brutanac killings are related to Oric, because before his early attacks the murders in Srebrenica/Brutanac were relatively limited to whatever extent (yet occuring, including in the said Karadzic School camp). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocoum ( talk • contribs) 23:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
As this apparently has turned into such a contentious and sensititive issue, I would suggest that anyone who wishes to make further edits to the article please post here first to enable a discussion before any changes are made. Osli73 08:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
If you believe that I am anti-Bosnia(k) then that is you interpretation. I am interested in presenting
'''NPOV''' articles, free of
'''weasel words''' and emotionally charged language and the whole cult of victimhood which seems to be so prevalent among west Balkan peoples.
Finally, since you don't have any user ID here on Wikipedia and refuse to discuss any of the changes you propose, it is hard to take your contributions seriously. Osli73 17:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I again urge anyone wishing to make substantial changes/additions to the article to first put them forth on the talk page to enable a discussion. Likewise, if you have any comments on the contents/setup of the current article, please express them here rather than deleting/changing whatever displeases you. I'm open for discussion.
Osli73 21:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
This section isn't very well formulated in my opnion. I have a couple of comments:
What do you think? Osli73 19:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
can we lave the article alone now until the verdict comes in this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.134 ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm off on vacation. I'll leave it to you to update. Thank's in advance. Regards Osli73 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The article states that an estimated 11 persons were killed. The sources (including Times online) state either 43 or 48 (rather confusing). What should the figure be? Osli73 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I never liked these two sections to begin with and now I suggest taking them out.
All sides in the Bosnian war have complained, more or less, about unfair treatment by the ICTY. Since the trial is now over and done there really is no good reason to keep the "Bosniak complaints" section in the article. I war really just voicing complaints of the trial made by some supporters of Oric. The Bosnian govt. never seemed to voice any complaints.
Just as all sides in the Bosnian war seem to complain about the ICTY, they also seem to have an inclination to focus on and/or exaggerate their status as victims. The report by the Serbian government from 1994 referred to in the "Serb allegations" section is probably an example of this. I can't see that it has been references to by any 'impartial' organizations (or, indeed, the ICTY). Therefore I suggest taking it out of the article.
Let me know what your thoughts are before I take action. Osli73 23:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I am oppsed to the idea. The Bosniak allegations are gennuine and deserve to be a part of the article since Oric is a key figure in the Bosnian War. The Serbs believe that their allegations are genuine and have often repeated them. In any caselet them stay. Bigz 10:30, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
Bigz and others,
Since the Bosniak complaints was related to the trial and that is not over, what is the reason for letting this, in my opnion, very peripheral information, remain in the article? So what if some people didn't like Oric being indicted and then found things to complain about? These complaints were never, to my knowledge, voiced by any Bosnian officials. More like something from a blog.
About the Serb allegations, yes, these were some of the claims made by the Serbian government duing the war. However, it doesn't appear that the anyone is still referring to this report (again, at least not anyone outside the blogosphere). So, isn't this also rather peripheral to an article about Naser Oric?
Let's try to keep the article concise.... Osli73 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Emir, A few comments on your edits:
Please comment here before you engage in another round of edits. Cheers Osli73 13:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. Pls see the Srebrenica massacre talk page on the TOL article I cited and linked to. Osli73 13:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It is accepted by all sides that Bosniak forces killed a large number of Serbs in and around Srebrenica during the period 1992-1995. However, the number of victims is disputed with a range from about 500 to over 3,000 killed. It is also claimed that Serb casualties, during the 1992-93 period in particular, motivated the Serb forces to seek revenge on the Bosniak inhabitants of Srebrenica.[5] [6] Whi accepted what?This entire section seems to be aimed at justifying what happened in Srebrenica in 1995
* According to the Belgrade Centre for Researching Crimes against Serbs 3,227 Serbs were killed in the area of the municipality of Srebrenica 1992-1995.[7]. In a press briefing, a spokesperson for the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor says that "this figure may have been inflated" and clearly includes military casualties.[8] * According to the Serb Republic's Commission for War Crimes the number of Serb civilian victims in the municipalities of Bratunac, Srebrenica and Skelani is 995, of which 520 in Bratunac and 475 in Srebrenica.[9] This source can hardly be considered neutral * In his book "The Chronicle of Our Graves" Milivoje Ivanisevic (the president of the Belgrade Centre for Investigating Crimes Committed against the Serbs) estimates the number of civilians killed to around 1,200 persons. However, these figures include men of military age.[10][11] * In a book published by the RS Ministry of Interior ("For the Honourable Cross and Golden Freedom") the number Serb civilian victims for the Bratunac-Srebrenica-Skelani region is set at 641.[12] Fewevr than 2,000 Serb civilans died in the entire war. Some were victims of the Siege of Sarajevo and of serb guns and Snipers. * An investigation by the Sarajevo-based Research and Documentation Center into the number of Serb casualties in the Bratunac municipality, near Srebrenica, during the war found evidence that 119 civilians and 424 soldiers... died in Batunac during the war."[13].
According to many, Serb casualties and losses during the period prior to the creation of the safe area gave rise to demands for revenge against the Bosniaks based in Srebrenica. The Dutch government's 2002 report into the Srebrenica massacre states that:
The Muslim attacks during the first year of the war appear to have caused the most resentment among the Serbs, who felt deeply humiliated by Oric. It is primarily defeats in places such as Zalazje, Podravanje, Fakovici and Kravica that Serbs wanted to avenge. Probably, that thirst for vengeance was one of the main driving forces behind the massacres in July [1995]. [14]
It goes on to say that:
The Serbs’ drive for revenge in 1995 was inspired primarily by events in 1992 and 1993, when over a thousand Serbs were killed by Muslim forces... These attacks intensified in frequency and violence during the autumn and winter of 1992-1993. As a result, many Serbs were killed or driven from their homes. Numerous Serb villages were also destroyed. This left the Serbs feeling victimised and deeply humiliated, particularly after the fall of Kravica in January 1993. Largely blind to what Serb politicians and militiamen had inflicted on the Muslim population when the war began, most Serbs felt Srebrenica had become ‘an epicentre of genocide’. They had already suffered genocide once, and were determined to settle the accounts as soon as the opportunity presented itself.[15
Why are you trying to justify genocide by including
You cannot justify genocide or attempt to eqaute 1992-3 with 1995 especially since the fact is that the tale of 1000 dead serbs is a myth. I am stiking this entire section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.153.114 ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
My God, the intro is most definately POV - "shamefully"? "Shamefully" is NOT a word for an encyclopedia. Also, the article fails a note that Carla del Ponte has pressed charges to dismiss the trial and it appears that he will be trialled again - this time probably for the alleged killing of over 3,000 Serbs... -- HolyRomanEmperor 12:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Go and add (after verification). -- HanzoHattori 11:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh wow, let's see. Sources: un.org and press are fine (unless saying things rejected as utrue in trial and verdicts), milosevic.org and compatible ars not. Whole section about one article is silly, especially with quotes already taken from context ("we ambushed them", "launched them to the moon", etc - it sounds here like if it was about massacring civilians or something - but it wasn't, and you'd hear similiar bravado bragging today from, say, US soldiers in Iraq), and listed one after other from an obviously POV reasons. Also, he was acquitted of all wanton destruction and pillage accustations.
Also, Oric had limited command and control - some others' militias even refused taking orders from him at all, even after integrating into ARBiH (like the Glogova independent battalion, even in 1995). That's why he was on trial only for things that were in his responsibilty (and so the "rape" story - he wasn't accused of any rape, too, and guess why). It should be also called "black market and prostitution ring allegations" or something, because taking anything from the war-time RS TV is just not serious (and somewhere in the ending notes rather, because of a little importance). -- HanzoHattori 11:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Or the "other allegations". -- HanzoHattori 11:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Or fled (not without a reason, but on this later). Of course a battle, Serb soldiers or a local militiamen were in every village under their control. As for US soldiers mutilitating bodies etc, check out Vietnam (cutting off body parts and keeping them "for luck" or to present their "kills" for starters - then go on for the CIA "spooks" paying a minority mercenaries for a heads of suspected VC, and more).Say what you want about Oric, but I don't remember him having a necklace of ears or anything. The Russians since 2002 even have an official policy of destroying enemy bodies, it's a "law" supposedly. As for Iraq, I've seen plenty photos by US soldiers of insurgents "wasted" with a large calibre weapons, or burned, or otherwise disfigured (no heads too, why?), and then posted them on the Internet (and as you probably know from the Abu Ghraib scandal, they have plenty of digital cameras and use them a lot - just like the insurgents love their own camcorders). They weren't very shy for TV news team with shooting these wounded insurgents in the mosque too, for example (not really an isolated incidents, there was more). And dragging enemies bodies together for a display is just a standard practice everywhere (US officers in Vietnam would then place the "death cards" on bodies, so their comrades would know which unit killed them - whole ritual). Heaps for an extra cool points.
Oric himself would have played by the Serb rules (learn what happened in area on the start of the war), except we have Serb witnesses who said he was good to them after they were captured (see trial). And so he was sentented for not disciplining his men who commited crimes on their own initiative, not doing or ordering anything wrong himself - to the point one Serb witness asked why is he on trial really, and not the guy who had tortured him. And it was established he had actually little control, unless he personally led the raid (especially on starving masses of torbari - and they would even fight for the air drops among themseles). And he had some serious conflicts with others military commanders, not only civilian authorities. It was popular story that if anything bad happened to Serbs - it was Naser Oric the bloodthirsty Muslim warlord who controlled just everything, but I thought the trial would have dismissed this as just a myth. Oh, and about "oh no, bullet marks" - Balkan mass murders were not by going in and madly shooting everywhere (and the enclave was very low on ammunition - guess what, a siege), it was usually systematically rounding up and "disposing" people. -- HanzoHattori 22:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Emir Arven, The ICTY judgment (see summary of ICTY judgement on their website) reads as follows regarding the attack on the villages in question:
"On 7 and 8 January 1993, Kravica, Siljkovici and Jezestica were attacked by Bosnian Muslim fighters from Suceska, Glogova, Biljeg, Mosici, Delici, Cerska, Skugrici, Jaglici, Susnjari, Brezova Njiva, Osmace, Konjevic Polje, Jagodnja, and Joseva. Also the Accused and members of his group of fighters participated in the attack. The fighters were followed by thousands of Bosnian Muslim civilians. At the time of the attack, there were relatively well-armed village guards and some Bosnian Serb civilians in Kravica, Siljkovici and Jezestica. Evidence shows that there was also Bosnian Serb military presence in the area. The attack met with resistance. Bosnian Serbs fired artillery on the attacking Bosnian Muslims from houses and other buildings. Houses in the area were burning. In Jezestica, Bosnian Muslim fighters and civilians set many houses on fire, causing destruction on a large scale. In Kravica, property was also destroyed on a large scale. However, the evidence is unclear as to the number of houses that were wantonly destroyed by Bosnian Muslims, as opposed to other causes. As to Siljkovici, there is insufficient evidence to establish that property was destroyed on a large scale."
So, the ICTY does not question whether or not the Bosniak forces actually attacked the villages. What they are uncertain about is whether or not it was a case of "wanton destruction" or not.
Regards Osli73 20:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not remove it. I reverted to a previous version which did not include this paragraph. As for the paragraph, please note that the ICTY did not say that the Bosniak forces did not attack them or did not destory them, only that it was not certain enough that it was "wanton destruction".
Cheers Osli73 20:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Emir Arven,
The reason for removing the Srebrenica genocide blogspot was that (1) there were other, better, sources so it was not necessary to have it and (2) using personal blogs (and one run by a Wikipedia editor (User:Bosniak) as sources just isn't very appropriate - it's personal commentary by it's very nature.
The RDC may very well be internationally sponsored, in fact it seems to have quite a close cooperation with the ICTY, but that does not mean that it needs to be characterised as such. It is characterising things as "nationalist", "internationally sponsored" or "military base" (as opposed to "village") which contribute to a POV tone in an article. It is better then to not unduly apply such labels/epitets.
Regards Osli73 08:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The link to Kamenica in the article points to disambiguation and the external link used as source does mention it at all. The disambig mentions no such village in Bosnia. Pavel Vozenilek 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Krusko, I don't think it is appropriate to use the "Srebrenica genocide blog" as reference for two reasons:
Better to link directly to the material referred to in the blog. Regards Osli73 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the recently added "Disputed tag" since there is no justification/explanation for it in the Talk page. The information presented is sourced. Osli73 12:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Very well then:
I am looking forward to your thorough response to all these points. Live Forever 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
1. The Serb forces were driven out by the early guerilla campaign, after the Srebrenica Serb leader was killed in the ambush. The civilians left with them then or later (after all, who would live in the starving overcrowded shelled city now also full of crazed survivor refugees?). -- HanzoHattori 17:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Here, have some court material reading about the original Serb (Goran Zekic-led) takeover of Srebrenica and associated events: [13] [14]. -- HanzoHattori 08:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
14 Q. So when did the barricades go up and it become impossible to leave
15 Srebrenica?
16 A. The barricades were set up in April 1992 so we couldn't leave
17 anymore. It was in late March and early April; nobody could leave
18 Srebrenica anymore after that.
19 Q. And at a certain stage did the Serbs take over the SUP and fire
20 the Muslims from there?
21 A. In the meantime the Serbs evacuated their families, their wives,
22 and children from Srebrenica, and we were wondering why they were doing
23 that. The people who stayed were men who dressed in former JNA uniforms.
24 My neighbours, Serbs, all dressed in former JNA uniforms. They simply
25 disbanded the police, the milicija, at the time, the Muslims that were
Page 9659
1 there. The chief at the time, Hamed Efendic, was dismissed as well. And
2 they took over all the key structures in Srebrenica.
3 Q. Now, did there come a time when you had to leave your house in
4 Srebrenica?
5 A. Yes, of course. We simply sensed danger because my neighbours,
6 Serbs, had taken up arms, and those who had left Srebrenica had left, and
7 those who had stayed behind, stayed behind. We were simply trying to save
8 ourselves by staying close to the woods. My brothers had a house that was
9 closest to the woods, so we went to their place and we were simply waiting
10 for something to be resolved.
11 Q. Was there ever any specific event which led to you actually
12 spending the night or nights in the woods?
13 A. We were still staying at my brother's place. It snowed even
14 though it was not -- it was still -- it was not the usual time for it to
15 snow. The fruit trees for already blossoming. So we could hear some
16 shelling in the area of Potocari, and my husband said that he assumed that
17 these were mortars because he was an expert in weapons, he knew about
18 weapons.
Potocari was Oric's stronghold of course.
And by "crazed refugees" I meant this:
10 Q. Thank you. Now, did you personally have any problems or
11 difficulties with refugees who were coming into Srebrenica in the summer
12 of 1992?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Could you just give us an idea of some of those problems?
15 A. We were in our apartment, and all of a sudden, it was like
16 floodgates breaking and the refugees starting -- getting into those two
17 buildings, and they opened the doors to my apartment and I wasn't counting
18 them but there were certainly more than 30 of them, and we were so scared
19 that the four of us just huddled in a corner. My husband and my two
20 children and myself, we just didn't know what was going on. We were
21 scared. And they went into the rooms and the kitchen and the corridor,
22 and they kept saying, this is ours. And they -- some of them had some
23 bags, others didn't. And they spent several days in our apartment. And
24 we were not allowed to tell them anything at all because they had been
25 driven out of their homes and each and every one of them had something
Page 10075
1 really bad, some terrible experience to tell us about, so my husband and I
2 simply did not dare tell them and explain to them that it was our
3 apartment, that they had to leave, that several of them perhaps could
4 stay, that we were happy to help, and so it was a period that lasted for
5 about five or six days where we tried to put it to them gently that it
6 would be better for them to leave, that there are other vacant areas, and
7 to get at least some of them to leave my apartment.
8 Q. Why couldn't you have them ejected by calling on the police or
9 local authorities if such existed?
10 A. What police?
11 Q. Thank you. I take it from that that there was no police force
12 that you were aware of at that time?
13 A. I mean, I've told you what the situation was like in Srebrenica,
14 and nothing whatsoever existed there. No local authority or anything like
15 that. That had existed before the war, but afterwards, nothing.
16 Q. When did these refugees come into your apartment?
17 A. In April -- no, sorry, in May. It was in May.
18 Q. And the year, please, just for the record?
19 A. 1992.
Before leaving, the Serbs also burned and plundered Srebrenica, and killed many Muslim civilians who didn't flee to the woods first (during the later part of these 20 days).
15 Q. Now, Ms. Hotic, you were telling us how you went back into
16 Srebrenica. Can you just tell us briefly in what state you found the town
17 when you returned?
18 A. There wasn't a soul in town. There was nobody there. When we
19 entered the town and we walked down the streets we saw burnt down houses,
20 some totally burnt down, some only partially. In some cases half a house
21 was left standing or a couple of rooms were left standing. But all houses
22 had been broken in, all furniture was in disarray, whatever was of value
23 was taken away, and it was a ghost town.
24 And then we all went to our own places and we tried to make at
25 least a little bit of those homes habitable. Only the apartment buildings
Page 9671
1 next to the hospital were not set on fire, but all the houses as of the
2 bus station and higher up, and that part on the way out from Srebrenica
3 was not set on fire, so it was possible for us to spend some time there.
4 But everything had been looted.
5 Q. And did you ever speak to anyone in Srebrenica who had actually
6 been an eye-witness to the burning of houses?
7 A. Yes, I talked to Hasa Selmanagic. She was at the very centre of
8 town near the mosque. She had a house there, and she didn't manage to
9 flee to the woods, and she tried to defend her house and she was trying to
10 put the fire out. There were only two or three people setting fire to
11 houses because we could actually see them using the binoculars.
There were also executions.
As for the also mentioned "attacks on the Serb villages":
6 A. I can. I set off like every other time, with other people. There
7 were women, children, and whoever was able to walk. Some elderly women as
8 well who were strong enough to walk. There were thousands and thousands
9 of us. I can't tell you how many thousands. And wherever we went looking
10 for food -- I mean, I can't really specify but we are talking about at
11 least 20.000 people on the move. And I got to Sase and there was horrible
12 shooting. I could hear it coming from Sase. And I paid no heed to that
13 and the others didn't either. We were like hungry hyenas. We were so
14 starved and we gathered up all our strength simply to get our hands on
15 some food. The other refugees -- I mean, I myself was in a slightly
16 better situation because I was in my own home and I had my own bed to
17 sleep in and I had my own crockery, my own sheets, and all that, but there
18 were people who were much worse off; the refugees, I mean, they had
19 nothing at all. What was important to them was to get into a house, any
20 house, no matter whether it was a Serb or a Muslim house, they needed to
21 get their hands on some clothes, maybe get some pants, because they had no
22 property at all. They couldn't even change their children's clothes.
23 Now, I myself did not need any of that. All I needed was some food.
24 Q. Thank you for that. But if you could focus on Sase and --
25 firstly, you've told us how you would go looking for food. Did you find
Page 10096
1 any food in Sase?
2 A. First of all, when I entered Sase, I was surprised. I saw depots
3 such as you wouldn't believe. Today, looking back, if I think of that, I
4 simply can't help wondering how anyone managed to stay alive in Srebrenica
5 since we saw so many casing and cartridges et cetera, and they had
6 antiaircraft machine-guns and guns and those are these weapons that they
7 called PAMs, and I kept wondering throughout the war how powerful a weapon
8 it had to be, but when I got up to Sase I was really surprised to see how
9 many lethal weapons must have been used. There were piles of these
10 casings and cartridges, and it was only from that one single village that
11 all of that had been fired.
Kravica:
5 A. I could not enter Kravica, not just I myself but the rest of us.
6 I don't know whether there were fighters but there were some people
7 wearing civilian clothes, they were men. And they were preventing us from
8 going into Kravica. They were telling us not to go and they even pointed
9 their guns at us and they said we'll shoot you, turn back. But there was
10 no possibility of stopping us from going. Nobody could stand in my way
11 because my only intention was to get food. I focused on that only because
12 that was the only source of food in Kravica because we knew that there
13 were Serbs living there and we knew that that was the only last source of
14 food that was still left and that was the only way we could ensure our
15 survival.
16 Q. Now, these people who tried to stop you, were they Muslims or
17 Serbs, to your knowledge?
18 A. Muslims, of course, not Serbs.
19 Q. And they tried to turn you back, to stop you going, but I take it
20 they didn't stop you or they weren't able to?
21 A. Well, they were trying. They were doing their best in order to
22 try and stop us. They were threatening us, they were shooting into the
23 air. Some of them even pointed their guns and rifles at us and they were
24 swearing at us but there is no one who can stand in the way of a crowd, of
25 a hungry, starved crowd of people. There is nothing that can stop that
-- HanzoHattori 08:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Live Forever,
In the ICTY judgement against Oric the info is found in para 7 under "Findings of Wanton Destruction":On 5 October 1992, Muslims launched massive attacks on Fakovici and other Serb villages along the Drina, killing at least twenty-four Serbs and burning down 120 houses. The villages were looted, and in Fakovici the church was desecrated. The attackers seized huge amounts of food, and also shot at Serbs at the other (i.e. Serbian) side of the Drina. Serbs fled with small boats over to Serbia. Muslims now controlled most villages along the Drina River, from where they could shell Bratunac. [15].
So, this is pretty solidly sourced.On 5 October 1992, Fakovici and Divovici were attacked by Bosnian Muslim fighters from Osmace, Suceska, Kragljivoda, Zanjevo, Jagodnja, Joseva and Tokoljaki, who were followed by thousands of Bosnian Muslim civilians. The Accused participated in the attack. At the time of the attack, there were relatively well-armed village guards as well as Bosnian Serb civilians in Fakovici and Divovici. Evidence indicates that there was also Bosnian Serb military presence in Fakovici. The attack met with resistance, and Bosnian Serbs fired on the attacking Bosnian Muslims from houses. In the course of the attack, several houses began to burn. On the afternoon of 5 October 1992, a Serb counter-attack, which included shelling and bombing of the area, was launched. Subsequently, the Bosnian Muslim fighters and some of the Bosnian Muslim civilians withdrew, whereas other Bosnian Muslim civilians stayed behind to look for food and building materials. [16].
The NIOD report readsBetween 14 and 19 December 1992, Bjelovac and Sikiric were attacked by Bosnian Muslim fighters from Voljevica, Biljaca, Potocari, Kazani, Luljaska, Suceska, Pale, Likari and Srebrenica Stari Grad, who were followed by thousands of Bosnian Muslim civilians.
Despite these efforts, however, Muslims succeeded in expelling the Serb populations of the villages of Bjelovac, Voljavica, Loznica, and Sikiric on 14 December 1992.
The other source is also from the NIOD report."The Muslim attacks still continued, however. Instead of taking Bratunac, which was his ultimate ambition, Oric decided to carry out an attack on Skelani. His aim was to destroy the bridge over the Drina river and to prevent Serbs from sending reinforcements from Serbia. Two Muslim attempts to mine the bridge had already failed in November.[18] The attack on Skelani took place on 16 January 1993. It resulted in at least forty-eight Serb deaths died, including those of some civilians trying to escape over the bridge to the other side of the Drina. Once again, however, the Muslim plan failed, and Skelani remained in Serb hands." [17].
I hope these replies have satisfied you. Osli73 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
2. What if the village was formerly Muslim? What if they contained no civilians beyond these supporting the troops (kitchen etc)?
3. The Serbs across Drina were firing too (including artillery). No one controlled the masses of torbari (and they couldn't be stopped), some of them armed with the captured weapons. We are talking about the command responsibility (the troops under his command, and his orders), not the thousands of starving civilians who were eating pig meat (being Muslim) and were fighting for the airdrops. Also battle damage is not arson. -- HanzoHattori 15:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hanzo,
2. The point is that we're using the wording of the source. We're not supposed to make our own speculation.
3. What are you objecting to?
Osli73 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Osli, thanks for your quick response. I'm currently pretty busy, but I will re-join the discussion as soon as I can tomorrow.
Live Forever 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, then. To continue responding point by point...
Live Forever 18:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Live Forever, my reply to your reply above:
Fine if I make the adjustments? Let me know if I have missed / misunderstoood anything. Cheers Osli73 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Oric.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 19:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the edits by Grandy Grandy as they are POV. Osli73 ( talk) 22:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I have repeatedly reverted edits by The Dragon of Bosnia which I believe are essentially WP:POV. Here is why:
Regards Osli73 ( talk) 10:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Oric trial judgment makes it clear that Serb villages were heavily militarized and used to attack Bosniak villages and the town of Srebrenica:
"Between April 1992 and March 1993, Srebrenica town and the villages in the area held by Bosnian Muslims were constantly subjected to Serb military assaults, including artillery attacks, sniper fire, as well as occasional bombing from aircrafts. Each onslaught followed a similar pattern. Serb soldiers and paramilitaries surrounded a Bosnian Muslim village or hamlet, called upon the population to surrender their weapons, and then began with indiscriminate shelling and shooting. In most cases, they then entered the village or hamlet, expelled or killed the population, who offered no significant resistance, and destroyed their homes. During this period, Srebrenica was subjected to indiscriminate shelling from all directions on a daily basis. Potočari in particular was a daily target for Serb artillery and infantry because it was a sensitive point in the defence line around Srebrenica. Other Bosnian Muslim settlements were routinely attacked as well. All this resulted in a great number of refugees and casualties.... The fighting intensified in December 1992 and the beginning of January 1993, when Bosnian Muslims were attacked by Bosnian Serbs primarily from the direction of Kravica and Ježestica. In the early morning of the 7 January 1993, Orthodox Christmas day, Bosnian Muslims attacked Kravica, Ježestica and Šiljkovići. Convincing evidence suggests that the village guards were backed by the VRS [Bosnian Serb Army], and following the fighting in the summer of 1992, they received military support, including weapons and training. A considerable amount of weapons and ammunition was kept in Kravica and Šiljkovići. Moreover, there is evidence that besides the village guards, there was Serb and Bosnian Serb military presence in the area. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosniak ( talk • contribs) 23:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
By early May 1992 the Bosniak forces began to organized pillages en murdered Serbian civilians in and around Srebrenica. Firstly this is ridiculous and second there is no source for this. It will now be removed as reason stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.136.107 ( talk) 16:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Naser Orić. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Naser Orić. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Naser Orić. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Naser Orić. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)