The secret life of Tony Cascarino ?

Well..well well!!!

Whilst accusing the Twelfth Apostle of using the off-topic area of a football site to defend others against Lopez's false accusations; it's been discovered that Lopez has been using both the on and off topic forums to air his personal and political views. :eek:

A simple search produces some most interesting results.

It seems you’ve had a number of similar ‘exchanges’ with other members who also disagree with you eh Lopez? :eek:

Perhaps most interesting is your transparent preoccupation with fascists, homosexuals and your Irish identity due to the disproportionately high number of references you make to them.

Does this post ring any bells Lopez: “celebration of the victory of a Dutch Homosexual 300 years ago… ”

If someone of Dutch nationality was victorious 300 years ago – beggars belief what their sexuality has to do with it Lopez eh?

And you were calling me homophobic? Tut…tut…tut!

You truly are a hypocritical hamster aren’t you?

In fact, this board is littered with your rants about politics, your Irishness and the words ‘Fascist’ ‘Nazi’ ‘Homosexual’ (or ‘Queer’ as one of your posts stated referring to the QPR board), and references to paedophilia.

I mean what a coincidence! As on this thread, whilst although not mentioning your Irish identity, you’ve made a disproportionately high number of references to homosexuals and fascists….

Whatever is all that about?

No suggestion whatsoever that you are or not a homosexual, fascist or Irish etc., as that has no bearing on anything, rather just the observation that from your posts at least you seem preoccupied with these matters.

Food for thought eh? :eek:

I’ll leave you with Duncan Gardner’s words from a previous discussion which some may think could equally apply to this one:

“Lopez, again. I'm afraid you're reacting to this more obsessively than almost everyone (else). Why, as you keep claiming to be uninterested?”

Like a puppet on a string…. :eek:

Thanks for introducing the indictment Lopez!! :) :) :)

Just to demonstrate how vague and unspecific Gotovina’s indictment is and to show why the Helsinki Commission boss who investigated the crimes stated ‘"I have not seen one document showing the guilt of Gotovina during or after the operation."
Why don’t we take a look at Goran Hadzic’s indictment in comparison?

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/en...-ii040716e.htm

Whilst both indictments contain the vague/cover all options unspecified sweeping charges:
‘Acting individually and/or in concert with other members of the joint criminal enterprise, planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation, or execution of….’

Hadzic’s specify the charges against him linking to the crimes; whilst Gotovina’s doesn’t. It just alleges ‘Gotovina had reason to know’ but doesn’t state how he had reason to know.

Hadzic's also shows how he participated in the alleged joint criminal enterprise. Gotovina's doesn't.

Bit of a difference eh Lopez?

1. Goran HADZIC, acting individually or in concert with other members of the joint criminal enterprise participated in the joint criminal enterprise in the following ways:
a. In his capacity as the President of the Government of the SAO SBWS and subsequently as President of the RSK, he formulated, promoted, participated in, and/or encouraged the development and implementation of SAO SBWS / RSK governmental policies intended to advance the objective of the joint criminal enterprise. Throughout 1991, 1992 and 1993, Goran HADZIC attended meetings with the Serbia and (S)FRY leadership and/or their agents defining these policies of the joint criminal enterprise and presented its positions in international negotiations.
b. He was instrumental in the establishment, support and maintenance of the government bodies ruling the SAO SBWS / RSK, which in co-operation with the military and police implemented the objectives of the joint criminal enterprise and participated in the commission of crimes as listed in this indictment.
c. He participated in and contributed to the creation, organisation, financing, and direction of the SAO SBWS Milicija and the SNB. These police or security forces were created and supported to assist in the execution of the joint criminal enterprise through the commission of crimes in violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Statute of the Tribunal.
d. He participated in and contributed to the creation, organisation, financing, and direction of the local Serb Territorial Defence forces (TO) of the SAO SBWS, including volunteers related to the Serbian Volunteer Guard and the Serbian Chetnik Movement, which participated in the crimes described in this indictment. From at least 26 June 1991 to and including December 1993, Goran HADZIC was the de jure commander of the TO forces.
e. He personally participated in crimes committed by these police and military forces in the targeted territories as described in paragraphs 19 and 25 of this indictment.
f. He participated in the provision of financial, material, logistical and political support necessary for the military take-over of territories in the SAO SBWS and the subsequent forcible removal of the Croat and other non-Serb population by the local Serb TO forces, who acted in subordination of or co-ordination with the JNA, the Serbian MUP forces and the SAO SBWS Milicija and SNB.
g. He requested the assistance of or facilitated the participation of JNA and Serbian MUP forces to further the objective of the joint criminal enterprise.
h. He encouraged and assisted in the acquisition of arms and their distribution to local Serbs in Croatia to further the objective of the joint criminal enterprise.
i. He openly espoused and encouraged the creation by violence of a homogenous Serbian State encompassing the territories specified in this indictment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davros

PS.Yer man Gen.G/'Cas'.may not have committed the crimes you say he didn't,but at the very least is involved through 'guilt by association'...not a tangible crime,but a predictable facet of human behaviour in such extreme circumstances!

---

Even when the evidence suggests he was disassociated from the crimes Davros? - The crimes contrary to his specific orders, 95% of the crimes occurring after the operation, videotape evidence showing his outrage on hearing of crimes being committed, 300 soldiers who did commit crimes ordered by him to be punished, the majority of murders apparently committed by returning civilians and police (not Army), the alleged 'ethnically cleansed' in actuality when the Serbs own leadership ordered their withdrawal (which they even admit!).

Incidentally, Operation Storm was not the first operation to reclaim the seized/occupied Croatian territories Gotovina commanded/participated during the war.

There were approximately 5 others between 1991-1995. If Gotovina was the 'cold-blooded trigger happy low life war criminal' as Lopez suggested....why is it that no similar crimes occurred in any of the others???

With the indicted Serbs there is a clear track record, one battle/siege/massacre after another where there is indisputable evidence that crimes occurred which were ordered/planned/instigated and often personally carried out by the indicted - and their indictments reflect this.

Very different kettle of fish here though.

Gotovina's track record on his side is the opposite - battles/breaching sieges/preventing massacres with little or none violations/crimes - but Operation Storm (where the evidence contradicts the vague indictment). The indictment being essentially a cut and pasted copy of the ones served to the Serbs, less any 'specific' charges other than the fact that 'Gotovina was the operational commander during operation storm' - the latter being the only undisputed fact.

A Croatian once told me regarding the above:

"This is why many people consider his indictment a farce and the more and more you discover about the Gotovina case, the more and more you begin to see a clear difference between Gotovina -- and the Serb war criminals to the point where, despite whatever previous ideas you may have had, if indeed any at all, you soon realise that the charges against him are completely false and you start to form a positive opinion of him."

Bad day at the office yesterday, Tony? :D :D And looking through my old posts, aswell. Dangerous sign of a bunny boiler here! :eek: Wow, I'm not a homosexual now but a homophobe. I'm so relieved. BTW, you're still 'Tony Cascarino.'

As for Gotovina, still a 'low-life' to me. I'm sure he would expect everyone to presume his innocence first until proven otherwise, but seeing the way the military behaved in Yugoslavia and the nature of 'Martial' law, I for one won't. Someone claiming so and so is 'innocent' and expecting this to be enough for him not to go before a court is about the most laughable statement I've heard for years. This is why it is now my signature and believe me Tony it will take one hell of a bell-end like yourself to come along and make me remove it.

Now, clearly you like to repeat yourself ad nauseam - that's fine by me - but I've got better things to do like bash some queers. I've given up reading your sh*t as it has nothing to do with Gotovina any more and everything - exemplified by the personal attacks - to do with the fact that your laughable attempts at clearing the General have not only failed to work with me but with everyone else on this thread. You are now behaving like a two-year old that's had his dummy taken away. Five posts since I last replied. :D I really must stay away more often.

For EVERYONE ELSE still remotely interested, the evidence Tony demands me to show is currently sub judice, as he well knows. This is why it's not available from the ICTY website, but is available to the General. It is also why when asked by the Bosnian newspaper Liberation if she had evidence concerning Gotovina, Carla Del Ponte said: 'Yes, I do have it, but I am not going to discuss it with you now. I would discuss it with the Court.' Ironically, sub judice is there to entail the accused gets a fair trial.

Have been reading this thread with great interest. Can't claim to have any knowledge of this beyond as what has been provided on this thread and have no opinion on the innocence or guilt of Gotovina but one thing confuses me. If the prosecutions case is so flawed why does Gotovina refuse to stand trial. Everybody charged with a crime has to stand trial. They are not always guilty but that is the point of the trial. if the prosecution have such a woeful case based on inaccurate information surely even Lionel Hutz could get the General off.

See ya later Lopez! Thanks for your help. I know you built me the soap box and the loudspeake's yours too, but seeing as your leaving now d'ya mind leaving them with me?

Thanks and good luck! :)

P.S

If you can't take it - don't dish it out. You slag off others, accuse others of all sorts of unsubstantiated things and of being people who they're not, then the moment they show you substantiated things which you've done and others can see you've done, some of which you've accused others of doing, the rattle's slung to the wall, there's a few words in attempt to rally all the troops to leave with you (as if they were all with you in the first place) ...and then you slam the door.

Adios!

TC I've done you proud!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davros

Fair enough....know a few Croat & Serbs bhoys.....ask them who's right & who's wrong.....don't blame if it sets off a minor fire-war...... :rolleyes:

---

What it will do in all likelihood, is divert away from the specific gotovina case and degenerate into a row over the Serb-Croat war in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davros

Hey,it takes two to tango.....yer just as opinionated & are using largely the same approach as the good Senor :rolleyes: .....just remember..... ;)

---

Au contraire Davros. Although you're of course entitled to your opinion, I haven't libelled people and when confronted made a mad dash to gather evidence and support from others in a failed attempt to prove the accusations.

I have simply responded to an individual's allegations which I know, not believe, know, to be false and asked them to account for their allegations. That individual was given ample opportunity and has simply failed to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bowsy

Have been reading this thread with great interest. Can't claim to have any knowledge of this beyond as what has been provided on this thread and have no opinion on the innocence or guilt of Gotovina but one thing confuses me. If the prosecutions case is so flawed why does Gotovina refuse to stand trial. Everybody charged with a crime has to stand trial. They are not always guilty but that is the point of the trial. if the prosecution have such a woeful case based on inaccurate information surely even Lionel Hutz could get the General off.

---

Hi Bowsy, very good question.

A popular theory (one which, incidentally, I believe there is certainly a large element at play here) is the 'all sides equally guilty theory' regarding those responsible for the wars in the former Yugoslavia.

Your question infers you are are of the opinion that the 'trial' would be a 'fair' trial and would either prosecute and convict on fair evidence based on the charges; acquit if found innocent; or convict and then have 'Lopez's appeals court safeguard' to ensure that justice is done.

This is the heart of the issue.

If a CIA report is to be believed (impartial?!) 90% of the crimes committed in the former Yugoslav wars were committed by Serbs. Even if the percentage is inaccurate what we do know is that at the very least the Serbs committed the vast overwhelming majority of the crimes.

The ICTY history was that they originally indicted mainly Serbs. The Serbs subsequently protested and cried out 'ICTY is prejudiced against the Serbs!' 'What about the others!!'

In response to this (or so the theory goes and there is much evidence to suggest this is the case) the ICTY then 'suddenly' began to investigate 'alleged' crimes committed by the Cro forces, which nobody had previously had much problems with.

(Operation Storm indictment came 6 years later.)

However, all the prosecuters appear to have done is 'cut and paste' the charges (criminal conspiracy) against the Serbs; and pasted it against leading Croatian generals with some slight ammendments.

They're not interested in who did the crimes (evidence suggests in Cro case it was generally more vengeful individuals rather than the systematic regime-sponsored Serb one) but simply those who equate in power and rank to the Serbs they were indicting - thus all sides guilty, regardless of whether they've committed crimes or not.

Let me remind you approx 250,000 people were killed by the Milosevic regime. 150 people are on the Gotovina indictment....and he has no track record of 'murdering anyone' never mind 'shooting whoever he fancies' and despite Lopez's allegations, there is no evidence anywhere to suggest he had anything to with any of the charges on the sheet .

If anyone should be in the dock it's certain former members of the Croatian Tudjman regime, particularly regarding Bosnia. They witheld evidence at the Blaskic trial to protect themselves (and indeed from what i understand witheld vital info and evidence from Gotovina - like not telling him as he was Inspector General of the Cro army that he was under investigation).

Then you have the US (Clinton Adm.)government who planned Operation Storm, originally claimed it as their own, then remain silent of their involvement, are witholding evidence for gotovina's defence, though simultaneously offer a $5 million dollar reward for his arrest!

The Croats watched as one by one their generals were indicted to the hague on 'newly revised' (or invented!?) charges.

Gotovina is the big fish as he actually symbolises the Croatian war for many (also impeccable military record/met Pope John Paul twice). He learnt from the media and not from official sources that he was one of two generals whose names were on a sealed indictment. (Why sealed?)

Bearing in mind he would have seen the fate of one or two of his fellow colleagues at the hands of the hague, not least of all the aforementioned General Blaskic, and that he was being denied evidence to support himself, from both the then Cro government and the US government, added to the fact that his indictment was sealed and so didn't know what he was actually charged with - he was tipped off by sympathisers the day before it was due to be served and went underground.

He was given no time to prepare a defence, and even if he had he was blocked from accessing the evidence to defend himself with.

He quite clearly believes (some would say understandably) that his trial is a political show trial and farce and it is this which he is refusing to accept; not the justice.

The Blaskic sentence would have only re-enforced his belief at that time; and the recent appeal decision would only prove to both him and his supporters - that he was right.

45 year sentence for crimes you didn't commit....or a life on the run?

Who's in control here?

He's refusing to be a scapegoat and believes he won't receive a fair trial by that tribunal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bowsy

Have been reading this thread with great interest. Can't claim to have any knowledge of this beyond as what has been provided on this thread and have no opinion on the innocence or guilt of Gotovina but one thing confuses me. If the prosecutions case is so flawed why does Gotovina refuse to stand trial. Everybody charged with a crime has to stand trial. They are not always guilty but that is the point of the trial. if the prosecution have such a woeful case based on inaccurate information surely even Lionel Hutz could get the General off.

---

Exactly what I've been saying Bowsy. If the Hague's case is as flawed as Tony claims why aren't organisations that pride themselves on fighting injustice throughout the world - including Europe - not taking on the case? Tony muddies the waters by discrediting AI with the 'shady' Veritas organisation. While if you type in google: 'Croatian Helsinki Commission Puhovski Gotovina', the source that claims that 'Zarko Puhovski, asks for Gotovina's case to be 'reconsidered' is Tony earlier on this thread and, shock horror, Cascarino.com. See for yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Croat...UTF-8&filter=0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twelfth Apostle

See ya later Lopez! Thanks for your help.

---

I'm not leaving Tony. I'm not reading your sh*t because I have to hold my nose too long before I get to anything worth reading. Five posts of mostly garbage yesterday. Has a doctor recommended this site as therapy? At times you can be so articulate - if IMO wrong - but yesterday you lost the plot. Soap box? Why not? I'm taking an interest in Gotovina from now on myself. Nothing wrong in seeing justice served, is there? Contradict myself? Could have told you that before. I was not interested, but now I am: A contradiction indeed. Can't a lady change her mind? :rolleyes: I've contradicted myself many times on foot.ie and found myself apologising - last time I remember was a comment over Roy Keane. I'll be apologising IF the General is found innocent, until then I'm refraining from contradicting myself over the General's guilt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twelfth Apostle

Au contraire Davros. Although you're of course entitled to your opinion, I haven't libelled people and when confronted made a mad dash to gather evidence and support from others in a failed attempt to prove the accusations.

---

Tony implied I was a homosexual. Unless I am one, that would be classed as libel.

As for 'the mad dash' for evidence, I told Tony I was not interested but he kept on persevering. In an effort to see if there was any case for the general avoiding trial I came up with the evidence that states the ICTY is not suspect and that his suggestions (more like slurs) were rubbish. Gaining support from others? Thankyou Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. I've considered sending money to AI but always thought they were a bit too pinko for me (letting off paedophiles - or is it paediatricians? - and that sort, although I am a member of Greenpeace thanks to being persuaded into joining by a pretty young Aussie (female) while out shopping). Now a cheque is in the post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twelfth Apostle

Gotovina...impeccable military record/met Pope John Paul twice.

---

I've found another, even more stupid, quote from Tony for my signature - that meeting the Pope twice should be a pointer to Gotovina's innocence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

If the Hague's case is as flawed as Tony claims why aren't organisations that pride themselves on fighting injustice throughout the world - including Europe - not taking on the case?..

---

What... like they did for the Kupreskic three and General Blaskic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

While if you type in google: 'Croatian Helsinki Commission Puhovski Gotovina', the source that claims that 'Zarko Puhovski, asks for Gotovina's case to be 'reconsidered' is Tony earlier on this thread and, shock horror, Cascarino.com. See for yourself..

---

Lol!!! What entertainment! What was that in Blaskic's case about 'factual errors'......

Whilst it may feature on what i thought was 'cascarino.homestead.com' and not 'cascarino.com' which hosts cascarino's manuscript; it is a copy of the Agence France Presse report of April 7th 2004.

See:
http://www.cascarino.homestead.com/videotape.html

And click the link below the article.


..................................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

Tony implied I was a homosexual. Unless I am one, that would be classed as libel. .

---

No I didn't and no it wouldn't. Are you inferring that to be a homosexual is wrong and which would damage a persons reputation in the minds of right thinking people?

I certainly don't think the fact that someone's homosexual has any bearing on anything, particularly when, despite your claims, nobody called you it; on the other hand, slandering someone as a 'low-life war criminal with a penchant for shooting people' or the polished up mercenary description 'soldier of fortune' most certainly would damage a persons reputation, regardless of their sexuality.

BTW - You didn't explain the relevance of your previous reference of the 'victorious Dutchman of old's' sexuality either Lopez.

You were repeatedly asked to back up your two unfounded malicious allegations; not provide evidence as to 'if the general should got to trial or not' which clearly demonstrates yet again you don't read posts.

Gaining support from others refers to your sporadic suggestions of others not taking an interest in this thread, suggestions that others talking with you about this thread, as if you are some kind of spokesman for the other members.

BTW - was waiting for the 'we're all having a good laugh down the pub at this' line and all...sure you had that one lined up! (Again)

The proof's in the pudding, confirmed both by my PM's and also the comments of other members on this very thread and not your false fradulent fantasies :eek:

You're becoming increasingly childish, contradictory and erratic in your behaviour Lopez. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Lopez you are simply a chatterbox who makes knee-jerk reactions stemming from emotional over-reactions of things you think 'are' - but on inspection, have no substance or grounding in fact. :D

Now c'mere tell me, what rattled you the most? The presentation of your previous post exposing you as a hypocrite concerning the Dutchman – or the realisation that you’re a libellous fraud?

I also find it an honour that you associate me to cascarino, never mind call me the man himself. So Gracias!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twelfth Apostle

You're becoming increasingly childish, contradictory and erratic in your behaviour Lopez. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Lopez you are simply a chatterbox who makes knee-jerk reactions stemming from emotional over-reactions of things you think 'are' - but on inspection, have no substance or grounding in fact. :D

---

get a room you two :D

Yet more blah, blah, blah from Tony. 'Now c'mere tell me, what rattled you the most? The presentation of your previous post exposing you as a hypocrite concerning the Dutchman – or the realisation that you’re a libellous fraud?' What rattled you Tony to fire off five posts about me? The fact that your sources are sh*te or non-existent.

You give me a report about Gotovina from Agence France Presse which I cannot find on their press site. OK, it has no archive but this important piece of news was not reported in any other press site with archives found through google. In addition, so the General 'orders his troops to restore order and security in the region until the Croatian military surrenders control of the region to civilian authorities later that same day!' Milosevic was claiming that he was doing everything in his power to control his forces during the whole Yugoslav episode and that genocide was merely the arrest of 'terrorists.' To save you from another seizure Tony, I'm not suggesting the General is guilty of genocide, just (for the umpteenth time) that there is a case to answer. The evidence against him is with the ICTY. Meeting to Pope (twice) does not mean he's innocent. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon'o

get a room you two :D

---

You have my apologies for having to endure even an once of this sh*te. :D

BTW, I was responding to your unedited post of 18:33 3 August 2004. F*ck knows what you've changed. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

BTW, I was responding to your unedited post of 18:33 3 August 2004. F*ck knows what you've changed. :rolleyes:

---

If that's a question, then let me know which post and I may answer it.

Okay Lopez, several other members have stated that they think the general may have a case to answer and I never took issue with them. That is a fair comment. Most of them have not presumed anything one way or the other.

What we are at loggerheads with is your two allegations about two individuals which you made at a time when you admitted knowing nothing of these same individuals.
I was asking you how you can form firm opinions when you admit you knew little about them...

"Meeting the Pope (twice) does not mean he's innocent."

I didn't suggest it did Lopez. My 'Papal' reference was used to explain that (at least one) of his papal meetings was conducted after several years after Operation Storm - of which was widely reported

How many war criminals are received by the pope? He (pope) obviously didn't have a problem with operation storm then.

Are we going to continue playing silly buggers now or actually discuss this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

You give me a report about Gotovina from Agence France Presse which I cannot find on their press site. OK, it has no archive but this important piece of news was not reported in any other press site with archives found through google.

---

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040410/323/eqqy7.html

"But there was a new twist to the case earlier this week.Croatian television broadcast a videotape showing Gotovina condemning his troops for barbaric behaviour and calling for order at a meeting with top officers in Knin, a rebel Serb stronghold that had just been retaken by Coratian troops.The meeting took place on August 6, 1995, a day after Croatia recaptured the southern town and the surrounding region in the operation led by Gotovina.His lawyer Ivo Farcic said the tape had a great importance for Gotovina's defence, stressing: "If the person who drafted the indictment had the tape when writing it, the charges would have been completely different."
.................................................. .................

http://draxisblogging.blogspot.com/2...-gotovina.html

"For most of Croatian public this tape is greeted as the smoking gun that finally establishes General's innocence of all war crimes. Žarko Puhovski (Zarko Puhovski), chairman of HHO, top Croatian human rights organisation, says that ICTY would have to re-write the indictment based on the materials available on the tape."

.................................................. ..........................................

http://www.europeanfoundation.org/pu...20No%20190.pdf.

(Note - wrongly alleges krajina serbs chased out!)

.................................................. ......................................

Still from the video in Croatian Nacional magazine:

http://www.nacional.hr/english.php?b...13&kat=english

"The tape of the Knin meeting on 6 August 1995 shows that for the most part, there never should have been a case against Gotovina"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

Milosevic was claiming that he was doing everything in his power to control his forces during the whole Yugoslav episode and that genocide was merely the arrest of 'terrorists.'

---

There is clear evidence though that Milosevic had done everything in his power to direct the forces under his command, including the paramilitaries, to commit genocide.

Even his very own men have testified against him at his current trial to confirm this.

Lovely description here detailing his individual criminal responsibility and co-conspirators.

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/en...l-ai021023.htm

Is there a similar one on Gotovina's indictment showing the link from the accused to the actual crimes?

Now that's more like it, Tony. So you believe there are suspicions about the case. Fair point. But a video, third hand evidence and a man who has began the process of sainthood to some fairly dubious 'men of god' is hardly convincing. Ever see those fathers, step-fathers and husbands on TV crying about the great loss, how could anyone take their daughter/wife, etc and then found to be guilt of their murder. Ever see Harold Shipman lying on TV. This means zilch.

What means anything is first hand evidence which will appear at the General's trial. Witnesses will give evidence. Because if all the ICTY relies on is the sort of third hand hearsay and Papal audiences to convict Gotovina, Bowsy's right. Even Lionel and the practice of 'I can't believe I'm a lawyer' will win the case.

Now show me the UN document that you claimed was on the net re yourself and I'll take back - contradict myself once more - the bit about you being a mercenary. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

Now that's more like it, Tony. So you believe there are suspicions about the case. Fair point. But a video, third hand evidence and a man who has began the process of sainthood to some fairly dubious 'men of god' is hardly convincing. Ever see those fathers, step-fathers and husbands on TV crying about the great loss, how could anyone take their daughter/wife, etc and then found to be guilt of their murder. Ever see Harold Shipman lying on TV. This means zilch.

---

Point taken. But where's the convincing first hand evidence regarding the charges?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

What means anything is first hand evidence which will appear at the General's trial. Witnesses will give evidence. Because if all the ICTY relies on is the sort of third hand hearsay and Papal audiences to convict Gotovina, Bowsy's right. Even Lionel and the practice of 'I can't believe I'm a lawyer' will win the case.

---

Yes, but you've automatically assumed that this would be a fair trial and this is where we disagree. I refer you back to Blaskic & Co, where was Lionel then? Surely this confirms 'gross errors' and in fact in the appeals own words 'a miscarriage of justice' had occurred? As well as the previous case I pointed out.

The Blaskic case being the more relevant of course due to the sweeping cover all options charge of 'Command responsibility.'

All the other indictments specify how the accused is connected to the criminal group and the actual crimes. Not so Gotovina's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

Now show me the UN document that you claimed was on the net re yourself and I'll take back - contradict myself once more - the bit about you being a mercenary. :)

---

Lopez, yet again, it is not my responsibility to provide evidence, which I have, to counter your libel, rather your responsibility to prove it's not libel.

You made the accusations so go on and prove me wrong!

Show me and everyone else how you concluded the Irishman who fought for Croatia known as Tony cascarino was a soldier of fortune.

Was he mentioned in that '97 Guardian report?

Have you ever seen it written or stated anywhere?

Admit it was, like your allegations against gotovina, completely unfounded and then we'll be friends. :)