From: stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Democracy
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:47:24 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


In article <1992Dec30.172000.22458@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn) writes:
>stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic) writes:
>: >What is "actually the main goal of this war"?
>: >
>: 
>: Acceptance of the right of Serbs for self-determinations.
>: The same moment Izetbegovic accepts this, war stops, and the "country"
>: could be split. 
>
>The point is, however, that the Serbs are grabbing everything they can get
>so that the "split" is as lopsided as they can get it.  If they could, it
>appears that they would grab the whole region, and "split" it by keeping
>the whole thing.  Not just self-rule; extermination.

Well, according to the latest census, 1991, Serbs are claiming 56% of 
territory of Bosnia.  Rest is taken for logistical purposes, while the
war is going on. It is rather difficult, having much smaller number of 
forces to keep up only this territory.  Serbs are willing to 
negotiate exchange of land in order to allow Muslims to achieve the
viable state, which at this moment they hardly have.  But, Muslims
should not have started this, without finishing negotiations with
Serbs.

>
>The way this war has been run by the Serbs supports the last statement.  If
>all they wanted was land, then the war would be run differently.

I'd like to see your elaboration of this statement.  
Serbs gave guarantees that everyone will be allowed to return to 
their original habitats.  Considering that recognition of new
Serbian state would surely not come until this is fulfilled,
I believe that this would be the case.

>
>
>Yes, there are Serbs from Bosnia who are also fighting.  That does not make
>the raping/pillaging right, except perhaps in your mind.
>

Not also, but only, according to UN reports.  Do not mix us up 
with Croats who have an undefined number of soldiers in Bosnia 
( estimates are from 10.000-40.000 ). 

You should cool down.  I am just informing you about something,
you have missed to pick up while watching TV.

>Serbian motto?: let's rape, pillage and kill: it's tradition!  Gag.

You have deleted most of my argument to be able to say this.
I think that the basic point of your posting is just to get
your frustration out, not to try to find out more about situation
there.  

>
>: So, cruelty has no borders in religion. 
>
>I never said it did.  Because something happened in the past, does not give
>anyone the right to make a pre-emptive strike like what is happening in
>Bosnia.  If all the Serbs *really wanted* was self-rule, then they might
>go to war, but not with the death camps, not with the raping, etc.  But,
>hey, it's tradition!
>

You seem to have a fixation on rapes.   You are not capable of making 
an argument without mentioning rapes.  I mention self-determination, you
mention rapes.  How many Viet Nahm women were raped by American soldier 
some twenty years ago?   How many civilians were killed then?  And did
anyone suggested that it is a planned policy of American government
to rape Viet Nahm women?  No, so the bottom line is that 
you are trying to play on emotions, not on the well defined arguments in 
your postings. 
Again, death camps have been shown to be PR matter.  There is a big difference
between death camps and detention camps.  
And, as I said, Serbian side does not claim that Muslim attacks occured only
in past.  Muslims started attacking Serbs and Serbs started attacking 
Muslims.  Order will be found out after the war, at this point everything
is rather obscure by PR companies and biased reporting.  In two previous
cases, Muslims started first.  Serbs claimed that Muslims started to 
take over police stations in the areas where Serb had majority or
where there is balanced population.  
Unlike in the previous situations Serbs were this time better 
armed, better organised and Muslims did not get away as easily as before.


>: I fail to see analogy.  
>: 
>: Also, I think that you missed the sarcasm.
>: Slovenians fought bravely for their independence, but deny Serbs the
>: same right.  Probably, as Ministar Tanzig put, because Serbs are of the
>: Byzantine-Ottoman tradition.  
>
>What the Serbs are doing is not "fighting bravely".  Raping is not "fighting
>bravely".  Then again, as you have pointed out that I am not as familiar
>with the region, perhaps it is in Serbian terms.

Slovenes deny right for self-determination of Serbs.

And rapes occur in any war.  Pathological behaviour is not connected
with only one side.  Again matter of better PR  relations.
Those who commit such thing should be punished, but
that does not change the main fact - that this is a fight for
self-determination.

>: Some fighter, may be.  You should go after the leadership, and what they 
>: say.  Declared goal is to preserve ethnic composition as of 1991 census.
>
>Go by what I say, and not as I do?  What a crock.  The best way to see the
>intent is to see what is actually happening in the field.  Leaders and
>politicians are there to smooth over ruffled feathers and explain that things
>aren't so bad.


No, vide supra.  None of the sides should be allowed to go away with 
population shifts.  The international recognition is a powerful 
weapon.


>
>: Could you give me the name of the hotel, and where it is?  I'll
>: answer you quickly.  
>
>I don't remember the name (it was on the main road into Sarajevo, just on
>the outskirts of the city).  It had a beautiful square off to one side, with
>a large flower garden.
>
>Of course, I fail to see what your point will be.  It was destroyed by
>rocket shells (according to CNN).  Journalists were stationed there at the
>time.

Well, if it is the same hotel shown at the very beginning of the
war, it was on Serbian territory.  It is where shrapnel wounded member
of BBC team. So Muslims should be asked about this. 


>
>Scott Linn
>scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com

MNS
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.europe