Talk:Naser Orić/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I think it's only appropriate to suggest that commentaries on the article itself be relegated to this space set aside for that purpose. If someone has problems with the neutrality of an article - let's discuss it! And the term "Bosnian Serb Army" is not an expression indicating bias, it's a commonly used name of an actual thing. Timmay 22:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfair trial

Why is the "Unfair trial" section in there. It seems to be all speculation in an attempt to exonerate Mr Oric. Unless there are some reputable references claiming that the trial might be biased, I suggest taking the section out. All sides in the Bosnian war claim they are unfairly treated by the ICTY and that trials are biased against them. That doesn't mean this it should be in Wikipedia.Osli73 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems a lot of the stuff in the Unfair trial section comes from a nationalist Bosniak blog, Srebrenica Genocide Blog. It doesn't mean that it is wrong, just that a blog is not generally seen as a reputable source.Osli73 23:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

New section on Nasir Oric's activities in E Bosnia 1992-1993

I've added a new section on Nasir Oric's activities in E Bosnia 1992-1993 as well as the alleged connection between these and the Bosnian Serb counteroffensive, culminating in the Srebrenica Massacre in 1995.

I realize the language is quite emotional (though this seems to be generally accepted as well, see the Srebrenica massacre article) but have added that this information is based on Serbian and Bosnian Serb sources as well as a book published in the US.

If anyone wants to add to the "Naser Oric war crimes revisionism" section (LOL), please feel free. Osli73 09:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

I only had a chance to read the first part of this article and have already found some serious errors and false statements. Almost entire section "Naser Oric in Eastern Bosnia" is problematic, specifically in the sense when stating numbers of killings. Looking at the Oric's indictment there is no word on all these crimes [1] and even than we are talking about a trial that is still ongoing and inconclusive. Could we have some sources first before we move on.--Dado 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Dado, points 27-37 of the indictment [2] certainly do mention his participation in and burning of the villages mentioned in the article. In sworn testimony at the ICTY trial against Slobodan Milosevic, French UN General Philippe Morillon states that "Naser Oric engaged in attacks during Orthodox holidays and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants.” (my emphasis added). This has been added to the sources section.

Please come up with some specific factual mistakes before putting up the disputed flag. Otherwise, I should be removed. Osli73 10:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have read the indictment and I agree that there was a certain degree of destruction. That is not what I am disputing. What I am disputing is a precise nature of numbers while no sorces are provided. Indictment list about 6 killings while we have a sentance

"According to testimony by Serbs and Bosniaks in eastern Bosnia, during the period from May 1992 to April 1993 units of the Bosnian army (ARBiH) and Bosniak paramilitary units attacked more than one hundred Serb villages and hamlets killing approximately 1,000 civilians and members of the Republic of Srpska Army (VRS), and wounding between 2,800 and 3,200 Serbs."

This borders hear-say. Who made these testimonies. Where did them make them and were they sworn testimonies that can be applied in the court. The sections goes on to say

"Oric's units and Oric personally massacred 87 persons using knives, pitchforks, blunt objects, by crucifixion, castration, setting on fire and torture and burned and destroyed at least 50 Serbian villages."

Where did this come from? Keep in mind we are talking about victims and a serious accusation that this person is responsible for killing them. You must be dead on and have a reliable and credible source. You have listed two published books which only by its titles could as credible as an average nationalist website. Was any of that admissible in the court?

Now for the opposing view. RDC has recently conducted research on number of Serb victims in Srebrenica area. You can read it here [www.srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2006/05/myth-about-serb-casualties-around.html]. RDC is the same organization that provided recent statistics on the number of victims in Bosnian War and the same RDC that was quoted by the Serb side in their defence at the Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ--Dado 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Dado,

1. In the introduction to the section I state the sources are problematic and numbers are uncertain. So the reader is aware of this when reading the article. Do you have any better figures for the numbers of killing?

• If sources are problematic, and there is no doubt, why even state them. There are some information about killings in the indictment and there may be few more in transcripts but that is the extent of it.--Dado 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

2. Just because the ICTY has not indicted or convicted someone of a crime doesn't mean it has not happened. History isn't determined by the outcome of legal battles. Just because Milosevic was never convicted of any war crimes doesn't mean that they didn't happen.

• True but you still don't have proof that it happened and as noted in recent research there are serious doubt that it happend in the extent that you are claiming.--Dado 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

3. If you have issues with the article, you are welcome to write in the "Naser Oric war crimes denyers and revisionism" section.

4. I have listed the sources I could find, the two books mentioned in the beginning of the article. You are welcome to see if you can find additional sources. What about the report put out by the Government of Serbia (I don't speak/read Serbi-Croatian)? Maybe you could help me with that.

• Could you provide link. If I remember correctly they have listed either 199 or 400 casulties in Srebrenica area but I have no information if those can be attributed to civilian or military casulties --Dado 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The villages attacked and destroyed under his command are listed in the indictment [3]. Osli73 07:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is absolutely ridiculous. The old, tired, and worn-out story of 3,000+ slaughtered Serbs by rampaging warlord Naser Orić has been discredited left and right by international organizations, professional research, etc, yet here its treated as unquestionable fact. This wouldn't be as much of a problem if we were dealing with a short article, but instead the author felt compelled to reveal "the truth" to the world and write 32kb based around falsifications, lies, and exaggarations. I don't have the time and energy at this moment to attempt to add some semblance of neutrality, integrity, and factual accuracy to what basically amounts to an extensive summary of more than a decade of Serb relativization-focused propaganda, but you make sure you know that as soon as I do I will dedicate my energies to help fix this absolute disaster and train-wreck of an article and dispell this myth once and for all. Live Forever 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user, I've checked the IDC link on Serb casualties in Bratunac. I'm not sure how reputable and trustworthy their figures are, but I'm certainly willing to include them in the article (alongside the other claims).

Do they only deal with those killed in Bratunac or also elswhere? Are the two figures (IDC and Bosnian Serb) really all that incompatible? There was also the figure of 999 mentioned as well. How incompatible is that? Since there seems to be so much uncertainty, I suggest putting all of the different estimates in. Osli73 09:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert to original

I've reverted to the previous article, since the only source contradicting the text was from a partisan Bosniak/Bosnian source.

That the ICTY hasn't included the other events in its allegations, doesn't mean that they didn't happen. Milosevic was never convicted of any war crimes - that doesn't mean he's not guilty. There is a difference between history and the law.

Finally, I have included a section, prior to the section on Oric's activities during the war, saying that there are few sources and what sources the text is based on. The indictment at the ICTY are a separate section. If you wish to discuss/contest the information, please do so in the Naser Oric war crimes denyers and revisionism section.

Cheers, Osli73 19:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert to extended version

I have discussed the sources for the article in the article as well as given people an opportunity to challenge it. However, this has not really been done (if you disregard the reference to some very partisan Bosnian blogs). If you have issues with the sources, please add them to the Revisionism and denyers section. Please, try to be constructive! Osli73 20:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole concept of a revisionism/criticism section for this article in itself is absurd. There is no widely accepted historical consensus on war crimes Orić and the men formally under his control committed against Serbs in central Podrinje, so to portray one view as fact and the other as reactionary is blatant POV at best, and a bad attempt at making a point at worst. Live Forever 20:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you are the revisionist. You are denying the view of the whole world (United Nations), including Serbia and BiH. Oric is accused (not convicted) "only" of wantan destruction in villages the Srebrenica forces raided, and allowing 11 captives to be tortured and 7 of them killed in the police station under his control. That's in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocoum (talk • contribs) 20:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not against calling the "Revisionism" section something else. How about "Disputed numbers" or "Bosniak criticism" or something like that!
• Please come with something other than a nationalist blog as a source. If you believe the numbers killed are incorrect, please write this, instead of just deleting the entire article. I even say in the intro that the numbers are uncertain. How can you be upset by this?
• That Naser Oric is 'only' accused of some of these charges, doesn't mean they didn't take place and that he is did not participate in them. Legal court cases are different from history. Notice that I include a separate section on the war crimes indictment. Milosevic was never convicted of anything. Does that make him innocent?

Osli73 07:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Expanding the article

I am trying to improve the article. However, it is clear that some (anonymous) users seek to use the page to exculpate Naser Oric, or at least downplay the events in which he was allegedly part of. For example, the "Unfair trial" section was more extensive than the "War Crimes trial" section. Please, don't use Wikipedia to push your Balkan nationalist issues. Osli73 15:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources and opportunities for merging with Bosnian War article

This is an interesting article. I have two comments:

• I feel that it needs more sources. Especially when describing the numbers killed and the nature of the attacks on the Serb villages.
• Could not a lot of the background information (Oric in Eastern Bosnia) be made into a separate article or perhaps even merged with the overall Bosnian War article?

Any views? Otherwise I would not mind starting to edit the article myself. KarlXII 22:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it needs articles ON the villages (based on what was established by UN, I think they listed 12 by name where buildings were burned down). Also possibly a real entry on the Oric's actions in the war, starting with the police ambush on the "volunteers" gang from Serbia, and ending with the attacks on the 4th Battalion's outer defence lines at Baljkovica in July 95. Not that he was just raiding these villages all the time, you know. --Kocoum 20:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the testimony of this Morillon, it seems like he did indeed raid villages. The language of used in the original may be a bit flowery (I started trying to tone it down a bit) but I don't think there is any reason to not believe he did attack the villages, as that is what he is charged for (and the Morillon testimony seems to support it as well).

If you don't mind I'll return the older version (the one I had started editing) and continue to edit from there. I found what seems to be a quite good report on the events in and around Srebrenica during the time of Nasir Oric. It's a report by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation called Srebrenica - a safe area. The link is [4]. KarlXII 23:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course they WERE raiding the villages. The question is if he is responsible for "crimes of wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages not justified by military necessity" (meaning burning down civilian buildings after raids), and if he is, how many and which. 2 villages were dropped from the list in the course of trial already. Just wait for the verdict, ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocoum (talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing

OK, I've tried to edit some of the text, especially to tone down the language. I haven't the strenght to finish it tonight though. KarlXII 01:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Kocum, I've been thinking the very same thing - taking a lot of this stuff into a separate article on the war in Srebrenica and only leave a smaller part on Nasir Oric's role. KarlXII 18:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Flowery in language"? That is only the tip of the iceberg. Setting up the genocide in Srebrenica as some response to "barbaric" raids by berserk Muslims has been a basic foundation of Serb propaganda regarding the Bosnian war. Here, with the goal of making a point following the rejection of his revisionist views on the main Srebrenica massacre article, a Scandanavian user is utilizing Serb sources that examplified this ideology from the mid 90s to write a reactionary article. I'm finding it difficult to adequately express everything that is wrong with this article (there is a lot), but I will try to go through some of the more glaring examples, starting from the top.

1. How is it fair to list Orić's actions as "evident" and present the ICTY indictment when the trial is currently underway? Certain charges have already been dismissed, so to put the original allegations and portray them as fact is absurd and heavily POV.
2. Right below it is a quote by General Philippe Morillon, obviously meant to stand as a source of authority, where he states that Orić "[massacred] all the inhabitants [of Kravica]". In fact, the most recent research based in part on VRS army records themselves (and actually awkwardly mentioned and admitted to later in the article) shows that the mythicized attack on Kravica resulted in the death of 35 soldiers (along with 36 wounded) and 11 civilian deaths: hardly a "massacre of all inhabitants".[5]
3. The article repeatedly simplistically and inaccurately refers to "Bosniak" forces and "Serbs" killed. It also uses specific language in regards to Bosnian forces (i.e. "resistance groups", "stronghold", etc.) while glossing over the finer details of Serb counterparts. For instance, the "Serbian police" is presented as a credible local authority, when in fact it was essentailyl illegaly established as a monoethnic paramilitary unit in a predominantly Bosniak area to assist in the ethnic cleansing of the region. There is also no mention that Arkan's tigers were paramilitary forces that had committed numerous war crimes and ethnically cleansed large regions of Bosnia and Herzegovina already.
4. There is barely no mention of the ethnic cleansing and war crimes (which will, more than likely, soon be officially declared acts of genocide at the ICJ) in the surrounding regions that preceded any "Bosniak actions". No mention of the expulsion, killing, and rapes of thousands of non-Serbs in Bratunac, Srebrenica, Skelani, Bijeljina, etc. The article makes it seem as if Bosniaks randomly started a resistance out of nowhere and inexplicably started attacking legitimate Serbian institutions.
5. The article is in many places seemingly word-for-word copied from the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation. Furthermore, it's very selective in what it does copy and the details it includes, which leads me to my next point...
6. The most blatant manifestation of this article's bias is that it exclusively concentrates on Oric's alleged crimes against Serbs. There is no mention of his role in Srebrenica, his activities in handling/runnign the civilian city, interaction with the UN and foreign media, management of refugees, involvement in black market activities, etc. Every single paragraph here seems to revolve around some alleged crime against Serbs. A total of 119 Serb civilians were killed in the region during the course of this war, a relatively small amount compared to the mass killings of Bosniaks that had already taken place in the area (not to mention the massacre that would follw). The article blows everything completely out of proportion. Oric was the war time commander of Srebrenica and an article on him should give a complete picture of his role and activities in the war: to concentrate on and magnify his alleged involvement in the sporadic killings of 119 Serb civilians over the course of several years is absurd.
7. The article still heavily relies on said Serbian sources from the mid 90s to give detailed accounts of the number of civilians killed. For example, we are expected to believe that 31 Serb civilians were killed in Podrovanje. Given how much the figures of Serb deaths are exaggarated, this is highly doubtful.
8. Precise numbers of Serb civilian deaths are repeatedly given in random instances with no specific sources. I have a problem with this, especially considering that it has been shown time and time again that the numerous Serb "civilians" killed in Oric's raids were actually soldiers. I have no problem mentioning that some Serb civilians may have been killed in a series of raids on certain villages, but citing specific numbers as fact is something this article should avoid.
9. No mention is made of the well-documented exaggaration and political/propaganda based inflation of Serb civilian deaths in Srebrenica.
10. Reference to an alleged mass grave in Kamenica is not sourced, as are numerous other such colorful paragraphs.

I have only begun to list the thigns wrong with this article... I haven't even touched on the section on Kravica, which is a complete fucking joke. Due to all this, I feel the only proper thing to do would be to revert to the last undisputed version. This text right now is garbage; pure and simple. Live Forever 22:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Live Forever, thank you for your comments. I agree that there are lots of things that could be changed, improved and added to this article. The 1000 some Serbs killed is from the Dutch report, so it is hardly propaganda. If you had some more information on his role in Srebrenica, can you provide some data. As for the veracity of the number of Serbs killed, I'm all for putting question marks nest to those. However, I will have to agree with my (presumed) fellow Swede olis73, I think it is worthwhile to try to expand the article instead of cancelling it.KarlXII 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is worthwhile to expand the article - for instance, the changes made to the first section about Naser Orić's early life and career are completely valid (asides from the fact that they are blatantly taken from copyrighted source material). However, from then on the article is expanded in such a completely wrong direction to the point that I and (I'm sure) many others believe it is completely beyond repair in its current form. As for the (copyright) Dutch source, I never said they were propaganda; I said they were wrong/factually incorrect. The newest research done shows that 13 Serb civilians were killed in Kravica - that is what VRS army records of the event show themselves. And yet the Dutch source in question claims that the raid resulted in the "massacre" of hundreds. What does this say about the authenticity and reliability of this Dutch source in regards to crimes against Serb civilians? What worth is this source when it is exclusively cherrypicked for instances of crimes against Serbs to suit an agenda? Exactly. This article in its (as you say) "expanded" version doesn't work. Its outline, structuring, prose, set-up, and everything else is crafted in such a way that it is impossible to salvage a neutral and truthful article out of it. Live Forever 19:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see why it should be "impossible to salvage". I will edit it and check with olis73 and you and ayone else with an interest in along the way. OK? Regarding the Dutch article, it sound a bit harsh to discount all of it simply because there is another study which says something else. What is the source, by the way? KarlXII 20:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to you to call any unfavorable information on Naser Oric "Serb propaganda". While researching the topic I have noticed that many nationalist Serbs focus on the crimes/actions of Naser Oric as a way of deflecting what happened in Srebrenica in 1995. In my edit of the article I have tried to source all of the statements either to the ICTY idictment or to the Dutch government report. I don't see how that can be "Serb propaganda"? Stating what court documents and government reports say about a person's activities can hardly be called propaganda.

Frankly, you are behaving like sensitive nationalists!Osli73 09:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed?

For some of you calling something you disagree with "Serb propaganda" is enough to delete it. In my original article I raised the issue of the sources, stating clearly that these were "local Serbian sources" and why. The accounts of those sources seem to be supported in general by the text of the ICTY war crimes indictment. Now, Karl seems to have found a Dutch government report to support his edits, and you're still calling everything "Serb propaganda".

I'm sorry, but please tell me EXACTLY what is wrong with the sources cited or with what SPECIFIC parts of the text you disagree with and why. Otherwise you are just behaving like Balkan nationalists do everywhere else. Frankly, that kind of behavior does not belong here. Try to leave your ethnic hatreds behind and make specific arguments instead of general accusations. Osli73 07:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now sourced all of the information to either the ICTY indictment of Nasir Oric or the Dutch government report on the Srebrenica massacre (I'm sorry if you dislike it, but it can hardly be blamed for being biased or unprofessional). Moreover, I do think that Nasir Oric's actions in and around Srebrenica 1992-1993 are relevant to the article, as they formed the background to his indictment by the ICTY. Only stating dates and military decorations is not sufficient. Osli73 11:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems some (unidentified) users are opposed to any mention of Naser Oric's activities in and around Srebrenica, which, as osli pointed out, are the basis for his war crimes indictment. The contents of this section certainly do seem to be based on reliable & reputable sources. I don't see any reason why this should be called not NPOV or questionable.KarlXII 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There is still a problem with the section talking about Oric's war activity. While the section is basically an account of killed Serbs the section has no mention of how many bosniak forces suffered casulties given that most of those listed were actually battles. The section seams heavily biased.--Dado 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dado, I think the section belongs in there as it describes the actions of Naser Oric during the period for which he is most (in)famous. It also provides background info for his indictment by the ICTY. Not including this stuff would be like talking about Mladic but not his 'activities' in Bosnia 1992-1995.

That it mainly lists Serbs who were killed is because Oric didn't kill all that many Bosniaks (to my knowledge). That is also not what he is charged by the ICTY for. I did include at the end of the section that an estimated 1,000 Serbs where killed but that the number of Bosniaks killed in and around Srebrenica prior to the massacre in 1995 was roughly twice as many.

I think you misunderstood what I meant to say. The section currently portrays killings of Oric out of context as unprovoked rampage over Serb population while not defining that most of these clashes were with the army forces of VRS and most casulties were soldiers. Also I was not refering to Oric killing Bosniaks but to how many Bosniaks were killed in these actions by VRS as that would more preciselly portray the nature of the conflict. However it is obvious that your starting position is that Oric is a madman who was killing anyone including Bosniaks. --Dado 17:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to edit rather than simply delete everything. However, I find your opinion that any information in the Dutch government report based on Serb eye-witnesses as being false to be a bit too critical. Apparently, the Netherlands Institute of War Documentation has judged the source to be reliable enough to include in its report. The same standards are obviously not applied to e.g. the Srebrenica Massacre article. Osli73 15:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that I have deleted all of the Dutch findings but only those that reference discredited sources. It is same as using original discredited sources with the prettier wrapping. Again we have presented references here that completely refute sources that Dutch selected which weakens their position and credibility, but it does not discredit them completely. They have only as much credibility and independecy in the matter as it is not affected by their stakes in the matter which are minimal (unlike stakes of Serbs or Bosniaks).--Dado 17:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dado, regardig the claims that the ICTY is biased against Oric. Do you have any sources for these claims? Who makes them? Has the Bosnian government or any other official body complained? It's just that it seems that nationalists on all sided in the ex-Yugo wars seem to think of themselves as being unfairly treated by the ICTY. So, if these claims are to be given space in the article they should be substantial, not just general complaints by sympathisers and the defence team. Osli73 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I will look more closely into this next--Dado 17:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dado, a couple of comments:

• Thanks for the review of the sources. I agree, the wartime Minister of Information for RS is definately not a good source. While I'm not as convinced about Ivanisevic he does sound like he's a bit on the fishy side. I found this on him. He doesn't have to be wrong, but let's keep things on the safe side. I agree with your judgement on this.
• I think Bosniak allegations section would be more interesting to the general reader if it focused more on why (some) Bosniaks view Oric as a war hero. As far as I understand it, the main complaint is not really that he has been unfairly treated by the court (which, honestly doesn't sound all that bad) but that he was indicted at all. An article in IWPR here sums it ut rather well I think.
• If you change the angle of the section I would also change the title to something along the lines of Naser Oric as a Bosniak War Hero or similar.

Osli73 10:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW: The indictment does not state whether or not they were civilian or military prisoners. Only the word "Serb individuals" is used to describe them) You obviously failed to notice "(a Serb civilian)" notes by the later names. Meaning the previous "individuals" were not "a Serb civilians", but a military or paramiltary prisoners of war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocoum (talk • contribs) 11:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did note that some names had the tag Serb civilian(s) next to them. However, this doesn't mean that those who are not explicitly described as such were military/paramilitaries. Let's not try to read more into the text than what is actually in there.Osli73 12:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"cycle of vengeance"

No, just frustration of losing to the in combat leading to mass murders. Serbs lose in battle -> Serbs respond by slaughtering men in their custody en masse. Not an even isolated incidents, as seen in this further example: Two days later, on 29 May, Golub Eric (World War Two veteran and member of the Serb crisis committee of Kravica) and Milutin Milosevic (police commander of Bratunac) were also killed in heavy fighting near Konjevic Polje as they tried to remove Muslim barricades. The Serbs retaliated by executing almost ninety men of military age in Drinjaèa the following day. [6] It can be called reprisals, hostage executions or collective punishment, but not revenge (maybe in the minds of killers). The Glogova/Brutanac killings are related to Oric, because before his early attacks the murders in Srebrenica/Brutanac were relatively limited to whatever extent (yet occuring, including in the said Karadzic School camp). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocoum (talk • contribs) 23:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Further edits - pls. post here first to enable a discussion

As this apparently has turned into such a contentious and sensititive issue, I would suggest that anyone who wishes to make further edits to the article please post here first to enable a discussion before any changes are made.Osli73 08:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that I am anti-Bosnia(k) then that is you interpretation. I am interested in presenting '''NPOV''' articles, free of '''weasel words''' and emotionally charged language and the whole cult of victimhood which seems to be so prevalent among west Balkan peoples.

Finally, since you don't have any user ID here on Wikipedia and refuse to discuss any of the changes you propose, it is hard to take your contributions seriously.Osli73 17:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I again urge anyone wishing to make substantial changes/additions to the article to first put them forth on the talk page to enable a discussion. Likewise, if you have any comments on the contents/setup of the current article, please express them here rather than deleting/changing whatever displeases you. I'm open for discussion.Osli73 21:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak allegation

This section isn't very well formulated in my opnion. I have a couple of comments:

• On July 25, 2003 the tribunal denied his appeal for a provisional release, even though it was clear he was no flight risk The bolded part is expressed as a fact, when it should be expressed as an opinion.
• It should be noted that it is quite common for all sides in the ex-Yugo wars to complain about the ICTY being biased (most widespread in Serbia). Otherwise a reader might believe that these types of allegations are exceptional, when in fact they are quite commonplace.

What do you think?Osli73 19:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

can we lave the article alone now until the verdict comes in this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.134 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm off on vacation. I'll leave it to you to update. Thank's in advance. RegardsOsli73 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

attack on Kravica

The article states that an estimated 11 persons were killed. The sources (including Times online) state either 43 or 48 (rather confusing). What should the figure be?Osli73 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Bosniak complaints" and "Serb allegations" sections

I never liked these two sections to begin with and now I suggest taking them out.

All sides in the Bosnian war have complained, more or less, about unfair treatment by the ICTY. Since the trial is now over and done there really is no good reason to keep the "Bosniak complaints" section in the article. I war really just voicing complaints of the trial made by some supporters of Oric. The Bosnian govt. never seemed to voice any complaints.

Just as all sides in the Bosnian war seem to complain about the ICTY, they also seem to have an inclination to focus on and/or exaggerate their status as victims. The report by the Serbian government from 1994 referred to in the "Serb allegations" section is probably an example of this. I can't see that it has been references to by any 'impartial' organizations (or, indeed, the ICTY). Therefore I suggest taking it out of the article.

Let me know what your thoughts are before I take action. Osli73 23:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am oppsed to the idea. The Bosniak allegations are gennuine and deserve to be a part of the article since Oric is a key figure in the Bosnian War. The Serbs believe that their allegations are genuine and have often repeated them. In any caselet them stay. Bigz 10:30, 27 July 2006 (EDT)

Bigz and others,

Since the Bosniak complaints was related to the trial and that is not over, what is the reason for letting this, in my opnion, very peripheral information, remain in the article? So what if some people didn't like Oric being indicted and then found things to complain about? These complaints were never, to my knowledge, voiced by any Bosnian officials. More like something from a blog.

About the Serb allegations, yes, these were some of the claims made by the Serbian government duing the war. However, it doesn't appear that the anyone is still referring to this report (again, at least not anyone outside the blogosphere). So, isn't this also rather peripheral to an article about Naser Oric?

Let's try to keep the article concise.... Osli73 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Emir Arven, comments on your edits

Emir, A few comments on your edits:

• You keep reverting to a text in the intro that says "He was acquitted on other the other charges of wanton destruction and causing..." This is incorrect grammar, one "other" too many.
• Using the word "allegations" with regard to the Serb casualties issue is not using a neutral tone (see Wiki NPV article). Better to just say "Serb civilians killed", which is not disputed (though the exact number is) and is, in my opinion, a neutral tone.
• Bosniak allegations - this this long list is here it is necessary to somehow qualify exactly who has made these allegations and who has not. The reader should know if they have any official backing or not.
• Regarding the Serb casualties, I have used a press briefing by the ICTY prosecutors office and the RDC as souces. What can be wrong with that?
• Why do you feel that readers of the article should not be informed that the prosecution (and the defence, apparently) has appealed the verdict?

Please comment here before you engage in another round of edits. Cheers Osli73 13:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Pls see the Srebrenica massacre talk page on the TOL article I cited and linked to.Osli73 13:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OSLI 73 What the F**K?

It is accepted by all sides that Bosniak forces killed a large number of Serbs in and around Srebrenica during the period 1992-1995. However, the number of victims is disputed with a range from about 500 to over 3,000 killed. It is also claimed that Serb casualties, during the 1992-93 period in particular, motivated the Serb forces to seek revenge on the Bosniak inhabitants of Srebrenica.[5] [6] Whi accepted what?This entire section seems to be aimed at justifying what happened in Srebrenica in 1995

   * According to the Belgrade Centre for Researching Crimes against Serbs 3,227 Serbs were killed in the area of the municipality of Srebrenica 1992-1995.[7]. In a press briefing, a spokesperson for the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor says that "this figure may have been inflated" and clearly includes military casualties.[8]
   * According to the Serb Republic's Commission for War Crimes the number of Serb civilian victims in the municipalities of Bratunac, Srebrenica and Skelani is 995, of which 520 in Bratunac and 475 in Srebrenica.[9] This source can hardly be considered neutral
   * In his book "The Chronicle of Our Graves" Milivoje Ivanisevic (the president of the Belgrade Centre for Investigating Crimes Committed against the Serbs) estimates the number of civilians killed to around 1,200 persons. However, these figures include men of military age.[10][11]
   * In a book published by the RS Ministry of Interior ("For the Honourable Cross and Golden Freedom") the number Serb civilian victims for the Bratunac-Srebrenica-Skelani region is set at 641.[12] Fewevr than 2,000 Serb civilans died in the entire war. Some were victims of the Siege of Sarajevo and of serb guns and Snipers.
   * An investigation by the Sarajevo-based Research and Documentation Center into the number of Serb casualties in the Bratunac municipality, near Srebrenica, during the war found evidence that 119 civilians and 424 soldiers... died in Batunac during the war."[13].

According to many, Serb casualties and losses during the period prior to the creation of the safe area gave rise to demands for revenge against the Bosniaks based in Srebrenica. The Dutch government's 2002 report into the Srebrenica massacre states that:

   The Muslim attacks during the first year of the war appear to have caused the most resentment among the Serbs, who felt deeply humiliated by Oric. It is primarily defeats in places such as Zalazje, Podravanje, Fakovici and Kravica that Serbs wanted to avenge. Probably, that thirst for vengeance was one of the main driving forces behind the massacres in July [1995]. [14]

It goes on to say that:

   The Serbs’ drive for revenge in 1995 was inspired primarily by events in 1992 and 1993, when over a thousand Serbs were killed by Muslim forces... These attacks intensified in frequency and violence during the autumn and winter of 1992-1993. As a result, many Serbs were killed or driven from their homes. Numerous Serb villages were also destroyed. This left the Serbs feeling victimised and deeply humiliated, particularly after the fall of Kravica in January 1993. Largely blind to what Serb politicians and militiamen had inflicted on the Muslim population when the war began, most Serbs felt Srebrenica had become ‘an epicentre of genocide’. They had already suffered genocide once, and were determined to settle the accounts as soon as the opportunity presented itself.[15

Why are you trying to justify genocide by including

You cannot justify genocide or attempt to eqaute 1992-3 with 1995 especially since the fact is that the tale of 1000 dead serbs is a myth. I am stiking this entire section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.153.114 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous,

I am not justifying anything. How do these statements justify the Srebrenica massacre? They may go some way to explaining it - which is why I added them - but they do not justify them. Do you see the difference?

Cheers Osli73 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

My God, the intro is most definately POV - "shamefully"? "Shamefully" is NOT a word for an encyclopedia. Also, the article fails a note that Carla del Ponte has pressed charges to dismiss the trial and it appears that he will be trialled again - this time probably for the alleged killing of over 3,000 Serbs... --HolyRomanEmperor 12:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Go and add (after verification). --HanzoHattori 11:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Enden

Oh wow, let's see. Sources: un.org and press are fine (unless saying things rejected as utrue in trial and verdicts), milosevic.org and compatible ars not. Whole section about one article is silly, especially with quotes already taken from context ("we ambushed them", "launched them to the moon", etc - it sounds here like if it was about massacring civilians or something - but it wasn't, and you'd hear similiar bravado bragging today from, say, US soldiers in Iraq), and listed one after other from an obviously POV reasons. Also, he was acquitted of all wanton destruction and pillage accustations.

Also, Oric had limited command and control - some others' militias even refused taking orders from him at all, even after integrating into ARBiH (like the Glogova independent battalion, even in 1995). That's why he was on trial only for things that were in his responsibilty (and so the "rape" story - he wasn't accused of any rape, too, and guess why). It should be also called "black market and prostitution ring allegations" or something, because taking anything from the war-time RS TV is just not serious (and somewhere in the ending notes rather, because of a little importance). --HanzoHattori 11:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Or the "other allegations". --HanzoHattori 11:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The milosevic.org source was just a reprint of a BBC Monitoring report that is in turn a reprint of an SRNA article. I see no problem with using it as the section deals with Serb allegations.

Also, the "meets the press" segment (which has two articles, not one) should probably be integrated with the Bosniak counteroffensive segment, which I will do. However, I do not see how the quotes in question are out of context. Read the articles and tell me where there is context that will paint a different picture of the quotes. When Oric plays Bill Schiller the segment of the tape "of a bullet-marked ghost town" and says "'We killed 114 Serbs there,'" I am not sure what other context that can be put in. When Oric says "We launched those guys to the moon," he literally means he blew them up, as the article explicitly spells out. And how many U.S. soldiers in Iraq decapitate people ("severed heads") and brag about using "cold weapons" (i.e. knives)?

Let's see, no justification from you for deleting General Philippe Morillon's evidence.

You are correct that the title of the rape section needs to be expanded, which I will do. Saying the girls aren't credible because they appeared before RS TV is silly. The Dutch report does not dismiss them and one of them gave an interview to the Scotsman, which I linked.

Also, I think you are putting far too much confidence in the dubious ICTY ruling (which, in any case, is being appealed), for which see here. Enden 23:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, much of the evidence about the prostition and black marketing comes from the Dutchbat in Srebrenica, as the Dutch report makes clear. This does not come from RS TV. Enden 23:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Town - they meant a village. Bullet-marked, obviously, because there was a battle. "He killed two of my men" - hey, guess what happened? Word "civilians" isn't even used anywhere in the articles, it's just "Serbs". Newsflash: there was a war here. And what's so wrong with using knives, or blowing up enemy soldiers? Is it worse than shooting people, or maybe killing them with bare hands? (Oric began to train his men as guerrillas in laying ambushes, knocking out tanks using Molotov cocktails and in hand-to-hand combat culminating in killing the opponent with a knife.[7]) Now, turn on TV and see how, for example, US soldiers in Iraq are bragging about their "kills" to a news teams ("it was awesome", "totally wasted 'em", things like that - and a filmed "pathetic" bodies, of course). It's not like he was showing any atrocity tape, and we know about MANY from the former Yugoslavia elsewhere (this [8], for example). As for a Dutch report, that's why I suggested "Other allegations" or something (obviously not the Serb section), but the "rape by Oric" is specifically from war-time RS media (Both girls returned to the enclave later that month after having made a few statements in front of the local press and Bosnian Serb television). --HanzoHattori 13:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You left out the part about how the village was... uh... empty. Meaning that the population was driven out. Some "battle." Sounds to me more like ethnic cleansing, and one can only assume with attendant gratitious killings of civillians (indeed, Oric "admitted himself" according to Morillon, that "he conducted a war from this enclave which provoked massacres of the Serb population in the surrounding villages." [9]) Interestingly enough, "ethnic cleansing" is what the 1998 UN Srebrenica report called the methods of Oric and his men. [10] You have also conflated two incidents on the tape, one in which Oric and his men burn down the home of a Serb (who had in the past killed two of Oric's soldiers) with the "ghost town" incident, to imply that the latter incident was a "battle."

Also, I would have the same opinion of U.S. soldiers who bragged about detonating and decapitating people and video taped it for their own personal viewing pleasure (and Oric did derive pleasure from it, as he "grinned" throughout the entire thing). Of course, nothing that can be seen on CNN is of that nature, and for good reason. CNN doesn't play home videos like this (for good reason), just war correspondent's footage. Your parallel is ludicrous. Enden 19:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Or fled (not without a reason, but on this later). Of course a battle, Serb soldiers or a local militiamen were in every village under their control. As for US soldiers mutilitating bodies etc, check out Vietnam (cutting off body parts and keeping them "for luck" or to present their "kills" for starters - then go on for the CIA "spooks" paying a minority mercenaries for a heads of suspected VC, and more).Say what you want about Oric, but I don't remember him having a necklace of ears or anything. The Russians since 2002 even have an official policy of destroying enemy bodies, it's a "law" supposedly. As for Iraq, I've seen plenty photos by US soldiers of insurgents "wasted" with a large calibre weapons, or burned, or otherwise disfigured (no heads too, why?), and then posted them on the Internet (and as you probably know from the Abu Ghraib scandal, they have plenty of digital cameras and use them a lot - just like the insurgents love their own camcorders). They weren't very shy for TV news team with shooting these wounded insurgents in the mosque too, for example (not really an isolated incidents, there was more). And dragging enemies bodies together for a display is just a standard practice everywhere (US officers in Vietnam would then place the "death cards" on bodies, so their comrades would know which unit killed them - whole ritual). Heaps for an extra cool points.

Oric himself would have played by the Serb rules (learn what happened in area on the start of the war), except we have Serb witnesses who said he was good to them after they were captured (see trial). And so he was sentented for not disciplining his men who commited crimes on their own initiative, not doing or ordering anything wrong himself - to the point one Serb witness asked why is he on trial really, and not the guy who had tortured him. And it was established he had actually little control, unless he personally led the raid (especially on starving masses of torbari - and they would even fight for the air drops among themseles). And he had some serious conflicts with others military commanders, not only civilian authorities. It was popular story that if anything bad happened to Serbs - it was Naser Oric the bloodthirsty Muslim warlord who controlled just everything, but I thought the trial would have dismissed this as just a myth. Oh, and about "oh no, bullet marks" - Balkan mass murders were not by going in and madly shooting everywhere (and the enclave was very low on ammunition - guess what, a siege), it was usually systematically rounding up and "disposing" people. --HanzoHattori 22:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is going to be my last comment here, so I'll make it quick.

Anyway, yes, of course I am aware that gruesome acts are committed by soldiers all the time, in Iraq, Vietnam (famously so), etc. My point was that this is not typical boys will be boys stuff, played on network news (I missed CNN playing the tape of killing the wounded insurgents inside a mosque, but that is still not up to the level of gruesomeness on Oric's tapes). Also, Oric wasn't just any soldier, he was in a position of command, and he made his policy of provoking massacres of Serbs clear to General Morillon. As for the ICTY judgement, I've already provided a link to an analysis of it.

Oh yes, and here's my timestamp. :P Enden 00:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

ICTY judgement and attack on villages of Kravica, ....

Emir Arven, The ICTY judgment (see summary of ICTY judgement on their website) reads as follows regarding the attack on the villages in question:

"On 7 and 8 January 1993, Kravica, Siljkovici and Jezestica were attacked by Bosnian Muslim fighters from Suceska, Glogova, Biljeg, Mosici, Delici, Cerska, Skugrici, Jaglici, Susnjari, Brezova Njiva, Osmace, Konjevic Polje, Jagodnja, and Joseva. Also the Accused and members of his group of fighters participated in the attack. The fighters were followed by thousands of Bosnian Muslim civilians. At the time of the attack, there were relatively well-armed village guards and some Bosnian Serb civilians in Kravica, Siljkovici and Jezestica. Evidence shows that there was also Bosnian Serb military presence in the area. The attack met with resistance. Bosnian Serbs fired artillery on the attacking Bosnian Muslims from houses and other buildings. Houses in the area were burning. In Jezestica, Bosnian Muslim fighters and civilians set many houses on fire, causing destruction on a large scale. In Kravica, property was also destroyed on a large scale. However, the evidence is unclear as to the number of houses that were wantonly destroyed by Bosnian Muslims, as opposed to other causes. As to Siljkovici, there is insufficient evidence to establish that property was destroyed on a large scale."

So, the ICTY does not question whether or not the Bosniak forces actually attacked the villages. What they are uncertain about is whether or not it was a case of "wanton destruction" or not.

Regards Osli73 20:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You removed this part:

As for the destruction in the villages of Kravica, Siljkovići, Bjelovac, Fakovići and Sikiric, the judgment states that the prosecution failed to present convincing evidence that the Bosnian forces were responsible for them, because the Serb forces used artillery in the fighting in those villages. In the case of the village of Bjelovac, Serbs even used the warplanes.[11] --Emir Arven 20:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So you are vandalising this article. Read the source. --Emir Arven 20:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not remove it. I reverted to a previous version which did not include this paragraph. As for the paragraph, please note that the ICTY did not say that the Bosniak forces did not attack them or did not destory them, only that it was not certain enough that it was "wanton destruction".

Cheers Osli73 20:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty clear what it is about, so there is a source for that. --Emir Arven 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And, yes you did remove it, earlier. Let me refresh your memory [12]. So, no need to lie. Regards.--Emir Arven 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for forgetting that edit (almost a month ago). My point then was that the Court only found that it did not have enough evidence to say for certain that the Bosniak forces had wantonly destroyed the villages, not whether or not they had attacked them or whether or not they had participated in destroying them. Please take a look at my proposed text which is a bit more specific.

Regards Osli73 21:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, again you are deleting my part (sourced).

You also forgot to put introduction of the judgement which explained that Srebrenica was surrounded by Serb forces, without food, which is very important, because attacks were in order to survive the siege. So I put it from the ICTY source, also I noticed that you changed some words in order to minimize the real situation. --Emir Arven 21:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica genocide blogspot & characterization of RDC (and others)

Emir Arven,

The reason for removing the Srebrenica genocide blogspot was that (1) there were other, better, sources so it was not necessary to have it and (2) using personal blogs (and one run by a Wikipedia editor (User:Bosniak) as sources just isn't very appropriate - it's personal commentary by it's very nature.

The RDC may very well be internationally sponsored, in fact it seems to have quite a close cooperation with the ICTY, but that does not mean that it needs to be characterised as such. It is characterising things as "nationalist", "internationally sponsored" or "military base" (as opposed to "village") which contribute to a POV tone in an article. It is better then to not unduly apply such labels/epitets.

Regards Osli73 08:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Kamenica ?

The link to Kamenica in the article points to disambiguation and the external link used as source does mention it at all. The disambig mentions no such village in Bosnia. Pavel Vozenilek 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Pavel,

The Kamenica referred to in this case is approx. 2 km south of the village of Zemljice and approx. 10 km east of Zepa in eastern Bosnia. Just a couple of km from the Serbian border. :Check it out on www.map24.se or similar.

Regards Osli73 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed. Pavel Vozenilek 14:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of Srebrenica genocide blog as a reference

Krusko, I don't think it is appropriate to use the "Srebrenica genocide blog" as reference for two reasons:

1. It is a personal blog and therefore not a good source
2. It is administered by a Wiki editors (User:Bosniak) active in the Srebrenica massacre and this article.

Better to link directly to the material referred to in the blog. Regards Osli73 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I've removed the recently added "Disputed tag" since there is no justification/explanation for it in the Talk page. The information presented is sourced. Osli73 12:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well then:

1. "After the Serbs had left or been driven out of Srebrenica..." implies that some Serbs were driven out of Srebrenica. I want an objective, accurate, and up to date source that can verify this claim.
2. "Orić's attacks on Serb villages around Srebrenica..." implies that - well - these villages were "Serb". In fact, many (if not most) of the villages the article goes on to list were primarily populated by Bosniaks prior to the war - one need only check the 1991 census results. They were ethnically cleansed of their original inhabitants and then set up as military outposts, but this article would make it seem as if they were ancient Serbian civilian
3. Of the two sources for the sixth bullet point, one doesn't work and the other makes no mention of the "at least 24 Serbs" killed or "120 houses" burned down - the latter being a number that, at first sight, seems highly improbably for a hamlet in upper Podrinje.
4. Where precisely does the source listed say that Oric's forces expelled the Serb population of "Bjelovac, Voljavica, Loznica, and Sikiric"
5. The article continously refers to "Bosniak forces". While understandable in a region such as Podrinje, I'd still prefer that the article refers to the involved groups by their official names (ARBiH, VRS, etc.).
6. The sources for the last point, where the article claims 48 Serbs were killed, do not work.

I am looking forward to your thorough response to all these points. Live Forever 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The Serb forces were driven out by the early guerilla campaign, after the Srebrenica Serb leader was killed in the ambush. The civilians left with them then or later (after all, who would live in the starving overcrowded shelled city now also full of crazed survivor refugees?). --HanzoHattori 17:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. Now we just need to find a source for that and reword it, because the present text almost implies ethnic cleansing. Live Forever 00:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Here, have some court material reading about the original Serb (Goran Zekic-led) takeover of Srebrenica and associated events: [13][14]. --HanzoHattori 08:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

14 Q. So when did the barricades go up and it become impossible to leave

15 Srebrenica?

16 A. The barricades were set up in April 1992 so we couldn't leave

17 anymore. It was in late March and early April; nobody could leave

18 Srebrenica anymore after that.

19 Q. And at a certain stage did the Serbs take over the SUP and fire

20 the Muslims from there?

21 A. In the meantime the Serbs evacuated their families, their wives,

22 and children from Srebrenica, and we were wondering why they were doing

23 that. The people who stayed were men who dressed in former JNA uniforms.

24 My neighbours, Serbs, all dressed in former JNA uniforms. They simply

25 disbanded the police, the milicija, at the time, the Muslims that were

Page 9659

1 there. The chief at the time, Hamed Efendic, was dismissed as well. And

2 they took over all the key structures in Srebrenica.

3 Q. Now, did there come a time when you had to leave your house in

4 Srebrenica?

5 A. Yes, of course. We simply sensed danger because my neighbours,

6 Serbs, had taken up arms, and those who had left Srebrenica had left, and

7 those who had stayed behind, stayed behind. We were simply trying to save

8 ourselves by staying close to the woods. My brothers had a house that was

9 closest to the woods, so we went to their place and we were simply waiting

10 for something to be resolved.

11 Q. Was there ever any specific event which led to you actually

12 spending the night or nights in the woods?

13 A. We were still staying at my brother's place. It snowed even

14 though it was not -- it was still -- it was not the usual time for it to

15 snow. The fruit trees for already blossoming. So we could hear some

16 shelling in the area of Potocari, and my husband said that he assumed that

17 these were mortars because he was an expert in weapons, he knew about

18 weapons.

Potocari was Oric's stronghold of course.

And by "crazed refugees" I meant this:

10 Q. Thank you. Now, did you personally have any problems or

11 difficulties with refugees who were coming into Srebrenica in the summer

12 of 1992?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Could you just give us an idea of some of those problems?

15 A. We were in our apartment, and all of a sudden, it was like

16 floodgates breaking and the refugees starting -- getting into those two

17 buildings, and they opened the doors to my apartment and I wasn't counting

18 them but there were certainly more than 30 of them, and we were so scared

19 that the four of us just huddled in a corner. My husband and my two

20 children and myself, we just didn't know what was going on. We were

21 scared. And they went into the rooms and the kitchen and the corridor,

22 and they kept saying, this is ours. And they -- some of them had some

23 bags, others didn't. And they spent several days in our apartment. And

24 we were not allowed to tell them anything at all because they had been

25 driven out of their homes and each and every one of them had something

Page 10075

1 really bad, some terrible experience to tell us about, so my husband and I

2 simply did not dare tell them and explain to them that it was our

3 apartment, that they had to leave, that several of them perhaps could

4 stay, that we were happy to help, and so it was a period that lasted for

5 about five or six days where we tried to put it to them gently that it

6 would be better for them to leave, that there are other vacant areas, and

7 to get at least some of them to leave my apartment.

8 Q. Why couldn't you have them ejected by calling on the police or

9 local authorities if such existed?

10 A. What police?

11 Q. Thank you. I take it from that that there was no police force

12 that you were aware of at that time?

13 A. I mean, I've told you what the situation was like in Srebrenica,

14 and nothing whatsoever existed there. No local authority or anything like

15 that. That had existed before the war, but afterwards, nothing.

16 Q. When did these refugees come into your apartment?

17 A. In April -- no, sorry, in May. It was in May.

18 Q. And the year, please, just for the record?

19 A. 1992.

Before leaving, the Serbs also burned and plundered Srebrenica, and killed many Muslim civilians who didn't flee to the woods first (during the later part of these 20 days).

15 Q. Now, Ms. Hotic, you were telling us how you went back into

16 Srebrenica. Can you just tell us briefly in what state you found the town

17 when you returned?

18 A. There wasn't a soul in town. There was nobody there. When we

19 entered the town and we walked down the streets we saw burnt down houses,

20 some totally burnt down, some only partially. In some cases half a house

21 was left standing or a couple of rooms were left standing. But all houses

22 had been broken in, all furniture was in disarray, whatever was of value

23 was taken away, and it was a ghost town.

24 And then we all went to our own places and we tried to make at

25 least a little bit of those homes habitable. Only the apartment buildings

Page 9671

1 next to the hospital were not set on fire, but all the houses as of the

2 bus station and higher up, and that part on the way out from Srebrenica

3 was not set on fire, so it was possible for us to spend some time there.

4 But everything had been looted.

5 Q. And did you ever speak to anyone in Srebrenica who had actually

6 been an eye-witness to the burning of houses?

7 A. Yes, I talked to Hasa Selmanagic. She was at the very centre of

8 town near the mosque. She had a house there, and she didn't manage to

9 flee to the woods, and she tried to defend her house and she was trying to

10 put the fire out. There were only two or three people setting fire to

11 houses because we could actually see them using the binoculars.

There were also executions.

As for the also mentioned "attacks on the Serb villages":

6 A. I can. I set off like every other time, with other people. There

7 were women, children, and whoever was able to walk. Some elderly women as

8 well who were strong enough to walk. There were thousands and thousands

9 of us. I can't tell you how many thousands. And wherever we went looking

10 for food -- I mean, I can't really specify but we are talking about at

11 least 20.000 people on the move. And I got to Sase and there was horrible

12 shooting. I could hear it coming from Sase. And I paid no heed to that

13 and the others didn't either. We were like hungry hyenas. We were so

14 starved and we gathered up all our strength simply to get our hands on

15 some food. The other refugees -- I mean, I myself was in a slightly

16 better situation because I was in my own home and I had my own bed to

17 sleep in and I had my own crockery, my own sheets, and all that, but there

18 were people who were much worse off; the refugees, I mean, they had

19 nothing at all. What was important to them was to get into a house, any

20 house, no matter whether it was a Serb or a Muslim house, they needed to

21 get their hands on some clothes, maybe get some pants, because they had no

22 property at all. They couldn't even change their children's clothes.

23 Now, I myself did not need any of that. All I needed was some food.

24 Q. Thank you for that. But if you could focus on Sase and --

25 firstly, you've told us how you would go looking for food. Did you find

Page 10096

1 any food in Sase?

2 A. First of all, when I entered Sase, I was surprised. I saw depots

3 such as you wouldn't believe. Today, looking back, if I think of that, I

4 simply can't help wondering how anyone managed to stay alive in Srebrenica

5 since we saw so many casing and cartridges et cetera, and they had

6 antiaircraft machine-guns and guns and those are these weapons that they

7 called PAMs, and I kept wondering throughout the war how powerful a weapon

8 it had to be, but when I got up to Sase I was really surprised to see how

9 many lethal weapons must have been used. There were piles of these

10 casings and cartridges, and it was only from that one single village that

11 all of that had been fired.

Kravica:

5 A. I could not enter Kravica, not just I myself but the rest of us.

6 I don't know whether there were fighters but there were some people

7 wearing civilian clothes, they were men. And they were preventing us from

8 going into Kravica. They were telling us not to go and they even pointed

9 their guns at us and they said we'll shoot you, turn back. But there was

10 no possibility of stopping us from going. Nobody could stand in my way

11 because my only intention was to get food. I focused on that only because

12 that was the only source of food in Kravica because we knew that there

13 were Serbs living there and we knew that that was the only last source of

14 food that was still left and that was the only way we could ensure our

15 survival.

16 Q. Now, these people who tried to stop you, were they Muslims or

17 Serbs, to your knowledge?

18 A. Muslims, of course, not Serbs.

19 Q. And they tried to turn you back, to stop you going, but I take it

20 they didn't stop you or they weren't able to?

21 A. Well, they were trying. They were doing their best in order to

22 try and stop us. They were threatening us, they were shooting into the

23 air. Some of them even pointed their guns and rifles at us and they were

24 swearing at us but there is no one who can stand in the way of a crowd, of

25 a hungry, starved crowd of people. There is nothing that can stop that

--HanzoHattori 08:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Live Forever,

1. Whether they fled or were driven out is difficult to say (just as the case of Serb refugees in Krajina). For sure the Serb forces were driven out and since they 'defended' the Serb population one could say that it was also "driven out". Let's just write "after the Serb forces had been driven out of Srebrenica..." That shouldn't be controversial.
2. In this context, "Serb villages" implies that they were populated by Serbs. If they had been mixed in the past isn't really the point.
3. You're right. The NIOD links have come undone. However, it's found in chapter 7 of Appendix IV. The text reads:

   On 5 October 1992, Muslims launched massive attacks on Fakovici and other Serb villages along the Drina, killing at least twenty-four Serbs and burning down 120 houses. The villages were looted, and in Fakovici the church was desecrated. The attackers seized huge amounts of food, and also shot at Serbs at the other (i.e. Serbian) side of the Drina. Serbs fled with small boats over to Serbia. Muslims now controlled most villages along the Drina River, from where they could shell Bratunac.[15].

   In the ICTY judgement against Oric the info is found in para 7 under "Findings of Wanton Destruction":

   On 5 October 1992, Fakovici and Divovici were attacked by Bosnian Muslim fighters from Osmace, Suceska, Kragljivoda, Zanjevo, Jagodnja, Joseva and Tokoljaki, who were followed by thousands of Bosnian Muslim civilians. The Accused participated in the attack. At the time of the attack, there were relatively well-armed village guards as well as Bosnian Serb civilians in Fakovici and Divovici. Evidence indicates that there was also Bosnian Serb military presence in Fakovici. The attack met with resistance, and Bosnian Serbs fired on the attacking Bosnian Muslims from houses. In the course of the attack, several houses began to burn. On the afternoon of 5 October 1992, a Serb counter-attack, which included shelling and bombing of the area, was launched. Subsequently, the Bosnian Muslim fighters and some of the Bosnian Muslim civilians withdrew, whereas other Bosnian Muslim civilians stayed behind to look for food and building materials.[16].

   So, this is pretty solidly sourced.
4. Para 9 under "Findings of Wanton Destruction" in the ICTY judgement reads

   Between 14 and 19 December 1992, Bjelovac and Sikiric were attacked by Bosnian Muslim fighters from Voljevica, Biljaca, Potocari, Kazani, Luljaska, Suceska, Pale, Likari and Srebrenica Stari Grad, who were followed by thousands of Bosnian Muslim civilians.

   The NIOD report reads

   Despite these efforts, however, Muslims succeeded in expelling the Serb populations of the villages of Bjelovac, Voljavica, Loznica, and Sikiric on 14 December 1992.

5. Fine. However, I don't think this is cause for putting up a "Disputed" tag.
6. Again, this is from Ch. 7 in Appendix IV in the NIOD report:

   "The Muslim attacks still continued, however. Instead of taking Bratunac, which was his ultimate ambition, Oric decided to carry out an attack on Skelani. His aim was to destroy the bridge over the Drina river and to prevent Serbs from sending reinforcements from Serbia. Two Muslim attempts to mine the bridge had already failed in November.[18] The attack on Skelani took place on 16 January 1993. It resulted in at least forty-eight Serb deaths died, including those of some civilians trying to escape over the bridge to the other side of the Drina. Once again, however, the Muslim plan failed, and Skelani remained in Serb hands."[17].

   The other source is also from the NIOD report.

I hope these replies have satisfied you. Osli73 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

2. What if the village was formerly Muslim? What if they contained no civilians beyond these supporting the troops (kitchen etc)?

3. The Serbs across Drina were firing too (including artillery). No one controlled the masses of torbari (and they couldn't be stopped), some of them armed with the captured weapons. We are talking about the command responsibility (the troops under his command, and his orders), not the thousands of starving civilians who were eating pig meat (being Muslim) and were fighting for the airdrops. Also battle damage is not arson. --HanzoHattori 15:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo,

2. The point is that we're using the wording of the source. We're not supposed to make our own speculation.

3. What are you objecting to?

Osli73 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Osli, thanks for your quick response. I'm currently pretty busy, but I will re-join the discussion as soon as I can tomorrow. Live Forever 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Live Forever, no problems. In the meantime, I'll try to fix those references which were dead-ends. Cheers Osli73 06:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then. To continue responding point by point...

1. "After the Serb forces had been driven out of Srebrenica..." is fine by me.
2. While I can understand where you're coming from, I hope you can also realize that in this context "attacks on Serb villages" naturally implies attacks on Serb civilian centers - which, as we have seen, is not necessarily true. The article should use some more neutral wording.
3. Alright, although I would prefer that the article specifically mentions "According to the NIOD report" since its accuracy in these matters is a little questionable (see Kravica).
4. See above.
5. Very well
6. Same as points 3 and 4.

Live Forever 18:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Live Forever, my reply to your reply above:

1. Good.
2. You're righ. In fact, I'd be fine with just listing the names of the villages without any mention of their supposed ethnicity. OK?
3. OK. No problem saying "according to the NIOD report (Dutch government investigation)" or something like that. However, if it the info is corroborated by the ICTY judgement, are you OK with not specifying the sources in text?
4. OK.
5. Good.
6. OK.

Fine if I make the adjustments? Let me know if I have missed / misunderstoood anything. Cheers Osli73 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oric.JPG

Image:Oric.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

rv of edits by GG

I have reverted the edits by Grandy Grandy as they are POV.Osli73 (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

revert of edits by The Dragon of Bosnia

I have repeatedly reverted edits by The Dragon of Bosnia which I believe are essentially WP:POV. Here is why:

1. He has deleted "The Bosniak offensive" section, which outlines the background to Oric's subsequent ICTY indictment and judgement (indeed, the information comes mainly from the ICTY) and replaced it with references to a UN General Assembly report on the role of Bosniak forces on the ground prior to the Srebrenica massacre. That report does not specifically pertain to Naser Oric, which is why the ICTY judgement against him, a much better and more well researched report, is the more appropriate source.
2. he has removed the entire list of attacks on Serb villages included in the ICTY judgement
3. he has removed a number of the sources on the number of Serbs killed in the region under Oric's command. No reason given.
4. he also misrepresents and diminishes the ICTY's judgement against Oric.

RegardsOsli73 (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It now seems Grandy Grandy is making these same edits. The same explanation for my reverts of these edits stands. Please see above (and discuss). RegardsOsli73 (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbs Attacked Muslim Villages from 1992-1995

Oric trial judgment makes it clear that Serb villages were heavily militarized and used to attack Bosniak villages and the town of Srebrenica:

"Between April 1992 and March 1993, Srebrenica town and the villages in the area held by Bosnian Muslims were constantly subjected to Serb military assaults, including artillery attacks, sniper fire, as well as occasional bombing from aircrafts. Each onslaught followed a similar pattern. Serb soldiers and paramilitaries surrounded a Bosnian Muslim village or hamlet, called upon the population to surrender their weapons, and then began with indiscriminate shelling and shooting. In most cases, they then entered the village or hamlet, expelled or killed the population, who offered no significant resistance, and destroyed their homes. During this period, Srebrenica was subjected to indiscriminate shelling from all directions on a daily basis. Potočari in particular was a daily target for Serb artillery and infantry because it was a sensitive point in the defence line around Srebrenica. Other Bosnian Muslim settlements were routinely attacked as well. All this resulted in a great number of refugees and casualties.... The fighting intensified in December 1992 and the beginning of January 1993, when Bosnian Muslims were attacked by Bosnian Serbs primarily from the direction of Kravica and Ježestica. In the early morning of the 7 January 1993, Orthodox Christmas day, Bosnian Muslims attacked Kravica, Ježestica and Šiljkovići. Convincing evidence suggests that the village guards were backed by the VRS [Bosnian Serb Army], and following the fighting in the summer of 1992, they received military support, including weapons and training. A considerable amount of weapons and ammunition was kept in Kravica and Šiljkovići. Moreover, there is evidence that besides the village guards, there was Serb and Bosnian Serb military presence in the area. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosniak (talk • contribs) 23:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

1992

By early May 1992 the Bosniak forces began to organized pillages en murdered Serbian civilians in and around Srebrenica. Firstly this is ridiculous and second there is no source for this. It will now be removed as reason stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.136.107 (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Naser Orić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://213.222.3.5/srebrenica/toc/p2_c02_s004_b01.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/ori-2ai041004e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Naser Orić. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1684669_2,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Naser Orić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824013338/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/07/icty-prosecutor-appeals-light-sentence.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/07/icty-prosecutor-appeals-light-sentence.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006143655/http://www.sense-agency.com/en/stream.php?sta=3&pid=8295&kat=3 to http://www.sense-agency.com/en/stream.php?sta=3&pid=8295&kat=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Naser Orić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140308072445/http://www.tuzilastvorz.org.rs/html_trz/VESTI_SAOPSTENJA_2014/VS_2014_01_29_ENG.pdf to http://www.tuzilastvorz.org.rs/html_trz/VESTI_SAOPSTENJA_2014/VS_2014_01_29_ENG.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150625070049/http://radiosarajevo.ba/novost/192677/srebrenicani-o-slucaju-orica-ako-komandant-bude-izrucen-srbiji-svasta-ce-se-desiti to http://radiosarajevo.ba/novost/192677/srebrenicani-o-slucaju-orica-ako-komandant-bude-izrucen-srbiji-svasta-ce-se-desiti

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)