your comment is intresting and very usefullcomputertroubletips.com

I think it is one of the worst activities of human. I hate it and hate all worst activities. As a Bangladeshi we are feel very deep shocked about genocide because we are victim. you know friend about Bangladeshi genocide .
isn't it?
dominika

This is what made me want to learn about genocide. My whole life, I was taught about the Holocaust and I was told again and again: Never Again. And then, within four years of me finishing school, it happened twice.

I have been studying genocide since 2007 but only discovered in 2009 that only two cases had formally been judged to be genocide since Lemkin defined the term: Rwanda and Srebrenica. This made me sit up and pay attention, it made me take the events at Srebrenica very, very seriously. I am glad that you are taking this journey and that we can follow your studies. Thank you.

Hatidza Mehmedovic, not Matidza - you didn't even check that you'd got her name right - is not simply "a Srebrenica survivor". She is president of the Srebrenicke Majke (Srebrenica Mothers) association and also represents the German human rights organisation Society for Threatened Peoples / Gesellschaft fuer bedrohte Voelker in Srebrenica. Her angry rejection of your repetition of the Bosnian Serb anthem that what happened was a massacre but not genocide did not come off the top of her head or from a simple gut reaction. She is familiar with the reality and the legal issues in a way that you are very obviously not. You might at least have acknowedged that. Do you not understand that you were simply following in the footsteps of umpteen Serb apologists, Milorad Dodik prominent among them, who have used and continue to use the word "massacre" as the platform for self-serving explanations that the brutal killings were simply an unfortunate aspect of the violence of conflict or revenge for injustices done to the local Serb population by the town's defenders. You tried to tell Hatidza Mahmedovic that the executions and forcible expulsions were not the culmination of a campaign to eliminate the Bosnian Muslims from the Drina valley that began in the slaughter of 1992 and the entrapment of survivors in the besieged enclave where they were starved and bombarded before finally being disposed of as the international community stood by and watched. Do you not understand the context in which your words reverberate? I don't understand why you are writing here, you seem to have no knowledge of, feeling for or insight into your subject.

Apologies, after my recriminations about your misnaming of Hatidza Mehmedovic, I let the typo Mahmedovic creep in unspotted myself.

I am utterly confused by this post by Mr. Dobbs. First of all, Srebrenica has already been established by international courts as a case of genocide so your reservation about the "term", as you call it, places a fairly steep burden of proof on your shoulders--one that you in no way meet in this brief account.

Secondly, your claim that "Muslims, Serbs, and Croats accuse each other of genocide on a routine basis when talking about alleged war crimes committed against them" while true, is irrelevant. Neo-Nazis, too, make all sorts of claims regarding the Holocaust and other events during the course of WWII. A claim is not deserving of respect when it is unsubstantiated by evidence.

The fact is: countless academic studies, legal proceedings and witness accounts have confirmed that there was a systematic campaign of genocide directed against the Bosniak population of Bosnia-Herzegovina between 1992-1995 by Serb nationalists, in particular. While war crimes were committed by Bosniaks against members other ethnic groups (and one might hasten to add, by nationalists against members of their own ethnic groups) they were i) largely isolated incidents and ii) have repeatedly been proven, in courts, to not have been part of a broader campaign aimed at the extermination of "opposing" ethnic groups. Nonetheless, it should go without saying that all individuals and groups guilty of said crimes should be trialed and punished accordingly.

Finally, your bizarre focus on Srebrenica, as if it occurred in some sort of vacuum, is perhaps the most frustrating part of this account. If Srebrenica was not genocide then I suppose the systematic destruction of mosques, libraries, cultural centers and sites, the establishment of concentration and rape camps, mass expulsions and countless individual massacres against Bosniaks by Serb nationalists were--what? A series of isolated incidents? Not evidence of a larger plan? Absolutely ridiculous.

Srebrenica was clearly a case of genocide and, more importantly, as was the wider Serb nationalist campaign in Bosnia--so that in truth we should refer to it as the Bosnian genocide. A crime of the magnitude of genocide cannot, after all, occur in one town, in own village and not be part of a broader campaign.

I have personally written on this question before, and I would invite you Mr. Dobbs, if you are indeed serious about your interest in this matter, to investigate it more closely--especially if you are going to be interacting with genocide survivors: http://politicsrespun.org/2011/07/3307/

This post has provoked some sharp reaction from portions of the Bosnian Muslim community in the United States. The Congress of North American Bosniaks has written to the Committee on Conscience of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum—which is sponsoring my project—to denounce my comments as “outrageous” and “appalling” and demand that the post be removed from the museum website. They accuse me of “questioning genocide,” much as “Holocaust deniers” question the Holocaust.

While I respect the opinions of my critics, and their right to disagree with anything I have written, I would invite them to read my posts about Srebrenica again. Far from questioning the crimes committed by Bosnian Serb forces under Ratko Mladic, I have described the series of atrocities in painful detail. I have written extensively about the cold-blooded executions of around 8,000 Muslim men and boys in July 1945, and the forcible expulsions of the remaining Muslim population of Srebrenica.

As I wrote in my post, genocide is the most horrific of crimes, conjuring up images of the Holocaust. We should be wary about using such terminology, without first making clear the precise legal grounds for the accusation. My post was an attempt to explain exactly what “genocide” means, in legal and criminal terms, as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide.

One of the reasons why genocide is difficult to prove in legal terms is that it revolves around the question of intent. In the words of the 2001 judgment in the case of Radovan Krstic, a senior Bosnian Serb general under Mladic, “It is not necessary to intend to achieve the complete annihilation of a group from every corner of the globe. Nonetheless the crime of genocide by its very nature requires the intention to destroy at least a substantial part of a particular group.” Defining terms such as “intent” and “substantial part” can become extremely complicated.

The proper place to decide such questions is the courts. While I do not agree with all the opinions handed down by the Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal, I agree with the conclusion of the judges that the Srebrenica massacre met the legal definition of “genocide,” as defined by the United Nations Convention. I thought I made this clear in my original post. If that was unclear, I am happy to set the record straight.

This article only sheds more light that it was genocide?? Or am i worong?

Wonderful.

Share a website with you ,

http://mcaf.ee/6e4ac

Believe you will love it.

we are accept credit card free shipping