Why do people defend Serbs?

[Bari]

you're boring

The truth has always been boring for Your People, I know.

[Moje ime]

The truth has always been boring for Your People, I know.

How about making some investments in Federacija with your Sweden money? I mean something legal, not islamics schools.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

No I'm not.

• Burning people alive.
• Summary executions.
• Slitting peoples throats.
• Rape.
• Destruction of historic sites and artifacts
• etc.

All of these committed on large scale.

Am I talking about ISIS? No these are all crimes committed by the VRS and it's militias.

Reminds me of WW2 in Yugoslavia. Does this journey through history go back that far?

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Some European nationalists support anyone that is against Muslims. No matter what cruelty they did. They have also been aided by years of propaganda by serbs who spammed these sort of forums for years with their lies of innocence and being white knights battling "islamists". A large part of their effort have been in portraying Bosniaks and Albanians as not Europeans. serbian nationalists spent years spamming cherry picked photos and dubious sources about origins, and eventually they managed to dupe many on these forums.

Aren't you the guy who thinks Sweden would be better off under Islam and was on welfare?

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Yes, right.....(the phantom battle that never happened)

Croatian denial[edit]
According to Domazet Lošo (retired admiral), colonel Vagn Ove Moebjerg Nielsen, news sites, official documents and other types of sources,[39][40][41][42][43][44] there is no single evidence, report, document or a statement about "The biggest Canadian battle since Korean War" as well as from either of these resources:

- UNPROFOR Sector South HQ

- UNPROFOR HQ Croatia

- CANBAT HQ

- CANBAT soldiers statements in September 1993.[45]

- CANBAT Commander Jim Calvin statement in September 1993.[46]

- FREBAT HQ

- UN Military observers

- UN Civil police

- UN Security Councile[47]

- Serb HQ, field units or intelligence

- Croat HQ, field units or intelligence

- Human rights watch and similar organisations

- US State department[48]

Among all of these, there is only a mention the incident, reporting "minor incident" as sporadical firefight or few shootouts. Serbs also do not mention "the battle" in their own view of operation Medak pocket.[49]

Of its 875 soldiers (2PPCLI) , only 375 came from the regular unit: the rest were augmentees, 385 militia citizen soldiers and 165 from other regular force units. In fact, reserve soldiers made up 70% of rifle company strength during the mission due to the requirement for highly skilled and experienced regular soldiers in support and technical trade positions . This includes 7 out of the 12 platoon commanders who came from militia battalions as Reserve Entry Scheme Officers (RESO). Nevertheless the 2 PPCLI Battlegroup in Croatia contained the highest concentration of reserve soldiers on an operational mission to date.[50]

"There was no time to properly exercise the companies, let alone the whole battalion...No one could know that the 2 PPCLI platoons would be called upon to gel together and go into action as a full battalion."[50]

Alpha and Bravo Companies, arrived in the area (Sector South's Medak Pocket) from Sector West on September 7, 1993, just 48 hours before the Croatian offensive started.[50]

"UNPROFOR have been successful in the first 24 hours of the mission. After a few difficulties they managed to cross the crossing point onto the Croatian side and the first company moved into the front lines of the Croatian forces. The Croatians then withdrew so within two and a half hours there was a buffer zone in place. There has been sporadic fire at UNPROFOR from the Croatian side."

— Colonel Jim Calvin, UNTV 1993-09-17[46]
UNTV reports (1993-09-18) on the actions of CANBAT and CIVPOL after UNPROFOR had successfully crossed Croatian lines to set up a buffer between Croatian and Serbian forces in the Medak pocket. Includes interviews with civilians caught up in the recent Croatian offensive.[45]

In an interview with three CANBAT soldiers they explain that they arrived 48 hours ago and that their task was to observe the area and take up a position on the earth embankment fifty metres from where they had first come in between the opposing sides. They explain that in process of replacing the Serb lines, they came under direct and indirect fire from the Croatian lines and, following the UNPROFOR rules of engagement, they did return fire but with small arms only. The soldiers say that there were no casualties on their side, that the Serbs have a couple of casualties, and they have no knowledge of any Croatian casualties.[45]

Major-general Petar Stipetić, "categorically rejected any insinuations of an armed conflict between Croatian troops and the UN in the Medak Pocket", although, he mentioned an incident on second day of Croatian withdrawal when French transporter got stuck in a minefield for which Croatian commander ordered his engineers and medical corps to salvage the French.[18]

In 2002 the Croatian newspaper Nacional published a report claiming that "the armed conflict between the Croatian and Canadian forces in operation Medak Pocket from 9 to 17 September 1993 never happened" and that the Canadians had fired "no more than a couple of shots into the night."[51] The same newspaper also claims that the autopsy on Croatian soldiers killed during the battle, revealed that none of them died from the weapons that Canadians had in their arsenal at the Medak Pocket.[52] Retired Croatian admiral Davor Domazet-Lošo, testifying at 2007 trial of general Mirko Norac, commanding officer of the 9th Guards Brigade in September 1993, and general Rahim Ademi, commanding officer of the Gospić military district at the time, denied Canadian claims of scale of the armed conflict with UNPROFOR and 26 Croatian fatalities resulting from the battle. He went on to say that he wonders if the 26 victims were Serbs since the claim of 26 killed Croats was not true. This was denied by Calvin,[53] and decorated Canadian Army veterans who served at Medak.[citation needed] For their part, the Croatian authorities, both civil and military, during the aftermath of the skirmish with the UN forces and in the years that followed, have never stated that any serious battle with UNPROFOR forces in the Medak area ever occurred and claim that the Canadian forces' version of events is politically motivated.[citation needed] Domazet also invited Canadian side to show where are the graves of 26 Croatian soldiers "that they killed in non existing clash for which they received 800 medals".[54]

Miroslav Međimorec in his paper Medak Pocket: Canadian Interpretation - Canadian Sources, concluded that Canadian "soldiers accounts" are filled with event's excitement, "are contradicted by the nature of the firefights" and that they usually come down to bare bragging instead of speaking of the real witnessed event. He concludes that "only by bragging could that "scuffle" turn into a fierce dramatic battle in which everything depended on Canadian courage and military capability." [55]

Serbian denial[edit]
Croatian author Miroslav Međimorec was gained insight into the battle reports of ARSK 3rd Motorised Brigade (3. mtb) that was stationed near the Canadian UNPROFOR forces on 16th and 17th of September 1993. The reports, although written in confusing manner, mention only occasional provocations coming from Croatian side in this period, to which the Serb side answered with small arms fire. The author concluded that the clash between Croatian forces and the UN either wasn't fierce enough to be mentioned by the person writing the report or it didn't happened al all.[33]

Nielsen denial[edit]
Retired Royal Danish Army colonel Vagn Ove Moebjerg Nielsen, UNPROFOR commanding officer in the area at the time, but who was not present for the battle, testifying at the Ademi–Norac trial, denied that there was any armed conflict between the Canadian and Croatian troops except for a single incident when the Canadians deployed in front of Serb-held positions. Croatian Army fired shots, but the Canadians did not return fire. He added that the firing stopped when Croats realized that they are engaging the UN force.[56]

Canadian denial[edit]
Some Canadian analysts wrote that the skirmish between Croatian and Canadian troops can't be called a real battle, especially if perceived through western standards in which the opposing sides are attached by fire and movement. Croats took no sweeping tank thrusts or infantry movements in order to overtake the ground held by the UN. Skirmish can only be perceived as a battle by what they call "The Balkan Standards" in which the opposing side is forced to abandon their positions under pressure from heavy fire, adding the fact that five of the Charlie company's men were reservists for who this skirmish was "a real war".[12]

In Canada, the event has been referred to as "Canada's secret battle".[57][58] The Medak Pocket was an event that challenged the skill and discipline of an army that had not deployed formed units to fight in a full-scale battle for almost 40 years.[59] Military analysts have since written extensively of the effects the battle at Medak Pocket has had on the Canadian military, including the management of public information regarding the battle, and both the Canadian military's and the Canadian public's perception of what "peacekeepers" were trained to do. The battle did not gain widespread public attention in Canada at the time.[59][60]

What have you offered from your journey to wikipedia? Croatians denying it, which is the bulk of your 'evidence.' I see the logic there. Whenever a suspected crime is committed we should always believe on face value the person/persons with the most to lose. Can I refer this to Balkan logic?

The "Serbian denial" is called circumstantial evidence.

The "Nielsen denial" is a Danish fellow who wasn't even there.

The "Canadian denial" doesn't deny that an attacked occurred. You can call it a battle or a skirmish. The fact is the Croatian military attacked Canadian troops. The fact is whether local civilians in the area lived or died depended on those Canadians.

So lets ignore all those Canadian soldiers who - by the way - took photos of dead Serbian civilians killed by Croatian troops that was later used as evidence in court - because they're just silly gooses who got all 'excited' over nothing.

You may not think you're from the Balkans but your tragic 'muh people are good and they are evil.. muh people....' is typical of the Balkan mindset.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I'm not evading it. I'm glad that he did, he never should have signed it in the first place.

So you're glad all those lives were lost for nothing? Glad he took a gamble on people's lives? Partition made the most sense and thousands of people wouldn't have had to die for it.

And I'm not pretending he was forced, those are words directly from his mouth. It's funny how you people take conspiracy theories about some meeting with Zimmermann as fact but a direct quote from Izetbegovic about being forced to the negotiating table is an obvious lie for some reason.

Do you know the definition of the word force? I'm very ignorant and don't know how someone is forced to do something. He specifically stated the Serbs and Croatians forced him. We know he said it. Please explain how he was forced (twice... yes, twice...) Did they put a gun to his head? Threaten to kill his family? What would happen in Lisbon if he said no instead of saying later he changed his mind?

He was 'forced' because he had no room to negotiate. It's clear from the article - actually, specifically stated - Izetbegovic changed his mind - for the 2nd time - when he felt the US would back him. Perhaps by 'force' he meant he had to compromise or face a losing war and now that he knew for sure the US would back him, which they did politically, he no longer felt forced to compromise.

Or, of course, they had a gun to his head...

It's not a conspiracy theory what Zimmerman said to him. It's even implied by what Zimmerman is quoted as saying. It's clear in the news article what the US government wanted. It's specifically stated, in fact.

I'm not blaming them for that. I'm blaming them for the fact that they choose the war route.
The hard fact here is that no one force war on the Serbs. They forced it on everyone else.
You don't beat a spouse for going back on a divorce agreement.

You have to consider the fact Bosniaks were butchering Serbs during WW2 under the fascists and so there wasn't exactly much trust. There was a record of Bosniaks in power committing genocide in the area under the facists. I - like any normal person living in the same situation - wouldn't exactly be comfortable with the idea. In addition Izetbegovic's talk of Islam made them quite nervous.

Okay, if he renounced his initial signature in Lisbon because of US support than it must follow that he ended up signing Dayton because he lost US support. No?

He would have lost US' support if he continued with the attacks. Obvious is obvious and by obvious I mean if the US supported a successful Bosniak offensive there would be another humanitarian issue to account for and the US would be held partially responsible for it because of the support they had been giving to the Bosniaks. So to go back to the original agreement was the best solution for the US.

And your own article shows that they grew more in favor of a partition as the war went on.
"Acknowledging the reversal, several American officials involved at the time say that in hindsight, the initial partition plan agreed to in Lisbon and then abandoned may have been preferable to a policy that failed to avert civil war."

What it says is several officials believe the partition plan would have been better in hindsight. They're giving their opinion. It's not a statement issued by the US government.

That being said, yes the US government would later be in favor of the current state of affairs (which is the same as the situation that would have existed with the Lisbon agreement) but the problem is the Serbs had been winning. It's a bit difficult to convince the side that is winning to give up what they had gained until they're pushed back to what was the status quo before the conflict.

[Dick]

[Dick]

Because...

[Bosniensis]

Modern Bosniaks (who are acting innocence) forget that their ancestors were the part of brutal Ottoman regime, who
enjoyed all privileges while Orthodoxes had 2nd grate status.

You can't enjoy being "rulling party" for 300-500 years then cry when Orthodox took their revenge by saying "They
are evil, they did that and that"

Just to confirm that, let's look at this picture (First Orthodox Uprising)

Almost all Ottoman Commanders and soldiers were Serbians and Albanians





For example: 1. Sulejman Paša Skopljak (Serbian, Vizier of Belgrade in Sanjak of Smederevo)
2. Hursid Ahmed Paša (Georgian, Grand Vizier of Ottoman Empire)
3. Bekir Paša (Serbian, served in Bosnia)
4. Sinan Paša Sijerčić (Serbian, Ottoman General)
5. Osman Gradaščević (Serbian, Ottoman Captain)
6. Mehmed Beg Kulenović (Serbian, My Neighbour, commanded Ottoman Cavalry)
7. Ibrahim Paša (Ibrahim Bushati - Albanian Commander)
8. Veli Pasa (Greek from Epirus)



I don't know why are muslims ashamed of this?

They just need to accept the fact: It was good while it lasted, now we are Slaves just like Orthodoxes were..

Fortune went in favor of Orthodoxes.... and please don't cry to world to help you..

[Decius]