Why do people defend Serbs?

[Kelmendasi]

Did they do this? No. There were several war crimes by ALL sides of this war.

They did though, the paramilitary groups did do this Albanian villages were burnt to the ground and women were raped a lot. Sure both sides did crimes but you can't use that claim to make it seem as if the crimes committed by the Serbs was fine

[Teutone]

They did though, the paramilitary groups did do this Albanian villages were burnt to the ground and women were raped a lot. Sure both sides did crimes but you can't use that claim to make it seem as if the crimes committed by the Serbs was fine

You implied like these things were done by all serbs. All war crimes are horrible every side.

[Kelmendasi]

You implied like these things were done by all serbs. All war crimes are horrible every side.

I said that because you were acting as if the Serbs were doing the right thing just because the Albanians and Bosniaks are Muslims mainly.

[Teutone]

I said that because you were acting as if the Serbs were doing the right thing just because the Albanians and Bosniaks are Muslims mainly.

Not really I extra said Albanian and Bosnian MUJAHIDEEN

[Kelmendasi]

Not really I extra said Albanian and Bosnian MUJAHIDEEN

Random villagers who were the main people killed weren't "MUJAHIDEEN" and the conflict didn't happen because of religious reasons

[Teutone]

Random villagers who were the main people killed weren't "MUJAHIDEEN" and the conflict didn't happen because of religious reasons

Killing random villagers is wrong, never said anything else. Killing mujahideen who were factual present in this war, is a goodcthing. This war was based on many things and a part of it was ethnoreligious.

[Kelmendasi]

Killing random villagers is wrong, never said anything else. Killing mujahideen who were factual present in this war, is a goodcthing. This war was based on many things and a part of it was ethnoreligious.

kl

[Bobby Martnen]

Never would support them against Croats.

NO!

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Good now go eat your mcdonalds fag.

It's better to say nothing if you don't have the wit. Stay in your lane.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I don't approve him singing Ustasha WW2 song. I think he is a moron because of that. The vast majority of his songs are hate free patriotic songs. I just said I like some of his songs.

You have an incredible ability to miss a point. It's not about you. It's about a love affair for all things Ustashe among many in Croatia.

I have never said anything about trials conducted on the battlefields moron. Against the persons who participated in criminal activities during and immediately after the Storm, the Croatian authorities submitted almost 4000 criminal reports by 1999 and processed almost 2000 perpetrators responsible for murders, fires etc.

You can't even follow simple English.

This is what you said:

What do you mean there is no trial? Btw when have said anything against Serbian generals and commanders? Don't tell me you think Srebrenica massacre etc never occured

That was in response to what I said here:

Let's get back to honesty: no Croatian soldier would be aware of which men did or did not commit war crimes against Croatian civillans without question. You dont have a trial in the moment. It was a random and grand act of vengeance. Just as Serbian attacks on Croatians was an act of misguided vengeance for a past atrocity.

Is that difficult to follow? Apparently it is for you. I was speaking of one thing and you apparently speaking of something different.

All you do is relativize serbian crimes for years on this forum. When have you mentioned or done some discussion with Serbs on TA about their generals and activities?

Didn't you mass thumb up my posts when I argued that Croatia had a right to be independent because Yugoslavia had not been a legitimate nation? I believe it may have been you. I've spoken about war crimes of Serbians in the past. Why would I do that here in this thread ad nauseam when the people I'm arguing with is a Bosniak who humorously thinks the West supports Serbian perception of the Bosnian War when that's certainly not accurate but he - like many - find value from feeling like a victim and two Croats who have issues accepting war crimes committed by people of their same ethnicity. No Serbian poster questioned when I said in that very post you responded that Serbs had committed war crimes against their neighbors. I deal with who is coming at me.

Are you talking about Brijuni transripts, transcripts which formed the basis of the Gotovina prosecution? Primarily because of those transcripts he was found guilty by the first degree verdict. Defense managed to explain context behind them besides other things.
http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/118/18214.pdf

That and Canadian eye witnesses of Croatian soldiers burning down villages. Burning down villages is kind of the 'go to' when ethnic cleansing is being done. Soldiers don't just randomly burn down homes unless they're allowed by their officers and officers on the field have their orders from the higher ups.

Damn, man. What solid arguments his defense lawyers had. You would think someone with such a solid defense wouldn't hide for four years and have his name smeared as a war criminal in hiding.

By the way, I find it odd that you said towns weren't bombed. The reason why he was let off (3 against 2 judges) is a question of whether there was lawful or unlawful bombing of the towns and whether he had control of his troops.

The Trial Chamber’s finding that the artillery attacks on the Four Towns were
unlawful was heavily premised on its analysis of individual impact sites within the Four
Towns, which I will refer to as the “Impact Analysis”. This Impact Analysis was in turn
based on the Trial Chamber’s finding a 200 metre range of error for artillery projectiles
fired at the Four Towns, which I will refer to as the “200 Metre Standard”. Based on this
range of error, the Trial Chamber found that all impact sites located more than 200
metres from a target it deemed legitimate served as evidence of an unlawful artillery
attack. In identifying legitimate targets, the Trial Chamber took into account, in part,
its finding that the HV could not identify targets of opportunity, such as moving police
or military vehicles, in the Four Towns.
The Appeals Chamber unanimously holds that the Trial Chamber erred in deriving the
200 Metre Standard. The Trial Judgement contains no indication that any evidence
considered by the Trial Chamber suggested a 200 metre margin of error, and it is devoid
of any specific reasoning as to how the Trial Chamber derived this margin of error. The
Trial Chamber considered evidence from expert witnesses who testified as to factors,
such as wind speed and air temperature, that could cause variations in the accuracy of
the weapons used by the HV against the Four Towns, and the Trial Chamber explicitly
noted that it had not received sufficient evidence to make findings about these factors
with respect to each of the Four Towns. In its Impact Analysis, however, the Trial
Chamber applied the 200 Metre Standard uniformly to all impact sites in each of the
Four Towns.
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina...16_summary.pdf

Apparently 3 out of the 5 judges think Croatian artillery officers are incompetent and so off goes a war criminal. 200 meters is slightly larger than two football fields. Perhaps Balkan standards for artillery fire isn't as high as in the US and any other well trained army.

This was my favorite part:

The Appeals Chamber further recalls
that expert testimony at trial indicated that Mr. Gotovina took all necessary and
reasonable measures to maintain order among his subordinates. In this context, the
Appeals Chamber, Judge Agius dissenting, considers that the evidence on the record
does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that any failure to act on Mr. Gotovina’s part
was so extensive as to give rise to criminal liability pursuant to aiding and abetting or
superior responsibility.

If a few officers in the field break a rule and allow their soldiers to do whatever, you can't blame the commander of the army. It's a rogue officer. If it's systematic, then, yeah, you can blame the man who is supposedly in charge if there is a pattern of behavior among officers in the field. It indicates they were given the go ahead to clear the area.

Obviously I think the two dissenting judges were correct and the initial ruling was accurate. Although I do leave the possibility that such a large, well organized operation would simply collapse into everyone just doing whatever they wanted... well, no... I don't. I'm just being funny.