58.165.115.192 (talk) How dare you not read WP:RS! |
Emir Arven (talk | contribs) User:Ivan Kricancic, don't remove other's comments |
||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
:The article describes the volunteers on the Croat side as "Western radicals", they were in fact neo-Nazis who wanted to continue WWII battles. [[User:217.134.124.136|217.134.124.136]] 16:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
:The article describes the volunteers on the Croat side as "Western radicals", they were in fact neo-Nazis who wanted to continue WWII battles. [[User:217.134.124.136|217.134.124.136]] 16:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
::See. I rest in my case. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:HarisM|HarisM]] ([[User talk:HarisM|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HarisM|contribs]]) 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
::See. I rest in my case. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:HarisM|HarisM]] ([[User talk:HarisM|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HarisM|contribs]]) 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
||
:::You haven't presented any case yet. [[Searchlight (magazine)|Searchlight]] is a respected anti-fascist publication. You seem to want to cover-up fascist activity. Calling these people "Western radicals" is just an insulting cop-out. [[User:195.92.67.74|195.92.67.74]] 22:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Haha, oh wow. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
Haha, oh wow. --[[User:HanzoHattori|HanzoHattori]] 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
Wow indeed, they didn't just attack Serbs: From the Croatian News Agency-HINA; [http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=35008] |
|||
::The only foreign volunteer convicted of war crimes is neo-nazi [[Jackie Arklov]], when he was in Croat army. [[User:Emir Arven|Emir Arven]] 04:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC) |
::The only foreign volunteer convicted of war crimes is neo-nazi [[Jackie Arklov]], when he was in Croat army. [[User:Emir Arven|Emir Arven]] 04:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
'''Swedish Neo-Nazi Indicted For War Crimes Committed In Bosnia''' |
|||
Monday , 17 July 2006 |
|||
A Swedish neo-Nazi has been indicted for war crimes he allegedly committed in the 1990s in Bosnia-Herzegovina where he fought on the Bosnian Croat side, prosecutors announced in Stockholm on Friday. |
|||
Jackie Arkloev, a naturalised Swede born in Liberia in 1973, is charged with committing war crimes, including the ill-treatment and torture of Bosnian Muslim prisoners in the Bosnian Croat-run Gabela and Grabovina detention camps in 1993, while fighting as a volunteer within the ranks of the Croat Defence Council (HVO), Prosecutor Lise Tamm told Swedish radio. |
|||
Arkloev is currently serving a life sentence for murdering two Swedish police officers in 1999 after a bank robbery in which he participated together with two other neo-Nazis and members of the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang Tany Olsson and Andreas Axelsson. |
|||
In 1995, Arkloev was sentenced by a Bosnian court to 13 years in prison for war crimes, and the sentence was later reduced to eight years. He was sent to serve the sentence in the central Bosnian town of Zenica, but after spending seven weeks in prison there, which he described as the worst experience in his life, Sweden asked Bosnian authorities for his extradition, guaranteeing that he would serve his sentence in a Swedish prison. |
|||
On arriving at Stockholm airport, Arkloev was released under as yet unclear circumstances. During the extradition process the Swedish authorities apparently rejected the Bosnian indictment for lack of evidence. |
|||
Following his arrest in 1999 and conviction for the murder of the two policemen, under the pressure of a sizable Bosnian Muslim community in Sweden and at the urging of the government in Sarajevo, the Swedish judiciary reopened an investigation into Arkloev's role in the 1992-1995 Bosnian war. |
|||
The first investigation again ended inconclusively, but as the pressure continued a new investigation was launched on January 4 this year with new evidence, which resulted in a new indictment. |
|||
The new indictment is based on new witness statements, Prosecutor Tamm said. [[User:217.134.234.94|217.134.234.94]] 23:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
From [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1539218/posts] |
|||
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, |
|||
Tuesday, April 5, 1994, PAGE 1, |
|||
Germans, Austrians recruited |
|||
NEO-NAZIS HELP CROATIANS IN BOSNIA |
|||
by Eric Geiger, Chronicle Foreign Service |
|||
Hallein, Austria |
|||
Excerpts from the above article (quote:) |
|||
When wars approach their end - as the one in Bosnia sporadically appears to be doing - ugly matters that have been submerged from public view tend to float to the surface. |
|||
One such matter in Bosnia is the role that HUNDREDS OF AUSTRIAN AND GERMAN NEO-NAZIS MERCENARIES have played in the 23-month-old conflict, Europe's bloodies since WWII. |
|||
The neo-Nazis, recruited for Croatian extreme-rightist irregular militias and paramilitary forces, may finally be out of work if the current Croat-Muslim truce holds. But the foreigners' legacy of BRUTALITY will not soon be forgotten by their battle-field foes and civilian victims... ... ... |
|||
Underground neo-Nazi publications in both Germany and Austria published fervent appeals for volunteers "to help out Croatian comrades in defense of the white race". (Sic! Serbs are also - white). A similar appeal was run by the German periodical Der Freiwillige (The Volunteer), the official organ of HIAS, the legally incorporated mutual aid ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS OF THE WAFFEN SS.(!) |
|||
HUNDREDS of skinheads and neo-Nazis in both countries - including many sought by the police for variety of offenses - reportedly responded to the appeal, designed chiefly to woo volunteers for the rightist Croat militia HOS, led by Dobroslav Paraga... |
|||
Volunteers sent back glowing reports about their ENTHUSIASTIC RECEPTION in Bosnia by their comrades-in-arms of the HOS, A WELCOME COMPLETE WITH "HEIL HITLER" SALUTES and the waving of swastika flags. Some also found their way to regular paramilitary units of the Bosnian Croat army and were accorded an equally warm welcome. ...Most of German speaking volunteers in Bosnia, however, are not remorseful. A young Austrian neo-Nazi recently on brief "home leave from the Bosnian front" was quoted by newspapers as saying that German speaking mercenaries - paid $60 a month - have often been involved in "ethnic cleansing operations"... ... "Our job actually is quite simple," the youth said. "After regular Croat militiamen capture a village, they earmark houses of Serbs... for us so we can loot and destroy them." He said the swaggering German-speaking mercenaries generally have an image among the Bosnian Croats as exceptionally tough and MERCILESS - "A SORT OF NEW GERMAN SS" - and for that reason are often given dirty, dangerous assignments. |
|||
(End quote) |
|||
[[User:217.134.234.94|217.134.234.94]] 00:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
More evidence of neo-Nazi activity; |
|||
'''''"The effort to organize young German neo-Nazis and send them to Croatia to fight and kill for the Ustashe-as the SS had once done- was organized largely by the Movement representatives in Hesse, Bavaria, and, for logistical reasons, as it was directly on the border with Yugoslavia-Austria. The main man in charge in Germany was Nero Reisz. He organized transport and took care that everyone got uniforms and weapons. Then Michel Faci and his right-hand man, Nikolas, organized most of the Croatian neo-Nazi units, training both young Croatians and Germans who'd come down for the ride."''''' |
|||
From "FUHRER-EX, Memoirs of a Former Neo-Nazi" by [[Ingo Hasselbach]] (with Tom Reiss) |
|||
[[Random House]], London, 1996. [http://www.amazon.com/Fuhrer-Ex-Memoirs-Neo-Nazi-Ingo-Hasselbach/dp/0679438254] |
|||
[[User:217.134.233.164|217.134.233.164]] 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Protected == |
== Protected == |
Revision as of 07:56, 11 February 2007
Military history Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Western Bosnia
...to be included in the infobox?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Mujahideen
Well, those people fought in BiH as Islamists. They came to fight with their "Muslim brothers", and so to whitewash the Islamic element is ridiculous.--Hadžija 18:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but that is not Jihad. We can call it volunteers from Islamic countries, not some jihadist - ridiculous. I will then add that Russian and other volunteers were more or less some evil crusaders. That is, also, ridiculous, so I will ask you to be reasonable and not spread propaganda of some Jihad in Bosnia, where those powerfully armed Bosniaks (and yes, 500-1000 volunteers) attempted to restore Ottoman empire and other silly ideas. --HarisM 22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- And, lastly, as example that you are spreading propaganda is fact that you wrote Arabic. Well my dear, not all volunteers were Arabic. As I said, we can solve it as people, or you will be hard on it and continue insisting on lie that in Bosnia was some Jihadist war, or something similar. Bosnian Muslim people here fought for survival, nothing more or less. Naming them jihadist is silly, really silly, even it is true that various volunteers fought for Bosnian army, and they came form many Islamic countries. Be reasonable, because I can also be hard as you, and we will just make stupid edit war. --HarisM 22:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I like the way you're setting up straw men. I didn't say that anyone wanted to restore the Ottoman Empire, nor do I think that they did. I am merely using commonly used terminology that is used to refer to those "Islamic volunteers". Why don't you check out this book: [1]. I'm not just making this up, as you seem to believe.--Hadžija 23:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Your last edit contravenes WP:POINT, by the way--Hadžija 23:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
And another book for you: [2]--Hadžija 23:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't mentioned Islamic volunteers. Point is that you can't know that those volunteers who came from Islamic countries believe in jihad nor they are some extremist of any kind. There was professional help, military advisers and etc. So, we will call them jihadist, all of them? Please... use the right term. Jihadist has no connection whatsoever with War in Bosnia. You are just trying to show Bosnia as some big terroirst cell, which is total fabrication, you are basing those claims from some books. You forgotten that in Bosnia there is EUFOR and American forces, actually a lot of them. Intelligence organizations maybe know better than some authors of books, which are by them self very controversial. Bosnian Muslim people are more grateful to American troops (which are waging war on those evil jihadist), and as matter of fact, Bosnian government (oh yes, in time when Muslim was in chair, president khem) have good relations with United States, supporting them in Iraq and Afghanistan by sending troops.
- Last, but not least, American parliament sent a very clear message: Bosniaks (yes, those people who were alongside with those evil jihadist) are victim in Bosnia. You should know this facts, official facts, those books are just propaganda.
- Next time, I will make some kind of vote, or invite administrator to clear this thing out. Maybe it would be good that some user with more knowledge make decision. Even, I think that I have more precise definition of volunteers that fought alongside with Bosnian army. --HarisM 00:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are ignoring the sources above ("some books" as you put it).
- You have not presented any sources which contradict the sources I've presented.
- You assume bad faith ("You are just trying to show Bosnia as some big terroirst cell") in contravention of WP:AGF.
- You justified your edit based on your political mini-essay above, which is wholly irrelevant (and erroneous in many respects).
--Hadžija 04:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
08:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)24.80.66.158==== Sources referring to "mujahideen" or "jihad" in the context of the war in BiH ====
- BBC News
- BBC News (2)
- Middle East Quarterly (article by S. Schwartz, a Muslim)
- Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe: The Afghan-Bosnian Network
- Die Kinder des Dschihad. Die neue Generation des islamistischen Terrors in Europa
- Spiked
- Guardian
--Hadžija 04:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's propaganda, and you know it. How do you dare to call, let's say some military advisors or soldiers jihadist, but they are not? I will not discuss anymore with you. I can't find sources, because there is no sources that will convince people like that there was no silly jihadist war in Bosnia. Oh yes, you can see practical sources, as mass killings of Bosniaks throughout the war and so on. Your nickname Hadzija explains much of that. Ok, let's settle it this way. As you - Hadzija believe in that jihadist war, I believe that volunteers from Russia, Grecee, Ukraine and others were Crusaders. I will put citation needed - because, just like you and some others BELIEVE in that. Really, they were crusaders. You ask for it. Or we will be blocked, baned or settle like people and don't express our own statements and beliefs. --HarisM 14:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- WOW, Serbian wikipedia: El Mudžahedin je ime paravojne jedinice koja je tokom rata u BiH delovala na području srednje Bosne i Hercegovine, a činili su je uglavnom dobrovoljci iz islamskih zemalja, koji su se borili u sastavu Armije Republike Bosne i Hercegovine. Njeni su članovi počinili mnoge zločine nad Srbima i Hrvatima u tim krajevima.
- It's true that they committed crimes, but that doesn't make them jihadist, and it is obvious that you don't know the real meaning of jihad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HarisM (talk • contribs) 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
So the BBC is "propaganda"? I agree Stephen Schwartz is a propagandist - a pro-Bosnian Muslim propagandist... And the Guardian, that's "propaganda" too? I've reverted your edit (re: Crusaders), because you have no sources for it, it's facetious, and contravenes WP:POINT (as I noted above when you did it before). If these sources (BBC, Guardian) are so obviously wrong, you should have no trouble finding sources that contradict them.--Hadžija 15:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are such ignorant. :) --HarisM 16:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, that was a well-constructed and coherent argument...--Hadžija 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Noticed you reverted yet again, despite not presenting any sources to contradict some leading media outlets.--Hadžija 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are ignorant becuase of fact that you want present and put jihad name on any volunteer in Bosnian army. Thats wrong, and that flag is also wrong, and can't be used in this context of Bosnian war. You may do anything, you wish, but mine definition is more precise and right - Volunteers from Islamic countries. You can't challenge that. --HarisM 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You're beginning to sound like a broken record. On the one hand, we have several reliable sources (the BBC for a start), which meet the standards set out in Wikipedia:Verifiability (which incidentally states that the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"). On the other hand, we have your original research (in contravention of WP:NOR). Your argument rests on the supposition that you know better than the BBC. That may well be true, but if it is, why can't you find any sources that agree with you? And if you think you know better, but can find no sources, then too bad - Wikipedia is built on sources. Why don't you write about it on your blag?--Hadžija 19:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you are ignoring the things that I said. You definition of volunteers is wrong. I didn't deny that there wasn't some soldiers who believed in such jihad, but you can't say that all 1000 (wow, what a number) volunteers were jihadist. There is no proof for that, and again, mine definition is better, more accurate, better, better, better. Simple as that. But Islamophobia is doing it just fine, i can see ;) Do what ever you wish, I see that this topic isn't only topic where are you promoting some of your personal beliefs. --HarisM 19:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
And you have contavened numerous Wikipedia policies. WP:V (you haven't presented any sources and dismiss reputable ones such as the BBC), WP:NOR (you've edited the article based on your own theories in the the face of sources which contradict your view), WP:POINT (inserting "Crusaders" to make the point that there were no Jihadists) and WP:NPA (calling me "ignorant" and an Islamophobe). // Hadžija 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK Hadzija, you are very funny :) (Is that NPA or what?) --HarisM 23:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- That isn't NPA, but is avoidance of discussion. I believe that you should now present your references which say that Russian volunteers were crusaders, that Muslim volunteers were not mujahideen, that BBC or "Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe" are propaganda, or anything else that supports your claims. Nikola 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I propose a new name for article: Jihad in Bosnia. Pathetic. We should replace ARBiH flag with jihad flag to make it right. There is no hope for some people. This is sad day, not for this article, but becuase of voting result in Serbia, which confirmed all ready some facts that are known. That is explaination why the articles regarding Bosnian War are so haunted. There is no hope for some people... --HarisM 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that attempting to label all "foreign" fighters who participated in the armed conflict in Bosnia as either jihadists or crusaders is not a neutral view. Jihad means a "holy war" and while udoubtedly some of the Islamic fighers were motivated by personal asiprations of waging a "holy war" there is simply no way to prove or know whether all, some or most were "Jihadist" and this term clearly does not fit the criteria for unbiased encyclopedic content as it attempts to label a diverse group of individuals. Some of those fighters on either sides were likely motivated by various reasons, from religious, nationalistic, pan-Slavic aspirations to pure thrill seeking. If you insist on using a term that describes somebodies motivation to fight then include all the motivations or stay out of it altogether. Either identify the nations from which these fighters came, or identify the religion and nation. If you are compeled to include evidence that some of these were "Jihadist" go ahead and elaborate who and why belives they were Jihadists but don't say it as a matter of fact just because some media outlets have termed it this way.24.80.66.158 08:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- The article doesn't use terms "jihad" or "jihadist" anywhere. Nikola 16:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Result
Hi! I have reverted in the result of the Bosnian war cause the only winner of the war is the Bosnian state who finally was recognized in its entire territory during the Dayton accords. And please, dont forget that RS and Herzeg bosnia was not a part of the Bosnian state between 1992 - 1995. But through the Dayton accords, the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina was recognized as a independent, sovereign, recognized nation with different form of politics and with two entites.
And the most important part, Bosnia got its independence from Yugoslavia and Dayton accords recognized it. And also, never forget that RS was INDEPENDENT between 1992 - 1995 but after Dayton accords, it became part of the Bosnian Herzegovinian state.
Pozdrav // Alkalada 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that from a legal point of view Herzeg-Bosna and Republika Srpska were part of BiH 92-95. That would be logical, as RS and Herzeg-Bosna were not internationally recognised states. Yes, they were de facto independent, but not de jure.--Hadžija 20:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and both parts were peacefully reintegreated into the Bosnian state in 1995. Dayton accords confirmed Bosnia as a states consisting of two entities and Bosnia had in 1995 finally left Yugoslavia. Alkalada 20:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- BiH left Yugoslavia in 1992. It wasn't established in 1995.--Hadžija 20:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You just dont get it, dont you?
Yugoslavia didnt recognized Bosnia independence in 1992 and used aggressions. But when Dayton accords were written down, then Milosevic, in the name of Yugoslavia (now Serbia) recognized Bosnia. RS was independent between 1992 and 1995 and they wanted to be independent. But because of the situation 1995 when RS got military defeated and Bosnian forces was 25 km from Banja Luka, then they were forces to accept peace where it clearly stated they were part of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
I remember Karadzic who said 1992 that Bosnia will not exist anymore. This clearly shows that RS and its politicians never wanted to be part of BiH, only reason they wrote Dayton was because they were defeated military from august to oktober.
RS was a country with borders between 1992 and 1995, not it is a part of a country named Bosnia and Herzegovina. Alkalada 20:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- It seems you don't "get it". RS was not de jure independent. It wanted to be, but it wasn't. It was not an internationally recognised country. BiH was internationally recognised since 1992, therefore it was not "established as an independent state" in 1995. For someone who seems to think they know what they're talking about (and you're quite aggressive about it), you display a remarkable ignorance of the facts. // Hadžija 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Dayton recognized Bosnian independence which Karadzic didnt. Karadzic didnt recognized the state of Bosnia and because of that I must write that Dayton recognized the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And for your sake... RS didnt won the war, it dint won anything at all.
It isnt a serbian state, because in RS, both bosniaks, serbs and croats are constitutional. And RS has no borders with Federation, in RS Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian is officiall languages. And RS is a part of BiH. Alkalada 12:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ugh, did you even read what I wrote. BiH was de jure independent since 1992. Its independence was internationally recognised since 1992. Everything else you say is true (but irrelevant), except RS does border the Federation. It's an administrative border, but it is a border. Basically, I'll try to break it down for you. BiH was not internationally recognised as an independent state in 1995, that was in 1992. What is so hard to understand about that?--Hadžija 12:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
RS DOES NOT HAVE ANY BORDER WITH THE FEDERATION.
Why? Because it is the same country!
And the thing is that the serbs and croats didnt recognize Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, but after the heroic defense of our country by our heroic Army of the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the serbs and croats got military defeated and were forced to recognize Bosnia and accepted to live in a Bosnian state.
And look at the result now, RS is so unhappy that they want independence. But thanks to us, zlatni ljiljani, RS never got the independence Karadzic wanted. Alkalada 12:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. No border. IEBL doesn't exist.
- Fact, as a result of the war, RS, which previously did not exist was created. Whether that was "victory" is subject to interpretation, and anyway link to Dayton is sufficient. Nikola 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Ethnic Cleansing Section
For yet another time I have added a clarification to the end of the section on "ethnic cleansing" to point out that Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are in fact all South Slavic peoples. This is important because many people, especially in North America, tend to believe that the various forms of mass elimination/exodus that occured during the Balkan wars (regardless of the perpetrating party) were "racial" genocides when they were actually based upon culture and religion.
Kahriman - perhaps it is more accurate to say that Bosniaks are the descendents of South Slavs that converted to Islam. I offer this because the idea of Bosniaks being significantly different from Serbs and Croats from an ethnic (genetic) standpoint isn't realistic. Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks are primarily a mixture of the Slavs who migrated to the Balkans from the northeast, and the peoples who inhabited the Balkans when the Slavs first arrived (Illyrians, Thracians, and so on). I'm quite sure there is also an element of the peoples who lived in the Balkans before the Illyrian tribes migrated there. (In some regions there probably is even a bit of impact from Gothic and Ottoman invasion.) The reason people refer to Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks as "ethnic groups" is because of the distinct cultural and national identities that these peoples have formed. Anyhow, unless you contest the point that the South Slavic groups are not different ethnic groups in the genetic sense, I will repair the section.
- "Serbs and Croats are both South Slavic peoples, and Bosniaks are the descendents of Serbs and Croats who converted to Islam"
You said that! That is false and discriminating. That is true that Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats have same root, but they also have the same roots with slovenians, russians and other slavs. Bosniaks are the descendents of South Slavs that converted to Islam is also wrong because serbs, croats and bosniaks separated themselves by culture and religion. After converting to monotheistic religions, croats mostly became chatolics, serbs mostly became ortodox and bosniaks mostly became bogumils. After conquering Bosnia by Ottoman empire most of bosnian bogumils coverted to islam. So it is not true that converting to islam is something what define someone as Bosniak. There are proves witch says that bosniaks are older then bosnia (i can give them to you if you want). Anyway, point is that Bosniaks existed before converting to islam. Thought the centuries, separating from each other by culture, tradition and religion, Bosniaks, croats and serbs became three different nationalities with same root, but still three different nationalities. When one group of people (same nationality) kill and deport (violate) other group of people only because of thier nationality, that is ethnic cleansing. Is it clear now? --Kahriman 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it IS ethnic cleansing. However, a great many people - especially here in North America - associate the term "ethnic cleansing" with "racial genocide." They see it as exclusively a genetic term and not as a cultural or national one. That is why some consensus should be reached on how to clarify that in the relevent section. There is an enormous population in the United States, for exmaple, that believes Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are genetically as different from eachother as Prussians are from Hebrews. Anyhow, I agree that my earlier assertion suggests that Bosnia did not exist before the Islamic conversion, and I apologize for that. I referred to Bosniaks as Islamic South Slavs because that is essentially their modern designation, although that of course is not the only distinction between Bosniaks and the other South Slavs. On a sidenote, it is certainly true that Bosniaks could trace part of their genetic roots in the Balkans further back in time than the Bosnian territory itself. That is also true of the Serbs, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Bulgarians and to a lesser extent the Croats and Slovenes. That is because the Slavs who migrated to the Balkans from the northeast only account for a small portion of the genetic makeup of most South Slavs. Back on topic: I am willing to limit that portion of the addition to the "Ethnic Cleansing Section" to something along the lines of, "Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are all South Slavic peoples who developed different cultures, nations and religious beliefs over time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.110.138 (talk • contribs)
The war template is just plain bad
For example: Kravica attack was tiny compared to numerous other sieges, battles and fronts (and itself part of Srebrenica campaign, and so the killings part of Srebrenica massacre). I think it's FUBAR and should be deleted, but maybe someone would also try to make it right (like maybe, only important thing with their own articles for now). --HanzoHattori 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Neonazis and islamic terrorist
Allied against innocent Serbian defence forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Administrator's should consider that this is making mockery of Wikipedia and its project with that flags, neo-Nazism and other crappy conspiracy theories. Good luck, an just continue, you are making fun of yourselves. It is pathetic to watch all this. --HarisM 23:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- The article describes the volunteers on the Croat side as "Western radicals", they were in fact neo-Nazis who wanted to continue WWII battles. 217.134.124.136 16:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- See. I rest in my case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HarisM (talk • contribs) 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
- You haven't presented any case yet. Searchlight is a respected anti-fascist publication. You seem to want to cover-up fascist activity. Calling these people "Western radicals" is just an insulting cop-out. 195.92.67.74 22:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- See. I rest in my case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HarisM (talk • contribs) 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Haha, oh wow. --HanzoHattori 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow indeed, they didn't just attack Serbs: From the Croatian News Agency-HINA; [3]
- The only foreign volunteer convicted of war crimes is neo-nazi Jackie Arklov, when he was in Croat army. Emir Arven 04:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Swedish Neo-Nazi Indicted For War Crimes Committed In Bosnia
Monday , 17 July 2006
A Swedish neo-Nazi has been indicted for war crimes he allegedly committed in the 1990s in Bosnia-Herzegovina where he fought on the Bosnian Croat side, prosecutors announced in Stockholm on Friday.
Jackie Arkloev, a naturalised Swede born in Liberia in 1973, is charged with committing war crimes, including the ill-treatment and torture of Bosnian Muslim prisoners in the Bosnian Croat-run Gabela and Grabovina detention camps in 1993, while fighting as a volunteer within the ranks of the Croat Defence Council (HVO), Prosecutor Lise Tamm told Swedish radio.
Arkloev is currently serving a life sentence for murdering two Swedish police officers in 1999 after a bank robbery in which he participated together with two other neo-Nazis and members of the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang Tany Olsson and Andreas Axelsson.
In 1995, Arkloev was sentenced by a Bosnian court to 13 years in prison for war crimes, and the sentence was later reduced to eight years. He was sent to serve the sentence in the central Bosnian town of Zenica, but after spending seven weeks in prison there, which he described as the worst experience in his life, Sweden asked Bosnian authorities for his extradition, guaranteeing that he would serve his sentence in a Swedish prison.
On arriving at Stockholm airport, Arkloev was released under as yet unclear circumstances. During the extradition process the Swedish authorities apparently rejected the Bosnian indictment for lack of evidence.
Following his arrest in 1999 and conviction for the murder of the two policemen, under the pressure of a sizable Bosnian Muslim community in Sweden and at the urging of the government in Sarajevo, the Swedish judiciary reopened an investigation into Arkloev's role in the 1992-1995 Bosnian war.
The first investigation again ended inconclusively, but as the pressure continued a new investigation was launched on January 4 this year with new evidence, which resulted in a new indictment.
The new indictment is based on new witness statements, Prosecutor Tamm said. 217.134.234.94 23:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
From [4]
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, Tuesday, April 5, 1994, PAGE 1,
Germans, Austrians recruited
NEO-NAZIS HELP CROATIANS IN BOSNIA by Eric Geiger, Chronicle Foreign Service Hallein, Austria
Excerpts from the above article (quote:)
When wars approach their end - as the one in Bosnia sporadically appears to be doing - ugly matters that have been submerged from public view tend to float to the surface. One such matter in Bosnia is the role that HUNDREDS OF AUSTRIAN AND GERMAN NEO-NAZIS MERCENARIES have played in the 23-month-old conflict, Europe's bloodies since WWII.
The neo-Nazis, recruited for Croatian extreme-rightist irregular militias and paramilitary forces, may finally be out of work if the current Croat-Muslim truce holds. But the foreigners' legacy of BRUTALITY will not soon be forgotten by their battle-field foes and civilian victims... ... ...
Underground neo-Nazi publications in both Germany and Austria published fervent appeals for volunteers "to help out Croatian comrades in defense of the white race". (Sic! Serbs are also - white). A similar appeal was run by the German periodical Der Freiwillige (The Volunteer), the official organ of HIAS, the legally incorporated mutual aid ASSOCIATION OF VETERANS OF THE WAFFEN SS.(!)
HUNDREDS of skinheads and neo-Nazis in both countries - including many sought by the police for variety of offenses - reportedly responded to the appeal, designed chiefly to woo volunteers for the rightist Croat militia HOS, led by Dobroslav Paraga...
Volunteers sent back glowing reports about their ENTHUSIASTIC RECEPTION in Bosnia by their comrades-in-arms of the HOS, A WELCOME COMPLETE WITH "HEIL HITLER" SALUTES and the waving of swastika flags. Some also found their way to regular paramilitary units of the Bosnian Croat army and were accorded an equally warm welcome. ...Most of German speaking volunteers in Bosnia, however, are not remorseful. A young Austrian neo-Nazi recently on brief "home leave from the Bosnian front" was quoted by newspapers as saying that German speaking mercenaries - paid $60 a month - have often been involved in "ethnic cleansing operations"... ... "Our job actually is quite simple," the youth said. "After regular Croat militiamen capture a village, they earmark houses of Serbs... for us so we can loot and destroy them." He said the swaggering German-speaking mercenaries generally have an image among the Bosnian Croats as exceptionally tough and MERCILESS - "A SORT OF NEW GERMAN SS" - and for that reason are often given dirty, dangerous assignments.
(End quote) 217.134.234.94 00:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
More evidence of neo-Nazi activity;
"The effort to organize young German neo-Nazis and send them to Croatia to fight and kill for the Ustashe-as the SS had once done- was organized largely by the Movement representatives in Hesse, Bavaria, and, for logistical reasons, as it was directly on the border with Yugoslavia-Austria. The main man in charge in Germany was Nero Reisz. He organized transport and took care that everyone got uniforms and weapons. Then Michel Faci and his right-hand man, Nikolas, organized most of the Croatian neo-Nazi units, training both young Croatians and Germans who'd come down for the ride."
From "FUHRER-EX, Memoirs of a Former Neo-Nazi" by Ingo Hasselbach (with Tom Reiss) Random House, London, 1996. [5] 217.134.233.164 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Protected
The article is now protected at m:The Wrong Version. Edit warring parties are kindly invited to resolve the conflict at this talk page for inclusion or removal of the material. Protection is not endorsement of the current version of the article. Since I'll likely be absent for the next few days, please request for unprotection at WP:RFPP when the matter is settled. Thanks. Duja► 10:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- All I know is that my UN cited source was removed, if that is not vandalism somebody shot me! Ancient Land of Bosoni
International conflict
Here are the sources (ICTY judgements) about the character of the war:
Conflict between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia
Prosecutor v. Rajic, Case No. IT-95-12 (Trial Chamber), Review of the Indictment pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, September 13, 1996, para. 13, 26, 32: “[F]or purposes of the application of the grave breaches provisions of Geneva Convention IV, the significant and continuous military action by the armed forces of Croatia in support of the Bosnian Croats against the forces of the Bosnian Government on the territory of the latter was sufficient to convert the domestic conflict between the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Government into an international one.” “[B]etween 5000 to 7000 members of the Croatian Army, as well as some members of the Croatian Armed Forces (‘HOS’), were present in the territory of Bosnia and were involved, both directly and through their relations with Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna (‘HB’) and the Croatian Defence Council (‘HVO’), in clashes with Bosnian Government forces in central and southern Bosnia. [T]he Bosnian Croats can, for the purposes of these proceedings, be regarded as agents of Croatia in respect of discrete acts which are alleged to be violations of the grave breaches provisions of the Geneva Conventions. It appears that Croatia, in addition to assisting the Bosnian Croats . . . inserted its own armed forces into the conflict on the territory of Bosnia and exercised a high degree of control over both the military and political institutions of the Bosnian Croats.”
Blaskic, (Trial Chamber), March 3, 2000, para. 83-123: The Trial Chambers concluded that “[b]ased on Croatia’s direct intervention in BH [Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina]” there was “ample proof to characterise the conflict as international,” and that Croatia’s “indirect control over the HVO [Croatian Defence Council] and HZHB [Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna]” and “indirect intervention” would “permit the conclusion that the conflict was international.” The Trial Chamber found that “Croatia, and more specifically former President Tudjman, was hoping to partition Bosnia and exercised such a degree of control over the Bosnian Croats and especially the HVO that it is justified to speak of overall control. [T]he close ties between Croatia and the Bosnian Croats did not cease with the establishment of the HVO.”
Kordic and Cerkez, (Trial Chamber), February 26, 2001, para. 108-146: The Trial Chamber concluded that the relevant issues were (a) whether Croatia intervened in the armed conflict between the Bosnian Muslims and the Bosnian Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina through its troops and, alternatively, (b) whether the HVO [Croatian Defence Council] acted on behalf of Croatia. “The Chamber concludes that the evidence in this case satisfies each of the alternative criteria set forth . . . for internationalising an internal conflict.”
Conflict between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
Tadic, (Appeals Chamber), July 15, 1999, para. 156, 162: “It is sufficient to show that [the Yugoslav Army] exercised overall control over the Bosnian Serb Forces. Such control manifested itself not only in financial, logistical and other assistance and support, but also, and more importantly, in terms of participation in the general direction, coordination and supervision of the activities and operations of the VRS [the Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Republika Srpska]. This sort of control is sufficient for the purposes of the legal criteria required by international law.” “[F]or the period material to this case (1992), the armed forces of the Republika Srpska were to be regarded as acting under the overall control of and on behalf of the FRY [the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)]. Hence, even after 19 May 1992 the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina between the Bosnian Serbs and the central authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina must be classified as an international armed conflict.” See also Tadic, (Appeals Chamber), July 15, 1999, para. 87.
Mucic et al., (Appeals Chamber), February 20, 2001, para. 33, 48, 50: “The Trial Chamber’s finding as to the nature of the conflict prior to 19 May 1992 is based on a finding of a direct participation of one State on the territory of another State. This constitutes a plain application of the holding of the Appeals Chamber in Tadic that it ‘is indisputable that an armed conflict is international if it takes place between two or more States,’ which reflects the traditional position of international law. . . .” “Although the Trial Chamber did not formally apply the ‘overall control’ test set forth by the Tadic Appeal Judgement, . . . the Trial Chamber’s legal reasoning is entirely consistent with the previous jurisprudence of the Tribunal.” “The Trial Chamber came to the conclusion, as in the Tadic case, that the armed conflict taking place in Bosnia and Herzegovina after 19 May 1992 could be regarded as international because the FRY remained the controlling force behind the Bosnian Serbs armed forces after 19 May 1992. . . . [T]his Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the facts as found by the Trial Chamber fulfil the legal conditions as set forth in the Tadic case.”
---
I rest my case. Emir Arven 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)