The secret life of Tony Cascarino ?

I find you great entertainment also. That's why I keep replying. I'm just wondering though if your an Andy McNab type fan who gets a hard on watching war porn with a certificate 'E' or the real deal 'Tony Cascarino.'

You still haven't got the message mate. I'm not interested in the case. I'm interested at the allegation that a war crimes suspect is living in Ireland. If he isn't as you suggest, great. The country is better without him. Seeing that people turn down parole in preference to admitting guilt I think your general is not helping his case by not fighting his 'innocence' in court. Certainly not with me. However you will pleased to hear I'll be looking out for the case. If he's innocent, I promise a full retraction.

BTW, I've decided you're 'Tony Cascarino.' Only someone as close to the general would spend as much time discussing him on this site with your conviction. A war porn w*nker would have given up by now. You've come on and posted ten posts: All on this thread. Nothing about football...on a football site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

As for the sacrificial lamb bit, this is when someone low down gets sacrificed to protect those higher up. .

---

I disagree. A sacrificial lamb to most people is when someone innocent gets sacrificed to protect the guilty. Like the story of Christ for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

I find you great entertainment also. That's why I keep replying. I'm just wondering though if your an Andy McNab type fan who gets a hard on watching war porn with a certificate 'E' or the real deal 'Tony Cascarino.' .

---

Keep wondering Lopez. You seem to spend most of your time wondering about things and getting them wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

I'm not interested in the case. I'm interested at the allegation that a war crimes suspect is living in Ireland. If he isn't as you suggest, great..

---

Wow....a fairly reasonable comment from Lopez!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

The country is better without him. Seeing that people turn down parole in preference to admitting guilt I think your general is not helping his case by not fighting his 'innocence' in court. Certainly not with me. However you will pleased to hear I'll be looking out for the case. If he's innocent, I promise a full retraction..

---

And another!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

BTW, I've decided you're 'Tony Cascarino.' Only someone as close to the general would spend as much time discussing him on this site with your conviction. A war porn w*nker would have given up by now. You've come on and posted ten posts: All on this thread. Nothing about football...on a football site.

---

Well..I'll be...cor blimey...I've been rumbled....completely outfoxed by CSI Lopez. Lol!!

So now Lopez has 'decided' I'm Cascarino...as apparently gotovina only has one supporter.

Tell me Lopez...are you a Sci-Fi fan per chance? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twelfth Apostle

So now Lopez has 'decided' I'm Cascarino...as apparently gotovina only has one supporter.

---

What's up? Too uncool to go on a football website to discuss your old boss? Or bit strange talking about yourself in the first rather than the third person? A member of Joe Public obsessed with Michael Jackson's innocence. Yes. A Croatian General none of us have heard of? No chance! :D And if I'm going to spend hours reading through cases of people wrongly convicted and campaign for their justice, I'll start with those at home, thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twelfth Apostle

Tell me Lopez...are you a Sci-Fi fan per chance?

---

No, but it sure sounds like you believe in little green men! The only one whose living in a fantasy world is the person who thinks Gotovina should escape justice because he 'has not committed any crime' (Your words). Well with a declaration like that, surely we could throw 90% of Britain and Ireland's criminal cases in the bin. :rolleyes:

For the sake of anyone that is still remotely interested in reading this sh*t (that's you, me and the moderator) I'll move to a body far more impartial and respected than one of Gotovina's former soldiers, for an assessment: Amnesty International.

A report from the organisation that actively campaigns against torture, state sponsored murder and fair judicial process claims that Gotovina 'was charged by the Tribunal with counts of persecution, murder, plunder of property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, deportation and forced displacement, and other inhuman acts, for his alleged responsibility for crimes committed by the Croatian forces during operation "Storm".' The report continues that: 'Ante Gotovina went into hiding immediately prior to the publication of his indictment in July 2001 and the Tribunal Prosecutor has repeatedly criticized the Croatian authorities for their inability, to date, to arrest Ante Gotovina and transfer him to the Tribunal. While the Croatian authorities have pledged their cooperation with the Tribunal, Ante Gotovina has reportedly enjoyed the protection of criminal circles and of some members of the Croatian intelligence community.' Finally Amnesty concludes: '...that the failure of the Croatian authorities to apprehend him and ensure that he is brought to justice before the Tribunal amounts to a violation of Croatia's obligations under Article 12 of the Convention against Torture.'

So even Amnesty International wants Gotovina in the dock. :)

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR640012004

BTW: Still waiting for those cases of 'rough justice' that the tribunal have handed out in recent years.

Lol! Lopez is off again with his antics!
Apparently, as well as having ‘decided’ I’m Cascarino (he’ll accuse me of being the general next!) he accuses those who believe that gotovina ‘has not committed any crimes’ as fantasists. :D

Thanks for the ‘impartial and respectable source’ featured on the Amnesty International site. Old Hat I’m afraid. Inspired by the not so impartial VERITAS organisation. :p

Still waiting for ‘rough justice cases’ within your infallible International Tribunals Lopez? Maybe you should contact the UN’s own internal watchdog, which after a 2001 investigation accused them of ‘corruption’ and ‘mismanagement.’

Why don’t we look at some ‘actual’ impartial and respectable sources?
Like the editor of the Washington Times for instance:

“The Gotovina indictment is deeply flawed; it is also revolutionary in its implications for international criminal law. The theory of "command responsibility" violates the basic tenet of the definition of a war crime — the principle of personal responsibility for one's actions. The Croatian general is not accused of individually committing or ordering atrocities; he is simply guilty of being in "command" when alleged war crimes were committed. The ultimate goal of the indictment is not only to punish the Croats for exercising their legitimate right to self-defense, but to make war itself a crime.” http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljust...9criticism.htm

Or what about the testimony of Larry Hammond before the House International Relations Committee:

“Another case recently indicted by the ICTY—this one involving alleged war crimes said to have occurred at the end of the war in Croatia—also deserves close attention. The ICTY Prosecutor has indicted General Ante Gotovina in connection with crimes alleged to have been committed by Croatian military forces against Serbian civilian populations in the Krajina region. In the last days before the ceasefire that led to the Dayton Conference, the Croatian Military engaged in an offensive known as Operation Storm. As with the case of General Blaskic, serious questions remain with respect to whether the acts alleged were in fact undertaken with General Gotovina’s knowledge and authorization…”

"Again, the Gotovina indictment affords what may be suitable and distressing examples of the need to ask similar questions about ICTY prosecutorial decisions. Paragraph 20 of the Gotovina indictment charges that the General is responsible for a "large-scale deportation" – a "forced displacement" – of an " estimated 150,000-200,000 Krajina Serbs." Amazingly, that very charge is contradicted by the Prosecutors’ own spokeswoman, Florence Hartman. Ms. Hartman published a book in 1999 in which she wrote that Milosevic, not Croatia, ethnically cleansed the area in question: "It was Belgrade that evacuated the Serbs from Krajina and led them to Banja Luka and northern Bosnia. This was done so that Belgrade could later justify holding on to these Bosnian territories during future peace negotiations over Bosnia and Herzegovina. "

“One might argue that a prosecutor is not bound by the public statements of her official spokesperson, but my concern is that such blatant inconsistencies evidence a lack of prosecutorial care and attention to accuracy. The Gotovina indictment affords a second example. The last paragraph of the indictment (Paragraph 44) alleges that "Croatian forces [said to be under the command of General Gotovina] directed a massive artillery assault on Knin" (the city described by the Serbs as their "capital "). Where did this accusation come from? At least three American journalists who were in the region on the day of the supposed "massive artillery assault" saw no evidence of one. It is a reasonably safe assumption that had there been such an assault the destructive effects would have been evident. It may be even safer to conclude that no investigator or prosecutor from the Hague visited Knin to assess artillery damage. A federal prosecutor in the United States, mindful of the Hyde Amendment, would surely not bring charges of this portent without careful evaluation. A prosecutor acting on behalf of an international tribunal can operate on no lower standard of justification.”
“The recent history of the cases like the Gotovina, Blaskic and Barayagwiza cases suggests that, indeed, proceedings that disserve due process can happen at the Hague and in Rwanda. Unless a fair trial—one in which the accused is given full access to all information in the hands of the prosecution or within his grasp—is assured, there will be little cause to support this Tribunal and even less cause to place confidence in the International Criminal Court yet to come into existence. The world and the United States need these courts. They perform critical roles, but they cannot be embraced and respected unless they exist as a first priority to secure justice, rather than to secure convictions.”
http://wwwc.house.gov/international_...7/hamm0228.htm

But finally, why don’t we look at the words of the head of the Croatian Helsinki Commission, Zarko Puhovski, a long time advocate for Croatian Serbs, who called upon Carla Del Ponte to “reconsider her indictment of Gotovina” on the basis of the videotape shown recently on Croatian TV, at a meeting of General Gotovina and his men the day after Knin’s liberation which “strongly dispells the notion that Gotovina condoned criminal acts after Storm or that there was a criminal conspiracy to use violence and arson to prevent refugee returns.”

I think this thread says more about Lopez's character than anyone elses. He says he's uninterested in a subject but yet spends his time posting on it. Claims to know little, then proceeds to demonstrate it with either irrelevant facts or downright lies and fabrications. Contradicts himself at every turn and libels others. :) Love it!!! Lol!!!!

If nobody had heard of gotovina before, well thanks to you, they have now!

In fact I'm beginning to suspect you aint for real and that you're a secret gotovina supporter. Anyone can see straight through your failed attempts to discredit gotovina and can notice you persist with your blatantly futile posts in order for me to both correct them and educate you at the same time.

Thanks Buddy!

Twelth Apostle. :cool:

(PS I should be charging you for this!)

Oh diddums, we have had our feathers ruffled! You ask me to look into the case, and when I come back with the best impartial source for international justice with an opinion that concludes far from a likely miscarriage of justice, the General should be put on trial, you start throwing your toys out of the pram. :o

Amnesty International or Cascarino.com. Hmmm, what a choice! :rolleyes: I was talking to another poster on here about you yesterday Tony and he reckoned you'd come back with the old 'bunch of liberals not knowing the complexities of war' argument, but all you can say is that the AI report is old hat! The report's dated 28 May 2004, but the Washington Times article you've offered is from September 9, 2002 - one which, like your website, is merely 'opinion' - while the other is seven months older. Talk about me contradicting myself. You truly are hilarious.

Still waiting for the miscarriages of justices from the Hague! Instead, this morning I read that the court's own appeals board has reduced the sentence of General Tihomir Blaskic from 45 years to 9, while also quashing most of the charges against him. No doubt you'll argue that this puts the court's integrity in doubt. For the rest of us it shows that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure justice - and let's not forget that Blaskic's crimes were still sufficiently serious to merit a 9 year jail term, a sentence which he has still to complete.

You mention libel? Nurse, my sides!! :D And me being a Gotovina supporter. Oh dear Tony! Now I've been rumbled. :eek: I've added your argument as to why he shouldn't stand trial as my new signature just to prove what a real supporter of the General I truly am.

Oh happy days!!! BTW, you're right I should be paying you! You're far more entertaining than anything TV can offer these days. :D

Wow! What a coincidence….

General Blaskic who received the harshest sentence in the tribunal’s history yesterday had 16 of the 19 counts from his original indictment slashed.

“In a sweeping rejection of the lower court's conclusions, the five-member appeals panel said the court had misinterpreted the law and punished Blaskic unfairly for the crimes of forces under his authority. It quashed both the earlier ruling and sentence.”

“In March 2000, Blaskic was found guilty of so-called "command responsibility" at the peak of the 1992-1992 Bosnian war, including crimes against humanity and grave breeches of the Geneva Convention. But those convictions were thrown out on Thursday.”

"The appeals chamber considered that the trial chamber's assessment was wholly erroneous" and that it had not been "proven beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant is responsible for ordering the crimes in Ahmici and neighboring villages on April 16, 1993."

“It upheld three counts of grave breeches of the Geneva Convention related to the imprisonment of Muslims at a series of camps in Bosnia where detainees were forced to dig trenches, build fences and used as human shields during shelling by enemy forces.”

.................................................. .................................................. .
BTW - love your attempted forced choice (AI vs cascarino site) whilst disregarding the Helsinki charter for human rights source I provided.

I'm sure you wouldn't care to hear the words of one of its founding members, Ivan Cicak, that features on the Serbian Unity Congress web site and who actually investigated the charges of human rights abuses by Croatian forces during Operation Storm and concluded that "95 percent of the war crimes were committed after the operation ended."

Mr. Cicak also said that most of the crimes were perpetrated by returning civilians seeking revenge after the operation was over, when the recovered areas fell under the jurisdiction of local security and police forces.

“"I have not seen one document showing the guilt of Gotovina during or after the operation."

Happy Days indeed Lopez!!! :p

Now that we know that Blaskic's trial was "wholly erronous" and that "the court had misinterpreted the law and punished Blaskic unfairly for the crimes of forces under his authority" ....

Why don't we take a look at how Amnesty International reacted to his original sentence in 2000?

"Amnesty International welcomed the bringing to justice of General Tihomir Blaskic for war crimes and crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia today as a milestone in the achievement of justice for the victims of war crimes in Bosnia-Herzegovina."

He was convicted on all but one of 20 charges against him and sentenced to 45 years' imprisonment, the highest sentence imposed so far, reflecting the gravity of the crimes committed and the accused's status as a commander."

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR630032000

Well lets be realistic, most of the Generals on all 3 sides will have committed some sort of war crime. The Geneva Convention is all well and good, but you have to bear in mind that the soldiers who fought for the likes of Gotovina (and on the otherside too) probably had bad experiences during the war, they probably lost brothers/sisters/children/parents in particularly grotesque circumstances. Civil wars tend to spiral out of control, it is hard to think of a civil war (certainly ethnic wars) where similar things have not happened. Of course i'm not saying that it in anyway excuses war crimes, but I will say it probably makes it hard for anyone on here (myself included), and Ms. Carla Del Ponte, for that matter to understand things.

I also find it particularly ironic that the trial is being held in Holland, a member of NATO. Let us not forget that NATO aircraft dropped bombs (some of which cluster bombs, and some were radioactive) on targets that included hospitals, trains of civilians and populated areas. It is a sad state of affairs a group of countries, a lot of whom participated in the dropping of cluster bombs (remember these are essentially airbourne mines) in populated areas, tries war criminals safe in the knowledge that they themselves will not be brought to account. Some say there is no such thing as a "neutral" country, but did it have to be held in a NATO country, why not Sweden.

Blaskic's innocent also, Tony? Oh but he's still serving a nine year stretch, soon to be released. Must have been for making cold tea! Still nice to see that he got the opportunity of an appeal. Shame that thousands that died in Yugoslavia never got the same. In fact, while the tribunal was criticised, Blaskic's appeal relied on new evidence which had been kept from the original trial because of a 'lack of cooperation on the part of Republic of Croatia'. Moreover, Blaskic has shown remorse for the crimes committed by others under his command and gave himself up voluntarily to the tribunal. Don't know if the general has shown remorse - silly me, he's innocent of course - but the Hague's still waiting for him. With the court now well and truly taken to task over the Blaskic case your general now has nothing to fear, has he?

http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive..._338_5_eng.txt

No 'news' clippings for me tonight, Tony? Just more 'old hat.' Shame! Still waiting for a miscarriage of justice at the Hague - you know where someone totally innocent is convicted, not someone whose overcharged and whose sentence is corrected by the court's own appeals procedure! Maybe you'll have something for me for Christmas. Do like your signature though - imitation, flattery etc. - but I think mine is more helpful to getting the General justice.

Edmundo: It's great to read some sense at long last on this thread rather than Tony's pathetic attempts at proselytising me to the cause of a wanted war criminal.

So by Lopez's logic it's fine for a court to misinterpret the law, indict people for crimes they haven't committed, conduct wholly erronous trials and to punish them unfairly on the basis that they have an appeals court as safeguard :D

So, judging from the immaturity displayed in your posts you were a child at most when cases like the Birmingham Six/Guildford Four occurred. Perfectly acceptable to Lopez as there's a chance that similar cases will eventually win their appeals and aquit them, or convict them on other charges, after having been deprived of their liberty for years and their lives ruined.

The 'old hat' to which I referred Old Chap signified that the AI article you presented was discredited way way back as having originated by the Serbian VERITAS organisation and its head Savo Strbac, as was gotovina's indictment, and not the historic date. Strbac has also been working with the Office of the Prosecutor at the Hague.

Even if we accept it as AI's own report all they've done is reported the details from the indictment and given their opinion based on that indictment as they did with the Blaskic case, which we now know to have been a miscarriage of justice.

If Blaskic, or anyone else has committed crimes then they should be indicted for those crimes and prosecuted accordingly for those crimes. Not for crimes they haven't committed.

'Old Hat' relates also to your 'discovery' that the (Tudjman) Croatian government witheld evidence from the Blaskic trial. Both they and the US governent have done this with gotovina's.

Your position that 'only totally innocent people' should be spared the 'incompetent and wholly erronous prosecution' which you advocate is ridiculous.

BTW - just read cascarino's chapter 13 and guess what...can't find your quote anywhere! LOL!!!!!

Good weekend? Been shirtlifting again with strange men in bars? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twelfth Apostle

Good weekend? Been shirtlifting again with strange men in bars? :)

---

Ooooooohhhh!!! You bitch!! Ah the pathetic attempts at proselytising now turn to homophobic insults. Wonderful!!! You get better every post! We've obviously got something against homosexuals haven't we? All that time spent in barracks with men in uniform? Must get lonely for some people?

Birmingham six, Guildford Four, etc. were totally innocent of any charge, unlike Blaskic. So I suppose no one should ever stand trial in a British court again? If Blaskic is innocent, why 'the remorse'? why the nine years? YAWN!!! Still waiting for a miscarriage like the B6, G4, etc. Guess there isn't one! AI just a front for Serbians. JFK shot by little green men. Do you read Sci-Fi by any chance?

No more 'old hat' for me, Tony?! Well I suppose that concludes your 'arguments', and guess what, I still think that if the Hague is of the opinion that your buddy needs to stand trial, then that's good enough for me.

As for the quote below Tony, no it doesn't come from any manuscript. I'm too busy bumming down the Gay bars to read sh*t like that. (BTW: There's a nice quote to put in as your signature). It comes from you in post #19. If Edmundo doesn't want to talk to you - he too is of the belief that 'most of the Generals on all 3 sides will have committed some sort of war crime' - then switch the light off on the way out, please!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

Still waiting for the miscarriages of justices from the Hague!

---

I think you'll find that on October 23, 2001 the (ICTY) Appeals Chamber concluded that a "miscarriage of justice" had occasioned to the Bosnian Croat Kupreskic brothers (Zoran and Mirjan) and their cousin Vlatko and ordered their immediate release.

That's The Hague Lopez... :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo

Well lets be realistic, most of the Generals on all 3 sides will have committed some sort of war crime. The Geneva Convention is all well and good, but you have to bear in mind that the soldiers who fought for the likes of Gotovina (and on the otherside too) probably had bad experiences during the war, they probably lost brothers/sisters/children/parents in particularly grotesque circumstances. Civil wars tend to spiral out of control, it is hard to think of a civil war (certainly ethnic wars) where similar things have not happened. Of course i'm not saying that it in anyway excuses war crimes, but I will say it probably makes it hard for anyone on here (myself included), and Ms. Carla Del Ponte, for that matter to understand things..

---

I agree cfdh_edmundo that most of the generals will have committed 'some' sort of war crime and so anyone really is fair game for the prosecuters. The heart of the issue here though appears to be the sweeping generalised "Command responsibility" not the individual crimes themselves.

The prosecuters seem more interested in securing convictions than ensuring justice for the victims in my eyes. In the Blaskic case, he was eventually convicted on evidence which clearly linked him to the crime (human rights abuses etc.) and all the other counts were dismissed.
With the gotovina case, there is 'no evidence' other than the fact that he was the commander of an operation.
Terrible crimes were committed. I think though it's the people who actually committed those crimes who should receive a fair trial and punishment by a competent court of law.

BTW - the majority of the crimes in question apparently occurred after the operation and not neccessarily by soldiers under gotovina's command. All the available evidence suggests that gotovina was unaware of terrible crimes which took place against his orders, condemned them, and punished the identified perpetrators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo

I also find it particularly ironic that the trial is being held in Holland, a member of NATO. Let us not forget that NATO aircraft dropped bombs (some of which cluster bombs, and some were radioactive) on targets that included hospitals, trains of civilians and populated areas. It is a sad state of affairs a group of countries, a lot of whom participated in the dropping of cluster bombs (remember these are essentially airbourne mines) in populated areas, tries war criminals safe in the knowledge that they themselves will not be brought to account. Some say there is no such thing as a "neutral" country, but did it have to be held in a NATO country, why not Sweden.

---

Good point. There are several "non-neutral" agendas at work at the ICTY which are more akin to politics than justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twelfth Apostle

I think you'll find that on October 23, 2001 the (ICTY) Appeals Chamber concluded that a "miscarriage of justice" had occasioned to the Bosnian Croat Kupreskic brothers (Zoran and Mirjan) and their cousin Vlatko and ordered their immediate release. That's The Hague Lopez.

---

What's this, sweetie?: No reference to my sexuality. I suppose it doesn't do you any good these days being homophobic does it.

At long last I get a proper miscarriage of justice, and so the whole court should now be shut down and anyone who says they are innocent, should be excused attendance. :rolleyes: I'll be placing a retraction of the 'scumbag' tag on this thread - should it not be closed down beforehand in an effort to keep out boring subjects - when the General is finally exonerated. Until then Tony, he's still a wanted war criminal.

Kiss, kiss!!!! :D

cfdh_edmundo,

Maybe the following may demonstrate how ‘neutral’ and ‘impartial’ the Office of the Prosecutor is.

Similar to Lopez’s selected Amnesty International article, much of the information used by the Hague prosecutor’s office against Croatian army generals originates from the Serbian ‘Veritas’ organisation.

As previously mentioned, Veritas’s boss is the notorious Savo Strbac, who is a former official of ‘Republic Serb Krajina’ and outspoken Greater Serbian enthusiast.

The 'RSK' for those unaware was part of the "joint criminal enterprise" defined in the Hague’s/ICTY’s own ‘Milosevic Croatian indictment’ - to cleanse "Croat and other non-Serb population from approximately one third of the territory of the Republic of Croatia".

According to Brian Gallagher:

“The "RSK" was established in 1991 by the invasion and ethnic cleansing of one third of Croatia by Serbia, which involved monstrous crimes against humanity including the destruction of Vukovar, the ethnic cleansing of over 170,000 non Serbs and mass slaughter of civilians - over 15,000. The Milosevic indictment correctly describes all this as a "Criminal Enterprise".

Strbac, government secretary no-less for the aforementioned illegal RSK, is now a top adviser to the prosecuter’s office. Incredibly, he’s received a reference from the prosecuter’s office which states that they have been working in “successful co-operation” with Veritas since 1994 – one year before Operation Storm and whilst Strbac was an official for the same criminal RSK (and anti-Croatian independence/operation storm.) The reference, which is on veritas’s own web site, has to be read to be believed.

http://www.veritas.org.yu/Preporuke/tribunal.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twelfth Apostle

...the aforementioned illegal RSK...

---

Well blow me down with my handbag and my YMCA guide to the gay flophouses of Europe. Something we both agree on!

Regarding the suggestion that AI is a stooge for ultra-Serb nationalists, I've taken this from the 2004 report by the organisation into Bosnia-Herzogovina. It makes some interesting reading into AI's views on the illegal government of Srpska. Regarding 'International prosecutions'.' It states: 'Cooperation between the RS authorities and the Tribunal remained unsatisfactory. The RS police failed to arrest those indicted by the Tribunal. A total of 17 publicly indicted suspects remained at large at the end of the year, the majority of them Bosnian Serbs.'

And under 'Domestic Prosecutions'?: 'Time and again the domestic criminal justice system failed to take steps to actively prosecute alleged perpetrators. A major factor in fostering this continuing impunity was the lack of cooperation between Federation and [the Republika Srpska] judiciary and police forces, in particular in enforcing arrest warrants.

If this sounds like AI going soft on Serbs viz a viz Croats then God help Radovan and co. if they decide to switch sides.

It seems that Veritas - OK, anything called 'truth' is always bound to be suspect - is supplying documental evidence for prosecution. It describes itself as a 'Centre for Collecting Documents and Information' over wartime atrocities against Serbs. About as partial as your website really but as we both know that the Serbs also suffered war crimes, their evidence can't all be lies.

I've looked around for a connection in Yahoo! between amnesty and Strbac and found nothing, although Brian Gallagher pops up with a letter in The Washington Times of June 18 (he doesn't mention the connection either). Who is he? Another 'nom de plume' of yours or someone credible? I won't comment on much of his letter although his rant against the UN smearing the US and the accusations about the former being 'happy to indulge the Serbian rampage across Croatia and Bosnia' has all your hallmarks for creative writing. His impartiality may well have been more credible if he mentioned the original Tudjman plans for the partition of Bosnia in which Muslims were to be dismissed as either a Croatian or Serbian minority.

Love you millions, darling!! ;)

If any of you guys have views on the international media coverage of the wars (up to 95) in Croatia Bosnia it would be great... I've 15,000 words to write and only got 6,000 so far ;).

Twelfth Apostle, if anyone you know actually took part in the war it would be incredibly useful if you could find out to what extent the media influenced their decision. By that I mean what type of things (articles, TV programs, radio etc) caused people to volunteer.

Most of what I’ve got so far goes is based around points like:-

- Certain people suggest some sides "played the media card" so to speak. Gen's Rose & Morillion and Lord Owen suggest this vis-à-vis the Bosnian Government. This section touches on Ruder Finn, and their use by the Croat and Bosnian governments. It also talks a bit about "character assassination" methods used by the Bosnian Government, namely foreign minister Haris Siljadic, (e.g. of Gen. McKenzie (in Bob Stuarts' book), Lord Owen and Jimmy Carter.)

- Was the International Media fair, this is a hard issue to investigate. I say that by and large very few journalists were embedded (so to speak) with the Serbs/Bosnian Serbs so their perspectives were perhaps underplayed. I go on to suggest that in some ways the war was portrayed by some as the "good" Croats and Bosnians vs. the "bad" Serbs, which in numeric/general terms might be correct but was too simplistic (perhaps due to readership issues) and ran into major problems during the Croat-Bosnian "war within a war" (1993-4).

- There was a lack of media interest at first, but it did increase a bit. This could be due to the inherent dangers of journalism during the war. I’ve got statistics to which show that the rate of journalist fatalities were well in excess of other more conventional wars (e.g. Gulf War one, Falklands/Malvinas). I say this perhaps made journalists more reluctant to get into the field of conflict. I mention a bit about Journalists not travelling properly (often in ex-RUC :eek: :eek: Vauxhalls which didn’t afford great protection) and Martin Bell's description of the "Journalist Pool" makes an appearance.

Those are the main points, I'm a bit worried though. My dissertation seems a bit too pro-Serb in places, mainly because they seem to have failed to recognise the role the international media could play. For similar reasons (namely their use of the media) my dissertation doesn’t cast the Bosnian Muslims in a great light. I don’t really know what to do about this, as the subject is the media - I've put a disclaimer similar to above few lines at the start of the dissertation though.

Anyone got any thoughts ?
__________________________________________________ ___________

In terms of war crimes and trials etc, the impression I’ve got (and its just my feeling, not really backed up by facts) is that the ICC/Hague have a sort of quota to fill. There is probably an element of the political about it, too. There will probably be some miscarriages of justice and some innocent people will probably be locked up (although perhaps its more appropriate to say people who committed more minor crimes will get punishment for more serious crimes if you know what I mean). Some people who are guilty will almost certainly not get punished. I doubt they'll take Mladic alive for instance, and I pity any Serb policeman who is tasked with apprehending him as it would be a risky job.

The issue of to what extent is a commander responsible for his troops actions is a vexing one. In conventional warfare, a general should be in total charge of his men, which of course has implications for the UK and US given Abu Garayeb etc. However I’d guess (and this is a total guess) that commanding the sort of armies that fought in the former Yugoslavia is far more complex. The impression I get is that a lot of these armies were essentially paramilitary in nature. Even the most professional ones were probably far removed from the sort of armies the Geneva Convention was designed for. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have to adhere to it, but one should bear in mind that it would be substantially more difficult for some like Govina (if he had to) to reign his troops in than someone like Schwartzkopp of Sanchez.
I still haven’t made my mind up on whether the benefits of the ICC/Hague outweigh its drawbacks. As I’ve said before I think there is a credibility issue with it being conducted in a NATO country (especially in the eyes of some Serbs), there are also issues over the fact that none of the VERY top level people who have been indicted will get punished. Tudjman and Izetbegovic have died, Milosevic imo wont be around for the end of his trial, and I will be very surprised if Karadzic or Mladic are taken alive. All of the countries are still suffering economically from the war, and perhaps if there was more investment the standard of living for people there would increase and there is a case put forward that this would be more beneficial for the people than the trials. If you look at South Africa, and to a certain extent Northern Ireland, those scenarios have tended to suggest that trials which focus on truth and reconciliation and closure for bereaved families are more likely to be successful than punitive trials. Then again, Bob Stuart’s argument that there is a need to punish for to set a dissuasive precedent is fair. At the end of the day I didn’t louse any relatives in such a war so perhaps it is inappropriate for me to comment too much...

Twelve Apostle, You attack the impartiality of Amnesty and in answer to this you use an article from what you describe as an impartial source the Washington Post, it is clearly not.

It seems to be written by a journalist who backs up the American administrations policy of opposing the setting up of the ICC. America’s real reason for opposing the court is that it does not like international things that it can’t control. If the potential forerunner of the ICC can be discredited it would give more legitimacy for the US ‘s refusing to sign up for the court when it came into administration. Equally it has to be said that after the goings on in Guantanamo Bay I for one am hardly going to listen to any US administration backer about how to conduct war crimes.

Secondly the as the journo points out ‘The United States supported the offensive because it rightly concluded that Croatia was pivotal to altering the strategic balance of power in the Balkans.’ This hardly shows the source to be impartial when discussing the actions of Croatian generals and what should happen to them. Does the US want yet again to be associated with war criminals?

As for the impartiality of Amnesty can you remind me who they backed in the conflict?

Please note that it does your argument no good what so ever to try to use such nonsense in the terms of impartiality.

I am not presuming the guilt or innocence of the General but from what I have read (admittedly not as much as you) I get the impression that there is at least a case to answer.

Oh btw such blatant homophobia as you have exhibited in some of your arguments and also in your signature just makes you look intolerant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat O' Banton

Twelve Apostle, You attack the impartiality of Amnesty and in answer to this you use an article from what you describe as an impartial source the Washington Post, it is clearly not.

It seems to be written by a journalist who backs up the American administrations policy of opposing the setting up of the ICC. America’s real reason for opposing the court is that it does not like international things that it can’t control. If the potential forerunner of the ICC can be discredited it would give more legitimacy for the US ‘s refusing to sign up for the court when it came into administration. Equally it has to be said that after the goings on in Guantanamo Bay I for one am hardly going to listen to any US administration backer about how to conduct war crimes.

Secondly the as the journo points out ‘The United States supported the offensive because it rightly concluded that Croatia was pivotal to altering the strategic balance of power in the Balkans.’ This hardly shows the source to be impartial when discussing the actions of Croatian generals and what should happen to them. Does the US want yet again to be associated with war criminals?

As for the impartiality of Amnesty can you remind me who they backed in the conflict?

Please note that it does your argument no good what so ever to try to use such nonsense in the terms of impartiality.

I am not presuming the guilt or innocence of the General but from what I have read (admittedly not as much as you) I get the impression that there is at least a case to answer.

Oh btw such blatant homophobia as you have exhibited in some of your arguments and also in your signature just makes you look intolerant.

---

Hello Pat, read your post with interest. Firstly, I am neither homophobic nor have I made any homophobic remarks. The signature was put as a reply (cheap gag admittedly) in response to Lopez's equally cheap gag where he's taken my words out of context and attributed them to me (although he's used another persons name). My comments are as homophobic as Lopez's references to Otto and Oswald were fascist insinuations.
Lopez may have misinterpreted it as relating to his 'sexuality' but that says more about him than me.

I have several friends who are homosexual and an even greater number of work colleagues. And whilst we're at it - I am neither racist nor believe (as I've previously stated) that all Croats are fascists or all Serbs supported Milosevic. My posts are anything but intolerant. What I have a dislike for is propaganda and ignorance of the facts.

Now back to your post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat O' Banton

Twelve Apostle, You attack the impartiality of Amnesty and in answer to this you use an article from what you describe as an impartial source the Washington Post, it is clearly not..

---

I didn't attack anything. And my answer to the amnesty 'article' (not amnesty itself) provided three sources, not the one which you selected.
Are you disagreeing with the Helsinki Commission bosses comments from Zarko Puhovski and good old Larry?

The source for the majority of the media (and some of the Hague's indictments including Gotovina's) etc particularly regarding Operation Storm. comes from an organisation which has images of 'Greater Serbia' on its web site, has an endorsement to collect funds signed by the prosecuters office, which was recently named in the Milosevic trial by a leading Serb intelligence officer as having been run by 'Belgrade' (synonm for Milosevic), whose founder and boss was a high ranking official in the (illegal) krajina government, which is named by the same prosecuter's office as being 'criminal.' This is a man who has stated in a Belgrade newspaper (sourced provided on request) that several of the indictments against Croatian generals (not all but including Gotovina) will make way for the Re-structure of the (illegal/criminal) Republic Serb Krajina, of which he is a fervent supporter. I'm saying to you that the Amnesty 'article' was inspired by this organisation veritas and not knocking Amnesty as an organisation.

Although you make an interesting point Pat, I can't accept that the Editor of the Washington Times can even be compared to the outrageousness of the above facts.

How the hell can someone have a fair trial when the prosecution is based on info chiefly originating from the accused's very own enemy who works for the prosecution's office?

There is a school of thought manifesting from some on this thread that 'human rights organisations' and 'courts of justice' are infallible. I strongly disagree with this.

Regarding the US role in Operation Storm, I refer you to millennium memory chapter 13 and make your own mind up if its useful info or not. Also google search with 'MPRI' + operation storm.

Cheers,

Twelfth Apostle. :)