Butcher of Bosnia, Radovan Karadzic, found guilty of genocide, sentenced to 40 years

LoveBeingAMuslimah · Mar 31, 2016

From a week ago but I don't see this posted:

"A special U.N. court in The Hague, Netherlands, found the 70-year-old guilty of genocide over his responsibility for the Srebrenica massacre, in which more than 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were executed by Bosnian Serb forces under his command."

Radovan Karadzic found guilty of genocide, sentenced to 40 years

I wish I could say this was satisfying. But it isn't really. He's found guilty 20 years after the genocide when he is 70. To add insult to injury, apparently committing a genocide only lands you in jail for 40 years.

My belief in the Day of Judgement and Allaah being the most Just brings me immense solace though.

LoveBeingAMuslimah · Mar 31, 2016

This says it well:

"If you followed the news today, you probably saw that ex-Serbian leader Radovan Karadicz was convicted of genocide and war crimes for his role in the Bosnian war of the 1990's.

If you grew up in the 90's, the war probably impacted the way you see the world. I remember watching news reports of entire villages slaughtered, men lined up and killed in summary executions, and thousands of widows raped. They didn't do anything wrong. Their only crime was that they were Bosnian and Muslim.

It was a startling look at the darkness that human beings are capable of.

Today, Radovan Karadicz, who led the genocide, was sentenced to forty years behind bars. The sentence was widely hailed as a victory for human rights, and a warning to others who may try to commit the same war crimes in the future.

But here's another way of looking at it.

Do the math.

In one single village - Srebrenica, more than eight thousand men and boys were slaughtered by Karadicz' forces. For that, he was sentenced to forty years in prison. It works out to:

8,000+ people killed
40 years in prison

= Just 1.8 days behind bars for each person he killed.

Think about that. Less than two days for each person. Each husband, each son, every child who grew up as an orphan, each wife who was raped.

Less than two days in prison for each one."

JackRT · Mar 31, 2016

He will spend the rest of his life in prison. Execution would be more ... er ... ah ... compassionate.

cow451 · Mar 31, 2016

Occasionally a small measure of justice happens on earth. Notably, the US does not participate in the International Court but is more than happy when other countries do.

Oafman · Mar 31, 2016

LoveBeingAMuslimah said:
I wish I could say this was satisfying. But it isn't really. He's found guilty 20 years after the genocide when he is 70. To add insult to injury, apparently committing a genocide only lands you in jail for 40 years.

It took most of those 20 years to apprehend him, after he went into hiding, facilitated by a large support network. And then the trial took a long time, because the court heard a huge amount of evidence. The wheels of justice may be slow, but we should be grateful that they've turned in this case. How many genocidal leaders ever have to answer for their crimes in this way?

It was a pity that Milosevic died before his conviction, but at least he did not die a free man.

As for this sentence, it is effectively a life sentence, given his age. The court cannot handout actual life sentences, as that would be a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights (cue the human-rights-have-gone-too-far brigade...).

Another good aspect of this conviction is that Karadzic is not African. For a long time many African countries have complained that the ICC exists only to prosecute Africans, and is thus 'an extension of European colonialism'. This proves that the ICC is not as these people suggest, and will convict a European when the evidence is clear.

Perhaps also, those elements within Islam which constantly bemoan the 'western imperial crusade against the Islamic world' will be reminded that the West intervened to prevent the slaughter of many more Muslims in Kosovo, and has now brought the main perpetrator to justice.

LoveBeingAMuslimah · Mar 31, 2016

Oafman said:
The wheels of justice may be slow, but we should be grateful that they've turned in this case.

Delayed and incomplete justice is better than no punishment whatsoever, I agree.

How many genocidal leaders ever have to answer for their crimes in this way?

Likely not many, since oftentimes many balk at genocide until the time comes to act against it and sometimes even give excuses for supporting the ones committing genocide. Case in point: Assad. Some even advocate lifting sanctions from sanctioned countries at an ill-advised time (right when Assad is committing his genocide) even though said countries are keeping that genocidal leader in power.

It was a pity that Milosevic died before his conviction, but at least he did not die a free man.

Even if he did die a free man, there is no escaping Allaah's judgement in the Hereafter. That is my comfort.

As for this sentence, it is effectively a life sentence, given his age. The court cannot handout actual life sentences, as that would be a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights (cue the human-rights-have-gone-too-far brigade...).

1.) British courts do have the right to impose whole-life tariffs on prisoners who are jailed for life, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
Source

2.) Under this rule, is 40 years the maximum amount a person can be given?

Perhaps also, those elements within Islam which constantly bemoan the 'western imperial crusade against the Islamic world' will be reminded that the West intervened to prevent the slaughter of many more Muslims in Kosovo, and has now brought the main perpetrator to justice.

Who exactly are you referring to? Anyway, the response to the massacre by the West (US in particular) in Kosovo was relatively expedient. And thanks should be given for that as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, "He who does not thank the people does not thank Allaah." But I wonder if this means that the incredibly delayed response to the Bosnian genocide should be forgotten or not learned from. In response to someone saying that Bosnian Muslims they know appreciate efforts of NATO and the US, I said:

As do I, though I do believe it was too little, too late. Also, a lot of things were questionable, such as imposing an arms embargo so that the Bosnians couldn't defend themselves, the Dutch essentially standing around in an area that was supposed to be under the protection of the UN watching while the Serbs slaughtered the Bosnians, not putting sufficient troops on the ground all the while promising the Bosnians that they are safe (if the Dutch excuse is that there weren't enough people to realistically prevent the slaughter of the Bosnians), not even returning the weapons to the Bosnians in that UN protected area so they could defend themselves, trading Bosnians with the Serbs in return for Dutch hostages (and these Bosnians were later killed), not approving of air strikes until after the massacre (and getting the forms mixed up), etc.

The_Laconic_Dead · Mar 31, 2016

People convicted of these types of over-the-top war crimes need to be dealt with in a special way that sends a message to other would-be genociders. Like being boiled. Slowly.

wn123455 · Apr 1, 2016

Serbia accuses 48-year-old Oric, and four other people, of committing war crimes in July 1992 in Zalazje near Sarajevo in which nine people were killed. When Srebrenica became a UN enclave, Oric and his men continued to carry out raids on nearby villages, angering the Bosnian Serbs.

https://news.yahoo.com/swiss-arrest-former-bosnian-muslim-commander-oric-202851596.html

wn123455 · Apr 1, 2016

http://www.jihadwatch.org/rebuttals

The charge: Robert Spencer denies the Srebrenica genocide and justifies Serbian war crimes against Muslims.

The facts: This charge implies that Spencer approves of violence against innocent Muslims, which is absolutely false. It is based on two (out of over 40,000) articles published at Jihad Watch in 2005 and 2009 questioning whether the massacre of Muslim civilians in Srebrenica in 1995, which was unquestionably heinous, rises to the level of an attempt to exterminate an entire people. Neither was written by Spencer and neither approves of the killing of Muslims or anyone. In “Srebrenica as Genocide? The Krstić Decision and the Language of the Unspeakable,” published in the Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal, Vol. VIII in 2005, Katherine G. Southwick writes:

In August 2001, a trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) handed down the tribunal’s first genocide conviction. In this landmark case, Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, the trial chamber determined that the 1995 Srebrenica massacres—in which Bosnian Serb forces executed 7,000-8,000 Bosnian Muslim men—constituted genocide. This Note acknowledges the need for a dramatic expression of moral outrage at the most terrible massacre in Europe since the Second World War. However, this Note also challenges the genocide finding. By excluding consideration of the perpetrators’ motives for killing the men, such as seeking to eliminate a military threat, the Krstić chamber’s method for finding specific intent to destroy the Bosnian Muslims, in whole or in part, was incomplete. The chamber also loosely construed other terms in the genocide definition, untenably broadening the meaning and application of the crime. The chamber’s interpretation of genocide in turn has problematic implications for the tribunal, enforcement of international humanitarian law, and historical accuracy. Thus highlighting instances where inquiry into motives may be relevant to genocide determinations, this Note ultimately argues for preserving distinctions between genocide and crimes against humanity, while simultaneously expanding the legal obligation to act to mass crimes that lack proof of genocidal intent

If Spencer is guilty of “genocide denial,” so also is the Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal. In reality, neither are. The raising of legitimate questions does not constitute either the denial or the excusing of the evils that Serbian forces perpetrated at Srebrenica or anywhere else.

wn123455 · Apr 1, 2016

LoveBeingAMuslimah said:
From a week ago but I don't see this posted:

"A special U.N. court in The Hague, Netherlands, found the 70-year-old guilty of genocide over his responsibility for the Srebrenica massacre, in which more than 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were executed by Bosnian Serb forces under his command."

Radovan Karadzic found guilty of genocide, sentenced to 40 years

I wish I could say this was satisfying. But it isn't really. He's found guilty 20 years after the genocide when he is 70. To add insult to injury, apparently committing a genocide only lands you in jail for 40 years.

My belief in the Day of Judgement and Allaah being the most Just brings me immense solace though.

Hey LoveBeingAMuslimMan you don't have to feel insulted because the Srebrenica "massacre" never happened.

LoveBeingAMuslimah · Apr 1, 2016

"But the story of Radovan Karadzic, a psychiatrist turned genocidal mini-state leader, provides lessons for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump. The moral of Karadzic’s story is simple for current and future American presidents: Beware the empty threat."

"...The lesson for U.S. presidents is that threats can come back to haunt. Bill Clinton responded far more quickly to Serb attacks in Kosovo in 1999, but has said that Srebrenica was one of the greatest regrets of his presidency. It is a distant second with the genocide in Rwanda, where as many as one million perished after the UN failed to protect civilians there.

In hindsight, it is arguably better for American leaders to say nothing when they have no intention of taking action. Issuing hollow threats emboldens extremists. It does not cow them."

The Cost of America's Broken Promises

Oafman · Apr 1, 2016

LoveBeingAMuslimah said:
1.) British courts do have the right to impose whole-life tariffs on prisoners who are jailed for life, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
Source

2.) Under this rule, is 40 years the maximum amount a person can be given?

It seems I was entirely wrong about this. From the ICC site:

ICC said:
What penalties may be imposed by the Court?
The judges may impose a prison sentence, to which may be added a fine or forfeiture of the proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from the crime committed. The Court cannot impose a death sentence. The maximum sentence is 30 years. However, in extreme cases, the Court may impose a term of life imprisonment

To the question you're obviously now asking: 'if this wasn't an extreme case, exactly what is?', I have no answer.

LoveBeingAMuslimah said:
Who exactly are you referring to?

Not the reasonable majority, but there are a significant number of Muslims who believe that western foreign policy is focused on the destruction of Islam. I mean, there are people in Pakistan who murder aid workers because they believe that the polio vaccine is a western plot to sterilise Muslims. I hope they're aware of the Karadzic conviction. I doubt they are.

At the other end of the spectrum, but equally idiotic, are comments like this, which appear to completely disregard the reams of evidence which the ICC has spent the last few years meticulously hearing:

wn123455 said:
Hey love being a muslim man you don't have to feel insulted because the Srebrenica "massacre" never happened.

--------------

LoveBeingAMuslimah said:
Anyway, the response to the massacre by the West (US in particular) in Kosovo was relatively expedient. And thanks should be given for that as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, "He who does not thank the people does not thank Allaah." But I wonder if this means that the incredibly delayed response to the Bosnian genocide should be forgotten or not learned from. In response to someone saying that Bosnian Muslims they know appreciate efforts of NATO and the US, I said:

As do I, though I do believe it was too little, too late. Also, a lot of things were questionable, such as imposing an arms embargo so that the Bosnians couldn't defend themselves, the Dutch essentially standing around in an area that was supposed to be under the protection of the UN watching while the Serbs slaughtered the Bosnians, not putting sufficient troops on the ground all the while promising the Bosnians that they are safe (if the Dutch excuse is that there weren't enough people to realistically prevent the slaughter of the Bosnians), not even returning the weapons to the Bosnians in that UN protected area so they could defend themselves, trading Bosnians with the Serbs in return for Dutch hostages (and these Bosnians were later killed), not approving of air strikes until after the massacre (and getting the forms mixed up), etc

NATO's intervention was far from perfect. The incident with the Dutch troops being a particularly upsetting example. But I'm convinced it saved many thousands of lives. Tens of thousands probably. Look to Rwanda if you want an example that was left to run its horrifying course.

wn123455 · Apr 1, 2016

Oafman said:
It seems I was entirely wrong about this. From the ICC site:

To the question you're obviously now asking: 'if this wasn't an extreme case, exactly what is?', I have no answer.

Not the reasonable majority, but there are a significant number of Muslims who believe that western foreign policy is focused on the destruction of Islam. I mean, there are people in Pakistan who murder aid workers because they believe that the polio vaccine is a western plot to sterilise Muslims. I hope they're aware of the Karadzic conviction. I doubt they are.

At the other end of the spectrum, but equally idiotic, are comments like this, which appear to completely disregard the reams of evidence which the ICC has spent the last few years meticulously hearing:

--------------

NATO's intervention was far from perfect. The incident with the Dutch troops being a particularly upsetting example. But I'm convinced it saved many thousands of lives. Tens of thousands probably. Look to Rwanda if you want an example that was left to run its horrifying course.

I am questioning the Srebrenica "massacre" "evidence".

wn123455 · Apr 1, 2016

LoveBeingAMuslimah said:
"But the story of Radovan Karadzic, a psychiatrist turned genocidal mini-state leader, provides lessons for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump. The moral of Karadzic’s story is simple for current and future American presidents: Beware the empty threat."

"...The lesson for U.S. presidents is that threats can come back to haunt. Bill Clinton responded far more quickly to Serb attacks in Kosovo in 1999, but has said that Srebrenica was one of the greatest regrets of his presidency. It is a distant second with the genocide in Rwanda, where as many as one million perished after the UN failed to protect civilians there.

In hindsight, it is arguably better for American leaders to say nothing when they have no intention of taking action. Issuing hollow threats emboldens extremists. It does not cow them."

The Cost of America's Broken Promises

The Srebrenica "massacre" never happened LoveBeingAMuslimMan. Don't blindly accept evidence instead question evidence.

All Englands Skies · Apr 1, 2016

wn123455 said:
I am questioning the Srebrenica "massacre"'s "evidence".

I say it did happen to be honest, I don't think its right to deny something to suit a personal agenda ( I mean, I am not going to automatically side with and justify Bosnian Serb actions, in an attempt to paint the Muslims as always the bad guys)

and the US only got involved because they wanted a break up of the Yugoslavia.

Also Muslimah and people who think like her, like to highlight stuff like Srebrenica but using tunnel vision, in which they're the only victims in this world and Muslims are unique to being victims, so the most bloody massacre in Europe since world war 2 is a goldmine, its political point scoring, they take advantage of such events to rally people to their "cause"

One of the most bloodiest conflicts since WWII was the conflict in the Sudan, where the Islamists from the North kicked the living daylights out of the Christian/Animist south and trying to impose Islamic rule on everybody there, thus showing Muslims themselves can dish it out just as badly (if not worse), but oh no, when they're in the wrong its a different story and laughably, I bet she thinks the Islamist Government in Sudan (the North) were the "good guys" and those in the South Sudan the "bad gays", the Muslims are ALWAYS the good guys in every situation to her.

Its this dangerous one-sided mentality that leads some Muslims to join terrorist groups.

Butcher of Bosnia, Radovan Karadzic, found guilty of genocide, sentenced to 40 years

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Standing with Ukraine.

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

Newbie

Active Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Newbie

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

Junior Member

Junior Member

Christian-Syndicalist

Similar threads