MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?
————————————————————————————
NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed.
————————————————————————————

• discussion archive

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 4:07 am
  Quoting information provided by a press release issued by the Presidency of Kosovo, Koha Ditore reports that Kosovo President Ibrahim Rugova has appointed the US Senator Robert Bob Dole as Kosovo's ambassador to the US.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 6:39 am
  Bob Dole: UNMIK has repremanded Rugova and stated he does not have the authority to appoint ambassadors.

  Jeez, seems like I've not been able to load this page for weeks. Anyone thought of mirroring this debate on Yahoo groups?
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 7:15 am
  Re Yahoo

  I've set up a yahoo group for those interested. It would help with the problem that many of us have re time-outs.

  Thoughts please to :

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Milo_debate

  Or

  Milo_debate@yahoogroups.com
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 9:30 am
  For those who are having probs with time outs, you can access the days comments on

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Milo_debate .

  Check the date of the upload and then download the file. Those of you who have super fast connections might assist by uploading when you can.

  Alternatively, plague JURIST with emails about increasing the execution time to 60 seconds instead of the allowed 30 secs.
  
  David Juric
  Australia

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 9:40 am
  Hello Jari: Here is the Link to the CBC page: http://archives.cbc.ca/ The title "The Battle of Medak Pocket" by Carol Off is third from the bottom of the list. By the way we pause to remember our history on Nov 11th at 11 am. Vera thank you for the information you provided.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 9:44 am
  Thanks for creating the Yahoo group, Simon!

  I often have time out probs but with a little help from those who use Broadband we might get better access. We won't necessarily be able to post, but at least we can follow the comments.
  
  David Juric
  Australia

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 10:51 am
  Sages’ comments relevant to a recent thread:

  “Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it.” Gerorge Santayana.

  And paradoxically:

  “The most important lesson that history has to teach is that men do not learn from history.” Aldous Huxley.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 10:55 am
  HTML Correction - hopefully.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 12:05 pm
  Did somebody mention Stalin lately?

  UN Judges Order Milosevic Psychiatric Examination
  Peter Varavejke
  Belgium

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 12:48 pm
  Peter, I think it has been a while somebody mentioned Stalin. I guess when the judges order psychiatric examination, then the result is clear: the result is that he won't be fit to stand trial. Which is quite contrary to the more routine medical examinations (if any): no matter how many examinations are done, the experts won't recognize the obvious. Why should we trust him to a shrink when the doctor doesn't recognize the problem with his heart?

  Isn't it interesting that we were just talking about the post-traumatic stress disorder of the Canadian soldiers in Canada? Maybe Del Ponte won't get her Nobel Peace Prize, which means that Milosevic doesn't have to die, but the Battle of the Medak Pocket had better be eclipsed by something far more relevant. (Thanks Walter, I will try to get the transcript.)

  I haven't got the impression that Milosevic is crazy, but maybe the experts figured out that no-one can stay sane when he is exposed to the glow of halogen lamps every night. Let alone that workload. Hey, what are experts for?

  A somewhat similar psychiatric examination was ordered in the Erdemovic case. The accused was deemed not fit to stand trial, but I haven't sorted out why there were three judgments in his case anyway. There is far too much stuff to read. So I don't know what this means.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 1:00 pm
  And oh yes. The heart problem could be the fault of the authorities, but his mental health is his sole responsibility, because he didn't accept legal counsel. So the authorities opt for the mental health.

  So Milosevic got exhausted. That's it! That is the word used. The workload didn't necessarily break his physical health but it shattered his mental health. And best of all, it was his choice. Why did he refuse counsel?
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 1:22 pm
  

  I have mentioned Stalin few days ago. It looks as if one who does not recognize the Tribunal and finds unbelievable number of "translation errors" made in "the good fate" in the written statements of the witnesses must be mad i.e. unfit to defend him self.

  Actually my current position is that Mr. Milosevic's trial is becoming so entangled that it is starting to look like Gordian knot. A "sudden" death of Mr. Milosevic would be a blessing for the Hague Tribunal. On the other hand, we know who has the finest technology and experience to induce cardiac arrest without any trace. A country which is using this refined technology to execute its own citizens.

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Canada

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 1:35 pm
  

  An opinion of a fine educated Canadian gentleman who happens to be my friend.

  Remembrance Day is when we remember those that died in two great wars.

  In the 1914/18 War the Serbians were our allies against the Austrians and the Germans. The Croats and Slovenes were fighting in the Austrian Army as our foes. The Serbian army fought bravely and defeated the Austrians, but was unable to holdout against the German Army.

  The retreated through Albania o the seacoast. Wounded soldiers were carried in ox carts, but when these were unguarded they fell prey to Albanian bandits that came down from the hills andslaughtered the wounded. In that war every second adult male Serbian lost his life. In August 1918 the Serbian Fag flew on every government building in the United States to honour their sacrifice and a message from President Woodrow Wilson was read in almost every Christian church in America.

  When the Serbian Army returned from the Island of Split where it had been carried by the Allied Fleet, it soon expelled the Germans from their country.

  Under Wilson's 14 Points Yugoslavia was formed from the former Austrian provinces of Slovenia and Croatia and gallant Serbia.

  The Serbian King Alexander proclaimed that all Yugoslavians were equal, although the Croats and Slovenes had long fought against their fellow Slavs. This was mainly because the Serbians were Christian Orthodox and the Slovenes and Croats bitter Roman Catholics.

  In 1942 Hitler made a demand on Yugoslavia that the Serbians rejected, The Slovenes and Croats turned traitor and stuck Serbia in the back.

  Croatia became a Nazi Ally and sent two army divisions to the Russian front. The traitor President of Croatia was Anten Pavelic. He reinstituted the Ustache, fundamentalist Roman Catholic movement. These persons acted with a religious savagery, not seen since the Middle ages and the Spanish Inquistion The concentration camps in Croatia were worse than anything done by the Nazis. At Josenavac death camp 4500 Jews and 300,000 Serbians were slaughtered for the crime of having a different opinion on religion.

  At the conclusion of hostilities Marshall Tito, an avowed Communist took control and The Nation was directed toward State Communism. The Serbians were again betrayed, by their supposed allies. They were delivered into the hands of the communists.

  Marshall Tito, born a Roman Catholic and with a Slovenian mother and Croatian Father, divided the Nation into semi-Independent Republics so contrived as to create Serbian minorities in Croatia. Bosnia and Kosovo that was the original homeland of the Serbians.

  The Civil war was started by Slovenia. It was not true that Serbians practiced "ethnic cleansing" This was a lie invented by the US P.R. firm Ruder Finn In fact almost on million Serbians were driven out of their homes and have not returned.

  On Remembrance Day the CBC did not remember the Serbian sacrifices in our common cause. Carol Off, who has no personal knowledge of the matter spoke of Croatian revenge for Serbian crimes. The main crime was simply being of Orthodox religion. For that crime the Ustache had locked Serbian families in their church, where they were supposed to convert to Roman Catholicism and then burned them alive.

  Shame on Carol Off. Shame on the CBC. Some Remembrance to our loyal allies.

  Geoffrey Wasteneys Ottawa, Ontario

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Canada

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 1:45 pm
  In 1993-94, indeed NATO did have a role in Bosnia-Herzegivina. Theirs was to be an air force for UNPROFOR. The buzzword then was "dual-key"; that the UN and NATO would both put in their keys for bombing to be initiated; both would have to agree. The UN would have a veto. Bombing did happen before; around Gorazde during a Muslim-initiated set-piece in April 1994 that diverted the world's attention from the real horrors going on in Rwanda. NATO lost a Sea Harrier in that! During the runup to the 1999 war, Albright and her like always reminded the congressional committees "no dual keys".

  Remember the argument that a Kosovo occupation force had to be "robust" so as not to be humiliated by the armed groups on the ground, like it is said happened during the UNPROFOR mission? A robust KFOR succumbed totally to KLA demands, with General Clark crawling to Hashim Thaci the day after he openly threatened to kill KFOR troops. A robust KFOR that was attacked by the KLA in April 2001 and finally decided to openly support the KLA invasion of Macedonia. I suppose that these peacekeepers can't be humiliated by Croats, Muslims or Albanians. They are willing to take anything from these people, but can't take anything from the Serbs.
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 1:50 pm
  Thanks Vera for your pointer to Tim Marshall’s “Shadow Game” which I presume reveals Britain’s meddling in Serbia’s democratic processes. But will the truth of these matters ever be recognised? No wonder we never learn from history if our leaders prevent us, with disinformation, from knowing what the history is.

  You may have read about the recent trial of a British Secret Service agent, David Shayler. Among his allegations is the claim that MI5 paid £100,000 to al Qaeda to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi. While Blair prepares to elevate his aerial attacks on Iraq to an outright war there is evidence that Britain, Germany and the USA had more to do with the encouragement, training, support and harbouring of al Qaeda than Iraq ever did.

  Blair’ Media Blackout

  Concerning ‘democracy’ in Britain: Less than one in four of the electorate voted for a New Labour candidate yet they have a massive majority. Not only is the electorate disenfranchised by the unequal distribution of seats (10.7m votes yielded 412 seats for New Labour compared with 247 seats for the opposition for whom 15.6m people voted – a majority of 18m failed to vote) but New Labour MP’s are subjected to significant threats in order to force them to toe the party line. Parliament has no control of government in the UK. Whoever the New Labour Party represents it is not the people of Britain. On whose behalf British forces attacked Serbia be assured it would not be that of a fully informed British people. On whose instructions the British Secret Service meddles in Serbia’s political system be assured it is not those of the disenfranchised British people.

  One of New Labour’s manifesto promises was to implement a Freedom of Information Act – the result is a disgrace.

  Perhaps you may enlighten me on the following: Frequently Slobodan Milosevic was referred to as a Dictator yet he was voted out of power. How can this be so?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 2:14 pm
  Sharon sent 100,000 Israeli troops into the West Bank Area A in late March 2002. In Kosovo, the number of army and police in mid-1998 was around 20,000, and against a better-armed opponent. During that time, the official Washington line was that Yugoslavia must withdraw all troops "without linkage to a cessation of terrorist activities." (Mike McCurry) So you see that to increase the number of troops under these circumstances would have been a very courageous decision.
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 3:54 pm
  Geoffrey Wasteneys I believe that the Serbian army made it to the Greek island of Corfu. When the Allied ships came and bread was being offloaded a container broke and hundreds of starving men jumped into the water after it only to drown, as they were unable to swim. From here those that lived and were fit were evacuated to Salonika (Thessalonike) where they joined the evacuees from Gallipoli. Towards the end of the War they opened the Saloniksa Front against the Bulgarians and Germans. Because there was very little action on this Front until 1917 they spend most of their time tending gardens thus they were dubbed as the Gardeners of Salonika.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 6:11 pm
  James Bissett was Canada's ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania. He is widely recognized as one of the foremost authorities on Balkan politics. The following URL will bring you to his page i.e. his articles: http://www.deltax.net/bissett/ If you are interested into books INAT: Images of Serbia and the Kosovo Conflict and TESTED METTLE: Canada's Peacekeepers at War both written by Scott Teylor visit the following URL: http://www.espritdecorps.ca/products.asp
  
  Pera Bora
  Canada

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 7:31 pm
  

  Mrs. Florans Artman stated today that the case against Mr. Milosevic is condensed to the maximum, as a consequence, the further condensing of it would be done at the expense of justice. "We do not want to have a trial like one held against Mr. Al Capon. The idea is not to put Mr. Milosevic behind bars by convicting him on an account of his case. We have to follow the mission and goals that are set for us, that is to highlight the events, to identify responsible and to help the process of reconciliation in the region. This can not be accomplished if we concentrate only on some accounts of the accusation."

  For me this is clear admission that Mr. Milosevic trial is not about crimes (Al Capon against USA government), but politics and political missions and goals(Mr. Milosevic against the New World Order) . Under these rules any closed sessions and protected witnesses are not admissible, since public is not given opportunity to evaluate evidence on its own. Additionally no question asked or comment stated by Mr. Milosevic should be qualified as irrelevant, since Mrs. Artman has admitted that we still do not know what happened and this trial should allow us to find it out for ourselves.

  The above conclusions are becoming even more important when we read the article published in The Guardian today:

  Losing its only big fish could wreck court

  URL http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,838738,00.html

  Here are some quotes from the article:

  ...

  "If the tribunal is performing a crucial and valuable function through documenting what actually happened in the former Yugoslavia, it forfeits much of its raison d'etre without the big names in the dock."

  ...

  "Mr. Milosevic refuses to recognize the court and has ostensibly conducted his own defense (although he has two Serbian lawyers doing spadework), using The Hague as a political pulpit"

  "The tribunal is modeled on Anglo-Saxon legal principles. Ms Del Ponte has argued that the court should empower the judges to appoint or impose a legal team on the defendant. This would undoubtedly save time, while also muzzling Mr. Milosevic. "

  So again we see that Mr. Milosevic trial is not about crimes and accusations based on the already collected evidence but public investigation and interrogation combined with the prosecution and harassment of the accused. Once more I am forced to conclude that "muzzling" of the accused and denying him a right of self-defense is valuable tool used by the Stalin trials. We learn that The Guardian has taken Stalin's position that the right of self-defense can be qualified as the abuse of the Tribunal. Are we going to punish Mr. Milosevic for that too?

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Canada

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 8:11 pm
  Well, Peter, Milosevic was referred to as a Dictator by the foreign press, and it has started not so long ago, I believe on the eve of the bombing. Before that, he was regarded as the "guarantee of the peace" and a respectable democratically elected leader.

  Our opposition press spat on him unbelievably through all his years in the office, so I guess a real Dictator would just jail all of them. In fact, the only time several media were fined or temporarily banned was when some of them really went berserk, so they were charged with slander (but never regarding Milosevic personally or his family). I always enjoyed to perplex my Western friends by showing them any downtown Belgrade news-stand, brimming with opposition press full of the most fantastic venom against Milosevic.

  He had the absolute majority in all Parliaments (Serbian, Montenegrin, federal), but I see only few laws passed during his times that are actually changed now under the new Kostunica-Djindjic regime. I do not see that the Police has changed its methods now, as compared to his times (in some ways, it is even more rigid and with definitely worse leadership). The Police was beating the protesters in the streets? What else the Police anywhere in the world does? The crowd has trampled to death one police officer, for God's sake!

  No, I would not say Milosevic was a Dictator. Though, our media are currently on a mission to retrospectively prove that, by running some absurd feuilleton called "Milosevic - An Epitaph". Frankly, reading this looks like following events in, say, Papua New Guinea, not in Yugoslavia. Already two persons mentioned there reacted with angry letters to the editor, denying specific claims; one of them ending like this: "If someone pretends to re-write our contemporary history, he should do so in a more serious, responsible and competent way." My guess is that it would be not so easy to present Milosevic as a Dictator to our public. He was just a politician who made some wrong political choices and for that he was politically punished - voted out of power.

  This farcical trial makes a hero and a martyr out of him and people start to remember all the good things that he represented, especially in comparison with the bunch of clowns in the office now.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 8:43 pm
  “Lord help you” Ivan said. With just one word “Lord” you threw 2000 years of Christian history at me and this man tells us to forget this gobbledygook called history. Next time you feel that I need help say may Captain Picard of the Starship Enterprise help you or better then that may the Seven of Nine help you because I kind of like her better. Then Ivan said that “history books?????? of Yugoslavia??????” are not trustworthy. How selective Ivan is when it suits him.

  We all write our own version of history, the truth is somewhere in-between. Ivan, have you read any historical books about Yugoslavia, I mean English or Yugoslav sources??? Read Vladimir Dedijer’s works and Djilas’s books “The New Class” for example and you will see that they are probing for the truth. Dedijer was a respected historian who with Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre organized the War Crimes Tribunal for Vietnam. As for Djilas, his books were required reading in the political Science department at the University of British Columbia. Both were partisans (Serb family origins from Herzegovina and Montenegro) and they disagreed with Tito on the direction of the Yugoslav society. Both were expelled from the party, Djilas was jailed, not because they were nationalist but because they wanted social equality.

  Ok Ivan you twist my words by excluding what I said. I said read history irrespective who writes it so you can be informed. I did not say just read history written by Yugoslavs. If you don’t like Yugoslav historians how about reading Fitzroy McLean’s books about Tito since he is English and he was his official biographer.

  Ivan you slam Serjoe b for his post and you say to him that you don’t want to tell him how to think but in the next sentence you tell him exactly how to think. So Serjoe’s thinking is medieval is it? It is Medieval when Italy claims it but it is not medieval when it was added to Croatia. Get real. The Italians who lost their property should get it back. Imagine Ivan that you are dispossessed of your home in Australia and told your past does not matter look to the future.

  So Ivan you met a Serb that you liked and I met a Croat that I liked and married her so does that mean that all Croats and all Serbs are like the ones that you and I know. Get real. We don’t choose our partners and friends by nationality or stereotypes; we choose them because of their character.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Wednesday November 13, 2002 at 10:01 pm
  Hague considers bail for Milosevic. ITS ABOUT TIME. Source : B.92.net 11-13-02
  
  Vasile Ianos
  NJ

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 3:32 am
  Good grief! Aren't things happening a bit fast around the trial these days? One minute we hear Milosevic is going to be sent to the shrink and the next that he is going to be released on bail! This tempo is quite remarkable when one considers that absolutely nothing is happening in the trial it self. I don't know if the tribunal is having these leaks to the public in order to test the public's response to different options.

  So here you go, Carla. A shrink would be the worst option for everybody. Let us put this idea in the perspective. The purpose was of course to discredit Milosevic as a person and cast a shadow on his whole political career. No problem! There were no crimes you could pin on him anyway. Technically, such a mental incapacitation would even prevent the prosecution from digging too deep into the events, and on the other hand, politically, he would be a goner whether he was a criminal or a madman.

  But does the decision to send him to a shrink convince anybody when the chain of events in the trial is considered?

  First, Nice starts complaining that good witnesses are hard to come by. May had already warned the press not to start guessing at the identity of the protected witnesses. Then after Nice had complained of the poor quality of his own witnesses, I think it was May who warned the press not criticize the trial.

  A couple of weeks ago we were then having closed sessions, so that some people started complaining that they couldn't follow the trial on TV. Milosevic shouted that secret trials were supposed to be a thing of the past. Then Judge Kwon started criticizing Nice for the obscure criteria he had for requesting closed sessions on so on.

  Then Milosevic had the near heart attack and the trial was suspended for a week. When the trial was resumed Del Ponte wanted the tribunal to impose a mandatory counsel on Milosevic. That would have been a bit far-fetched. The judges suggested that the prosecution cut back the number of witnesses. Well, that was too much for the prosecution. It was the nature of the case, you know. With this protest, the prosecution gracefully rejected the suggestion someone might have made that they were using so many witnesses to exhaust Milosevic.

  So all the plans seemed to backfire. Then we have in very rapid succession the news that Milosevic will be sent to a shrink and that he weill be released on bail. Maybe he will released on bail after he has been diagnosed as a nut case. Which doesn't mean that the trial won't go on. On the contrary, while Milosevic is out on bail, I think it will be his counsel who will take care of the defence. Of course, Milosevic has no say in this matter, because he has already been incapacitated.

  What is "too good" about all this is that after the trial was resumed this week, nobody suggested that some of the sessions should be closed. And the other thing that is too good to be true: why send him to a shrink when it is a cardiologist he needs?

  About Peter Taylor's question about the history repeating itself. I don't think history repeats itself. What would that mean? On the other hand, we have been submerged ad nauseam in all kinds of WWII analogies. Slobo is a Hitler, the Muslims are the Jews, this or that event is the biggest humanitarian catastrophe since WWII, we have concentration camps, incineration of bodies in Trepca, mass deportations, trainloads of second-class people and so on and so forth. Now, isn't that a bit too good to be true too?

  Nato obviously thinks history repeats itself. Which is why it ends up repeating it. However, just throwing in some WWII imagery doesn't mean that you are this time on the right side. You might be on the wrong side. And that is what even Nato doesn't necessarily know. It is like the story about King Oedipus. In an attempt to avoid the fulfilment of a prophecy you are actually fulfilling it. I think this is how we should interpret the two aphorisms "history repeats itself" and "we learn nothing from history".

  Yes, it is evident from the latest statements made by the OTP that the crimes are not what this is all about. It is about politics, which in turn is about rewriting history. So those that are wondering about the value of writing history are actually the ones who are rewriting it. This rewriting of history is then somehow staged as a criminal trial.

  Chasing criminals should be a pretty rigorous exercise, but all of a sudden the OTP gets complacent: Oh the case is so complicated. All we can see is the tip of the iceberg, which doesn't mean that we shouldn't nail at least that tip of the iceberg.

  It is like Pontius Pilate asking: What is truth? For some reason, people get philosophical when they want to deny the truth. Man has a wonderful ability to know the truth when he learns it. What gets in the way is asking too many questions like: What is truth? Which version of history is the true one? People asking these questions are only doing something to soothe their troubled consciences and they do it so well that they fool even themselves.

  Which takes us to the great philosopher George Soros. He is definitely not a stupid man. He is not just a clever man, he is also a wise man. But all his wisdom turns into a parody when one knows that funding the ICTY is his idea of philanthropy.

  His three key concpets are uncertainty, reflexivity and open society. None of which ICTY exemplifies.

  The Milosevic trial has nothing to do with uncertainty. The outcome is certain. The only uncertainty is now whether Milosevic will live to see it. If Soros really believed in his own dogma of uncertainty, he should admit that ICTY was a very, very bad investment, in other words, he was wrong, and stop financing it.

  Reflexivity means that we influence the truth by our perception of it. However, Soros emphasizes that there is a truth. For this reason, he dismisses the deconstruction fads. But again, the message ICTY is sending is that there is no truth. You can write history anyway you want. And rewriting history is why some people should get convicted and others not. Ah, it's all so relative.

  In fact, Dickers seems to be a great believer in deconstruction. He said at the end of the Kosovo phase of the trial that we have a lot of information and the question is now how the judges will piece it together. "Piecing it together" is deconstruction talk. That is postmodernism. You know, modernism was about tearing everything to peaces, postmodernism is about putting them back together, but the difference to pre-modernism is that the original picture should not be the guideline at all. On the contrary, you are absolutely free to rearrange the pieces any way you want. That is because there is no truth, no whole picture.

  One of the ways ICTY is rewriting history is by making Islam seem as a religion of peace. Naser Oric may be a bastard but he is also a Muslim hero. No amount of violence by the Muslims seems to result in an indictment, except for the show of even-handedness. This is the minimum price you have to pay to picture the Muslims as the victims.

  What is the driving force with this Muslim-friendly version of history? Fear. Mr T doesn't really love the Chechens, for instance. It seems he doesn't even know them. He is just afraid of them. He is afraid of the Muslims. And with his uncanny expertise of the Dutch media he can find an oulet for that fear. He must think that if you do what the Muslims want, then there is nothing to fear.

  But this line of thought is all wrong-headed. There is nothing to fear about Islam. Islam is the religion of peace. The attack on 9/11 has nothing to do with Islam. Neither have Bali, the Philippines, Kashmir, the Sudan, Ivory Coast, Nigeria and so on. There are millions of Muslims and not all of them would do what the guys did on 9/11. It is not their fault that it even doesn't take millions of Muslims to do what the guys did on 9/11, it only takes a few.

  And if you suggest otherwise, those millions of Muslims will get really angry. Then they pray Allah to instill fear in the hearts of the infidels, and as long as the infidels fear, the Muslims won't have to use violence. It isn't necessary.

  It would be just as great an injustice to indict, let alone convict, Croats. They have suffered so much for their Ustasi past. It would be absurd to convict them of the violence against the Serbs. It would be a sign of prejudice. If you convict a Croat, how can you be sure that you are not driven, deep down, by bias. Unconscioulsy, you might punish the Croats for what they did in WWII? And that is simply not fair. How could that result in a fair trial?

  I think this is what our Croat friend is saying. He denies having any sympathies with the Ustasi, yet he speaks about nothing else. Then he gets philosophical about history.

  No, it is far better to convict Serbs. Then you can be sure that you are not biased. They have no Jihad or Ustasi past that would to influence your judgments. They were the good guys. And to be really, really even-handed, you must punish the good guys too.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 3:50 am
  The Battle of Medak Pocket transcipt can be found towards the end of the link http://cbc.ca/national/transcripts/transcript#25CE82-16 .
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 3:53 am
  Doesn't seem to work. Go to www.cbc.ca/national . Written in very little text at the bottom there is a link to "transcipts". Write the date 2002-11-11 in the appropriate boxes. There you go.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 8:22 am
  Help me out here folks...

  Mr May has problems following the proceedings so Slobo has to see a shrink now. What is it I don't quite understand here?

  Slobo, as President of Serbia and YU is supposedly guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs on racial grounds, yet Serbia is the only former YU republic with a significant ethnic mix including non-Serbs. What is it I don't understand here?

  No Serbs left in Croatia, no Serbs left in Slovenia, no Serbs left in Kosovo, no Serbs left in Montenegro, no Serbs left in Macedonia, no Serbs left in Bosnia apart from Republika Srpska... Was Slobo ethnically cleansing the Serbs or the non-Serbs?

  No wonder Mr May is so often confused. Maybe he needs to see a cardiologist too! I bet the ICTY cardiologists are just as good at treating senility as the ICTY shrinks are good at treating cardio-vascular problems. Or maybe maybe can arrange a swap with Slobo?
  
  David Juric
  Australia

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 9:13 am
  I've had just about enough Walter... not only will you not read what I am writing...you presume me to care of the past, and you expect me to be drawn into your silly little analogies about me losing land in Australia. i suspect your ideals of democracy/ understanding and the Canadian way fall short of your comments when being quite insensitive about the position of Istra.....not merely because you think this is the correct thing which should be done, but because it is ultimately an anti-croatian sentiment. the right to self-determination which is at the forefront of Serbian wishes seems quite lacking in your comment about the Croats in Istra not having any of their own....and Serjo was complaining about Tito carving it up..not about the Croatians taking it..... nevertheless.................. i digress..................................... I will not read of the past in Yugoslavia..because there are too many conflicting points of view....which are reflected in the way the people carry out there conflicts. By reading of a Yugoslavian History I do not become better informed and closer to the truth...I come closer to someone else's idea of truth. this i have experienced most frustratingly throughout my life it all seems to add up....but using different figures and formulas..so you never get quite the full understanding of the problem. My only wish now is for the bias truth of everyone to be forgotten. I do not....care of the past..... I aim further....to the future. The thing I am saying is.... What do you think would happen if Italy attempted to take back Istra???? I am not worried with what has happened. I am worried now of what will happen if people like Serjo, who often think of the past, actually act upon this thinking. I am against any of these nations acting out of a deep-seeded and festering wish to regain some kind of compensation they feel they have lost some time in the last century. For me the historical question is over..... I am sick of war.....I am sick of bickering.... I am explaining to you that there are people who are somehow connected to Yugoslavia who do not want to go back to war...., i am saying to you the quest for the true history is the direct path to war.........., as it has been throughout its history. The wish to write and rewrite the history books to get to a kind of imagined ultimate history is what drives people to horrible unrestrained actions. I will spell it out again..very simply so you understadn this time. YUGOSLAVIA'S HISTORY IS DOMINATED BY BORDER CHANGE AND CONFLICT. IT IS TIME TO FORGET THAT HISTORY BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE HISTORY IS MADE UP OF....DEATH/MURDER/BETRAYAL/CONQUER.. TO LIVE IN THE NAME OF THIS HISTORY IS TO CONTINUE ON THIS LEGACY OF DIFFERENCE AND MISTRUST OF THE PEOPLE THERE. TO WISH TO UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH OF THIS HISTORY IS FALLACY BECAUSE YOU WILL ONLY BE PERSUING SOMEBODY ELSE'S AGENDA. (whether it be Djilas or whoever else you sympathise with..against that understanding of history which is different to yours)................... I believe the anecdote about meeting a Serbian person for the first time, was not told in full by myself. She was a girl I did not know was a Serb....and we became quite good friends in class before either of us found out about each others heritage. The entire point of this story was to show that yes..... "We don’t choose our partners and friends by nationality or stereotypes; we choose them because of their character"....my sentiments exactly. This was the purpose of the tale...i am sorry for it being so vague. Any other problems Walter????? AND.......LORD is and expression you nitpicker. it does not neccessarily relate to my religious faith,,,,, which is in fact strongly centred on my spirituality rather than that of any community. History is important in certain contexts.... In Yugoslavia it is important that it is forgotten.
  
  ivan kokotovic
  sydney
  australia

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 9:39 am
  lovely... you type so eloquently Jari, yet so incorrectly. .....not once ever, did I say Croatians should not be indicted/sentenced for their roles in the last war. .....I have stated that this Milosevic trial is a farce......and if anything that in fact nobody should have been indicted to avoid inconsistencies in the whole process. ...........The reason why????? Because here it comes again...... its all about how people want others to remember history. For me it is not a question of right or wrong...merely that it has occurred. There are no good guys and bad guys....merely guys with different points of view. .............................Unfortunately they all had similar ways of expressing these points of view.
  
  ivan kokotovic
  sydney
  australia

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 11:19 am
  How right you are Ivan, and I do not believe anyone here disagrees with you, when you state “… this Milosevic trial is a farce … its all about how people want others to remember history.” You’ve summed it up nicely.

  Principle among these ‘people’ is Blair who committed war crimes when he dropped fragmentation bombs on ‘others’ in Serbia. Blair needs desperately for the ICTY to convict Milosevic so that the history books will record him as the cause of all the horrors during the fragmentation of the former Yugoslavia. Thus and only thus will Blair be able to fabricate some wobbly justification for his pivotal role in Nato’s illegal attacks upon Serbia.

  One might add that this one time pacifist and CND campaigner also needs this smokescreen to cover the UK’s dealings with al Qaeda terrorists, which might otherwise be a huge embarrassment.

  Ironically these ‘others’ include not only Serbs but also Albanians, Bosnians, Croats and many other nationalities. For as David Juric states above Serbia is the only true multi-ethnic community in the Balkans. It is doubly ironic that it is Blair and his allies, not Milosevic, who are responsible for the actual ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

  These facts are starkly true but the ‘establishment’ will not recognise them.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 11:56 am
  Ivan, I never doubted that you considered this trial as a farce. I agree with you that the history cannot and should not be replayed.

  However, one should distinguish between individual guilt and collective guilt. Of course this trial is a farce. But who will suffer from it? Only Milosevic? Or the whole Serbian nation?

  How will the Serbian nation get justice? Through these kangaroo courts (of which ICTY is not the only one) or through historybooks?

  The individuals in the nations can be good or bad, but everybody must admit that the Serbs as a nation have been treated like shit. In this perspective, it is cruel to start preaching about good and bad people in every nation or feeding us with the platitude that there are no good and bad nations, because they all consist of individuals. I think the victim should be treated a priori as the good guy. That applies to nations as well as to individuals.

  In normal circumstances, a nation could get some redress in some purely judicial procedures like the International Court of Justice. However, in this case the fraud is too deep. ICJ is out of the question. Should the fate of the Serbian nation just be accepted as a "historical fact"? But your view of "historical fact" seems to be self-defeating! You say everything depends on the viewpoint. You say it is the Serbs that will view their history from their perspective and the other nations from their own.

  That won't do. The point of the whole Balkans campaign is to "take the Balkans to Europe". It is all about globalization, which means that everybody should think almost the same about everything. That means we basically have no different viewpoints.

  Again: does that mean that one should accept everything coolly as "historical facts"? Or is one allowed to vent one's feelings (a very human reaction)? To be more specific, should one really let Blair, for instance, enter the historybooks as the hero of those who took the Balkans to Europe?

  History may depend on one's viewpoint, but in the final analysis there may be paradoxically only two viewpoints: that one viewpoint which says that everybody should accept the same view of history (the victor's) and the other which says that history is the ultimate judge of separate peoples. I guess nowadays the question is whether the elusive concept of globalism is really worth more than anything else.

  History will be the judge of that anyway. We can already start providing facts for that evaluation. And there is one thing you can judge what the "truth" is: the different pieces fit together. I even hit on an aphorism yesterday: truth will never go out of style.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 12:05 pm
  Ivan,I see that i have been quite misunderstood regarding my supposed wish for Istra to be italian again. But it is not your fault but for sure because of may poor english. So I will try explain better my point of view. I have been allways a grat admirer of Tito's Yugoslavia. It was for me a unique State, a genuine "melting pot" of different populations,with various religions,alphabets - all with the common goal to preserve the indipendence of their homeland. At that time no one Blair, no one Schroeder, no one Pope or Clinton would dare to poke their nose in the internal affairs of indipendent Yugoslavia Few others indipendent were:G.B. France and CCCP,the others including Italy were American and respectively Soviet colonies. Yugoslavia was a high respectable country in the whole world.Nobody can deny this. (No mafia, no drugs,no prostitution,no clandestines etc) Instead of being proud of it, you -Croat,Serbs and Bosniacs chose to destroy each other with the ultimate result to live in colonized statelets in the queue to become new "waiters" for EU and NATO, or you naivly think, that you will have a "say" in these clubs?? Milosevic probably is paying the price because he opposed the secessionism,and because was last to remove the red star from the flag. Ivan, for Istria be sure that nobody in Italy from left to right avenge any idea to redisign the boundaries. When You will enter in EU,the fears about it will be solved for ever....
  
  Serjoe b
  Italy

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 2:07 pm
  Ivan Kokotovic

  You make the same mistake I made with Walter and Jari, they are analytical and look for meanings behind what is said, and to me do not take some innocently said things at face value, but that is what makes thier writings interesting, they constantly question EVERYTHING. They are not being personal(IMO) but testing your therories which gets the best from you, it makes you and them think and explore.

  After my baptism of fire here I read more and say less.

  I found out years ago if your not an academic you can't argue with an academic, they're glued to the moral high ground with super glue and you need to be damn good and well informed to shft em.

  just my 2 pence worth.

  Any chance one of you with a DSL connection could upload the daily postings to :

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Milo_debate

  I'm already having problems loading this page...cheers.
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 2:27 pm
  Now they wonder why there was a war; do people want more proof as to why Milosevic is right about the nature of his trial and the reasons for the war?<>P> There's the worst interference in the Republika Srpska by the cursed Americans. As usual, they are piling up the pressure to keep the most popular party, SDS out of the government, helped with the shameful system they have of giving free seats to Muslim and Croat parties who get 1% of the vote, as well as Djindjic's and Plavsic's parties; well, good stooges can't not be rewarded for their treachery. The Israelis of course, with the billions and billions they get from the US, are not being pressured to thwart a planned governing coalition loaded with advocates of ethnic cleansing. At least Israel is a real case of an entity created through ethnic cleansing, unlike RS. The worst part is that Petritsch and Ashdown have ordered that half the RS cabinet be non-Serbs, thus representatives of parties with a tiny fraction of the vote. The ICG made it clear that they want to promote such measures to unitarise Bosnia. This is the Western obsession because the US said that Bosnia would be a unitary state under US influence and as Bush the Elder said in Feb 1991, "What we say goes". Every moment that it is not a unitary Bosnia, the will of the Almighty Superpower is being challenged, and that will never do.
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 2:36 pm
  

  The Standardd of comparison is not longer Joseph Stalin, his justice and show trials.

  The United States has set the new standard, tonight a Pakistani subject is to be put to death in a US federal facility. This man was abducted by US agents a few years ago in Pakistan and consequently tried and convicted.

  There was General Noriega whom Bush the Elder brought manus militari to the US after during the process killing some 2,000 Panamanian civilians. General Noriega was tried under bizarre conditions in a US district court in Miami and probably would serve his full sentence without been able to appeal his case since the evidence which could be used for his appeal is excluded, was excluded during his trial.

  More? The United Nations has dennounced the conditions and legallity in the long keeping of detainees in the US Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Where US jurists are closing their eyes pretendding the base is outside of US jurisdiction since it is in Cuba despite the US flag flying in the base . . . there is evidence of torture and killings the UN claims.

  The list is long and the situation is certainly not improving: so I would recommend when making comparisons to perhaps, not forgeting the past to look at today's vilains since it is from there the danger comes.

  Mr. Milosevic needs outside help, all kiinds of help since without it he will die in the hans of the aggressors desguised as judges.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 2:47 pm
  I checked to see who got giveaways in the RS system. 62 of the seats were distributed honestly, and 21 of the seats were giveaways, given away according to purely political criteria. And how were the giveaways distributed? They gave four to the SDS and four to the Dodik party, each accounting for 19% of the total each. This nearly matches Dodik's percentage of the vote but is far, far less than the SDS number, showing that popularity can't go unpunished.

  The PDP, that formed a government with the SDS, got hit hard with only ONE giveaway seat, though they finished a strong third. Next was the Muslim party SDA that got 2 giveaways to increase their total from 4 to 6. The next two parties are the Radicals and Socialists who got a big ZERO giveaways. These are Serbian parties but also associated with Milosevic and Seselj. Got to punish them, see.

  Six parties that got less than 2% and got zero seats honestly got one giveaway each. They are the "moderate" Croat party, the Djindjic party, the Plavsic party, the Predrag Radic party (I guess they don't think he blew up the Banja Luka mosques as alleged), the Euro-Atlantic Mirko Banjac party, and finally the pensioners' party. One Muslim party had its representation doubled from two seats to four through giveaways. Shameful.

  People should be aware of this blatent interference in the RS internal affairs. The same people who do this then say it's "insulting" to link the billions of dollars to Israel with any standard of Israeli behaviour. This claim is "insulting" to the rest of the world.
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 5:21 pm
  

  Gogol,

  I still think that the Joseph Stalin's show trials are the best comparison to what is happening to Mr. Milosevic in The Hague. Having said that, I agree absolutely with your point that the USA government has made significant contribution, of its own, to the deterioration of the international laws and justice system, exactly as you point it out. For me the most repulsive example is Zoo Gardens at Guantanamo. The USA government should be held accountable for that. How this new emerging standard cocktail of world injustices is going to be called, I do not now? I am some times referring to it as a New World Order Justice. I am not forgetting that The USA and The Great Britain are the main culprits in this said accomplishment. A possible name may be BBC ((Bush , Blair and Carla) or ABC (Arbour, Bill and Carla) or CNM (Carla, Nice and May.

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Canada

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 5:36 pm
  

  I made my comment perhaps too succint. I can't imagine the world adopting American standards when treating children defendants as adults, justifying it by saying "adult" crimes are punishable as if committed by adults . . .

  The Attorney General of the US is not protecting the Laws or the citizens of the country, he is just indulging in promiting all kind of excesses in this new vision and role for justice, the newspapers in the US especulate about how many Iraqui generals will be brought to court without bothering to specify on what charges . . .

  NOW THIS:

  Milosevic Update: Let's Fight Back!

  Below is the full text of the ICDSM's motion, filed with The Hague Tribunal on 5 November by Nico Varkevisser.

  The motion contains our proposals for solving the life-threatening health crisis brought on by the ICTY's abuse of Slobodan Milosevic.

  For more on that, please see the article, "Hague Tries Quietly to Murder Milosevic; His Defense in Financial Crisis" at http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/01/39019.html

  The Tribunal responded to our motion by fax. Their response will be posted some time later today, November 12th, at http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/more/it-122.htm

  In their response, the ICTY stated that our motion did not follow proper procedures for applying for amicus status, as laid out in UN rule IT/122.

  We were unable to find this rule IT/122 on the Website of the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia. Thus the ICTY has introduced a new legal concept, the non-public rule of procedure. This concept may be further developed by Mr. Franz Kafka.

  In their communication, the ICTY fortunately included the text of the mysterious Rule 122. We have therefore written and submitted a second motion, which we will make available to you shortly.

  During the proceedings on Monday, November 11th, the ICTY judges discussed with Mr. Milosevic, Prosecutor Carla del Ponte's motion to force unwanted counsel on the Yugoslav leader.

  We will post a full report on that discussion. Suffice it to say, here, that the ICTY's argument is: Slobodan Milosevic is physically at risk because of the trial; therefore in his own interest he must be partly or entirely denied the right to defend himself. In other words, Mr. Milosevic, whose cardiac condition is affected by stress, is to be forced to sit and watch while his defense is mishandled.

  The ICDSM has proposed an entirely different way to safeguard Milosevic's health. This is contained in the motion below. We are now trying to raise the funds needed to hold a press conference in The Hague, including a legal expert. If you can help financially, now is the time to do it. Donations can be made by going to http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/nowisthetime.htm

  Jared Israel, ICDSM

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA Death Penalty Land

• Thursday November 14, 2002 at 7:36 pm
  Gogal, Infomation re IT/122 can be found at:

  http://www.law.mcgill.ca/justice/art74-en.html

  Application for Filing of the Amicus Curiae Brief: Interpretation of Rule 74 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ICTR

  Looks like the rules for ICTR and ICTY are the same as they are based on a ICTY Appeal Chamber ruling.

  Maybe Jari can comment on this?
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 12:10 am
  Miro Saramago,give me the link to examine that NGO-kido :guardian/talk/world.....

  Ivane...you are not ustasha..nor domobran..nor even Croat anymore..you..kangaroo.You got me.Only,we'll have sljivovica when Jari comes.It seems we'll get hi first.Don't worry we'll make an ustasha of you again. ------I can't fight for new Yugoslavia when it's impossible.I defend the idea of YU.Common sense tells you that union is better:free trade,travelling,tollerance.Independence!The best country ever. -------In 1941. in Lika people were saying that they will go "to work".No one knew where or when.Ustashi called Serbs to another village.One Croat said to my grandfather: don't go back,they will kill you all.Those who rejected such possibility went back by the road.They were naive.Like Jari.My grandfather stood alive with just few others, because they went through the wood where they joined partisans, later.But, my other grandfather was a clever man.He wanted to see Europe and said:"I surrender,take me to Germany".He travelled for free and spent four unforgetable years there.Grandmother was angry because she didn't want to wander with 2 kids over Bosnia for all that time.Women. -------On the other side ,Serbs remember a Croat,a communist Marko Oreskovic who explained to people that they have to fight together against fascism. ------- And what shall we do about it? You answered it :"wwII shouldn't have mattered to the events that have since occurred".We should analyze and see why all that happen.Mr Trkla missed your point many times.You critisize Pavelic for cowardness and false patriotism,also.There is a legend. Licani used to throw those who weren't so perfect from Velebit mountain into the see.Those who had empty head floated easily and later they became proud Dalmatians. --------Ivane,I call you Ustasha more frendly.You are so unusual Croat.Take my advice and don't speak about politics with Croats.Just listen.Everything you are talking about is familiar to me.You'll make mistake if you mix me with nationalism,myths or justifications because I'm red like Jari's muzzle. You touched some important questions - Myth of Sloba speech and Myth of Croatians independence.Croatian sources aren't enough.You miss few details like the rest of this naive society.

  Mr Trkla .Non-Aliened M. was positive but it's role was to keep third countries away from the Soviets.That was the role of Yugoslavia.

  I'm glad you're still here White-head Baltic Bear.Come over here and fight as a man.I have to admit that you are progressing though you can throw to basket your UN-peacekeeping summary (you stole that information of connection between fall of Srebrenica and cleansing of Krajina; I just don't know where).There is still hope for you as a conspiracy theorist.

  Lazarevic is Hartman's family friend.The husband(Domankusic) works on international airport in East Timor. L. has good sunny colour and looks like Australian(to me).The rest is easy to imagine---"I was KOS officer"---"very well than: you can sit in airport security and we'll send you to Hague on few days". Tiggelaar did the husband earn a check?

  God bless Croatian commies
  
  milan masic
  serbia

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 1:08 am
  Ivan;

  It seems to me you want peace at any cost in the Balkans.

  To allow NATO to rewrite history in the context of US policy would be to appease the aggressor. Slobo, "his voice only heard by those willing to look for it" is our only chance.

  The US is willing to recognize military juntas in most parts of the world if they fallow US dictates. Ask Hugo Chavais, or the new government in Brazil. Cuba is on the same hit list as well as Iraq.

  If NATO could find a way to blame Slobo for male pattern baldness, they would. Instead, they censore the media and try to convince the world that Saddam eats babies.

  Ivan, mr. Bush's homeland security dept' with total control of personel,unlimited power,and no congressional oversight looks a lot like the SS to me. History is a value in itself.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  B.C. Canada

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 1:57 am
  We can be mystic or we can be cynic about history. I prefer to learn from it. I have no quarrel with my friend Ivan other than when he throws thousand years of historical baggage at me in order to make a point. I also agree that we all make choices on what is fact and what is fiction. Show me a historian and I will show you a liar. However, some historians and I would say most who post on this page try to rise above their bias. The fact that I am bias by virtue of providing only evidence to support my points I leave to others like Frank to provide a balance because there is a balance even if Ivan and Frank and Mr. May don’t believe it.

  Ivan writes that there “are no good guys and bad guys”. Of course there are. Any man be he a Muslim, Serb or Croat who can burn, disposes and brutalize someone else’s child is not capable of loving his own. Ivan I gave you a very simple analogy about if you should be “dispossessed of your home in Australia” and that is not a “silly little analogies” as you call it. It would be a tragedy as it was for the Japanese Canadians during WWII who lost everything; fishing boats, homes and businesses just because they are of a different race. This Canadian example of racism is a blot on our history but we are trying to learn from it and as a result we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that would not allow such injustice today.

  This tragedy or the “silly little analogy” is lived every day in every corner of the world by Serbs, Croats and Muslims. Tell a Croatian man who now lives here in Kamloops, formerly a civil engineer in Prijedor and now he cleans floors and washes dishes that being dispossessed of your home is a silly little analogy. You could have visited him in a psychiatric ward of our hospital.

  Ivan I don’t give a hoot about Istra. I care about the innocent Italian people whose lives were turned upside down by lack of “democracy/ understanding and the Canadian way”. You say that my comments about Istra are “quite insensitive” and in the same breath you speak about self- determination and democracy for Croatians. I salute self-determination for Croatia but you seem to miss my point which is what one wants for himself he should not deny the same for his neighbor be he Italian, Muslim or Serb. By the way Ivan where did you see in Serjo’s post any reference that Italy should take Istra back, he just simply said that Italy was on the losing side in the war and the results speak for themselves.

  Finally Ivan writes “I will spell it out again..very simply so you understadn this time” after this he capitalizes everything. I tend to capitalize as well when I YELL. This is a trait (YELLING which I try very hard to control ) of some people from my former homeland when they speak of optimism for their own future but are not able to see the misery on which this optimism is buil.
  
  WAlter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 4:12 am
  Now that we are on the subject of history again... History doesn't have to look backwards, as Ivan suggested...History can also look forwards...And where did I learn that?... From Bonnie and Clyde themselves (Bill and Madelaine)...

  During the bombing Bonnie and Clyde kept telling us that their actions or failure to act would be judged by history. Yes they will. Only, not the way they meant. After Bill and Madelaine got off office, I have not read or heard a single positive thing about them. The only thing that keeps them from being drained into the sewage system is the continued reign of Blair, Bill's pal. But even Blair can't stem the tide. His fumbling about Iraq has already tarnished his image, which will get the blacker the more he wants to keep it clean (by ICTY if necessary).

  There is actually no need to philosophize about history. I think it all boils down to the simple saying "you can't fool all the people all the time". What I would like to say to Clinton, Albright and Blair is the same as my favourite actor Clint Eastwood said in one of his recent films: "You heartless whore!" Do you think you can elevate yourself above the judgment of history and relegate your enemies to the bottomless pit of the ICTY?

  That is not just King Oedipus all over again. It is just plain hubris, which will not go unpunished.

  Tables will get turned. Sending Slobo to the psychiatric examination was a bad mistake, which will backfire. David was right to point out that once you go down that road, nobody is safe. Start with May, as was already done. Besides, Carla and Nice even look insane. Carla looks as if she turns into a hyena at every fullmoon, and Nice looks like a chain-smoking (or actually chainsawing) Count Dracula, who plays "children of the night" with everybody that get into his castle in Transylvania.

  Besides, the plan is insane itself. Is it intended to cast a shadow on all of Slobo's past activities? If so, why does this examination have to take place now? Everybody knows that whatever his physical and mental health is, it has been damaged by the tribunal.

  And as to the insanity of his political career. Well...I think much of that insanity is in the eye of the beholder. One can throw back David's argument that Serbia is one of the few places that is not ethnically cleansed by saying that this is what happens when you are guilty of the kind of hubris Slobo was: Slobo tried to cleanse Serbia and the terrible retribution is that Serbia is now even more ethnically mixed. That is the argument that we have already got familiar with: Slobo started three wars and lost them all. And still, the critics say, he is in denial. Not only that, he is even triumphant.

  But the biggest mistake of the shrink plan is that it is too damn Stalinist. And this reminds me: I forgot to elaborate on the third of Soros's key concepts: open society. We know that the tribunal is doing everything to make Milosevic shut up, and suddenly someone gets the brilliant plan to diagnose him as a madman. Now, is that what Soros has in mind when he talks about open society?

  His idea of an open society is a delusion. He wants to make the world open for cash flows, but denies that this is enough. We need some ideals too, he says, and the international organizations are going to reinforce them. Still, the ultimate concern is the free cash flow. Who is going to buy an ideal that is begotten for the benefit of the free movement of capital? Besides, the distance between the less endowed people and the international organizations is too big, so what is so "open" about this kind of society? Those who get to the top positions are not "open" but the worst kind of careerists à la Nice and Del Ponte, who would be socially absolutely dysfunctional outside their prosecutorial realm.

  And the deconstruction games that the tribunal is playing by reinventing the truth are a sign of collective madness. The only hope then becomes the same old saying "you can't fool all the people all the time". Every society is open - over time.

  Then to the so-called Serb viewpoint. As someone might have noticed, most people advancing the so-called Serb viewpoint here are not Serbs. So the Serb viewpoint is not a question of prejudice, I think it is a question of justice. You can see another point of view, even if you don't belong to that group. You don't have to be a Serb to "know" that something is "going the wrong way". Yes, the Serbs can be a pain in the ass, but so can everybody else. There are simply limits to what you can do if you think you are promoting your idea of civilization. And all of them have been broken many times in case of Serbia.

  But the danger is that one is exposed to attacks from all sides. This forum is the first time I have been called an intellectual or an academic. That reminds me of what Ahtisaari said to defend his peace plan. Believe it or not, he knew that there were some critics of the bombing. However, he dismissed these people as "intellectuals" and then quoted some French diplomat who defined an intellectual as someone who knows everything about one thing and talks about anything else. Of course he wanted to admit that he is not an intellectual, even if in my opinion I think he would have fitted perfectly his own definition of an intellectual. He also suggested that the critics of the bombing only found an excuse for their anti-American feelings. Which is simply untrue. A lot of anti-American feeling is also a direct result of the bombing.

  On the other hand, it is not true that the Serbs didn't break the rules. Why did Mladic take part of the Dutchbat as hostage? I am trying hard to see things from his viewpoint. He wanted to stop the incursion of the Muslim militants from Srebrenica. He decided to take action and march to Srebrenica. However, he knew that UNPROFOR could respond with airpower. So he wanted a bargaining chip, which worked, the Dutchbat. He knew that the Muslims were under Nato's special protection, because the Markale marketplace massacres were what got Nato mobilized. Of course, he new that Nato had the one key, while the UNPROFOR had the other. The question is: who refused to turn the one key? Was it Nato, which wanted a massacre, or was it UNPROFOR, which wanted to protect the Dutchbat? The Oscar-winning film No Man's Land, which is an allegory of Srebrenica, I guess, points the finger at the UN.

  But what becomes of the theories that say that Nato desperately wanted a massacre? It doesn't seem to make sense. What would have happened if the UN had OK'd the bombing right away (which it did after a couple of days)? Everybody would have pointed the finger at Nato, if it had refused to turn its key, and accused it of staging a massacre. I think the dual-key system suggests that the Srebrenica massacre couldn't have been staged (at least not beforehand). Or how would anybody have guessed that Mladic would be clever enough to find a suitable bargaining chip?

  By the way, Mladic's actions could be excused against the background of the ongoing incursions as a reprisal. Just a thought.

  Simon, I didn't understand your question. That was in jest, right?
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 6:04 am
  Hi to all, long time no see. First, some advice on posting: for those of you people that wonder why your comments repeat several times on the page, I think the reason is that you use refresh button after you've posted. Each time you press it, your browser resends your post. The way out of it is to click on a jurist site from history frame, then you'll have the page refreshed without re-posting. Once you do it, you can use the refresh button again.

  The reason for me not posting so long is that somehow the emotional charge that I've had in me from the beginning has left me for some time. I've read lot of evidence on this pages, I've found that my beliefs were not forged by propaganda from Serbian media or history books or individual stories of the people I've met, that indeed they stand on the solid ground. Those not liking what is being uncovered here are invited to make their claims, yet, all they can come up with is some kind of character assasination, trying to discredit those posting here by calling them warmongers, leftists etc. With such a weak opposition, it's almost redundant to speak more on this issue. Yet, Ivan's postings have intrigued me. I felt some sympathy for him, I guess we have some things in common. We might be of similar age, we both prefer peace over nationalist ideals. I have the same disgust for history as you have, Ivan. As a young man, I feel more interested in present and the future than the past, that always seems so depresive and full of injustice. But millions from our nations have suffered in a past decade alone, and I want to know why. All around me, I see consequences of the terrible tragedy that has took place and we were all influenced by it. Ivan, it is important to understand that although our nations interests are opposed because somebody decided that for us, we are both human beings and human beings have a wish that good wins over bad, that justice prevails. For example, even the worst criminal when watching the movie will want the good guy to win, it's just that his set of mind will never allow him to see himself as a bad guy, he'll always think of some excuses for himself on why his behaviour is justified. Preferrence of good over bad is something that each man is born with, regardless of nation, that's something that gives me hope that evil can be fought, that we're not doomed to live by the laws of jungle forever. I like my nation, and I feel sorry for it and I want to help it, but not at the expense of others. I think the battle for my people is not to be won against Croats, Muslims, Americans or any other nation. The battle must be won against lies. The truth, if it is known to everyone, is the most powerful weapon against the injustice. I don't believe any nation's version of the history entirely. Still there is a way to tell the truth, by carefully comparing what different sources say on the same thing, talking to people from all sides. If you don't care what your neighbour is thinking of, you'll sooner or later find out that he hates you. It's too late then to try to convince him otherwise, the only choice you have is to arm yourself and prepare for the battle. I understand you're happy with the situation as it is now, with independent Croatia. You don't want to look back at the price of such accomplishment. That's history, it should be forgotten, right? Well, then you justify what Ustashe stood for, so don't tell me you hate them.

  There are hundreds of thousands of human beings suffering in exile because Croatians consider them lesser beings, undesirable elements in their society. There are thousands of marriages between Croats and Serbs broken, with all the consequences their children had to take, because of immense nationalist pressure from Croat society. There is an epoverment of entire population of ex-Yugoslavia, the criminalization of the whole area took place. And all those young lives lost on the battlefield, and all those people slaughtered in their houses. All of this wouldn't have happened were your bloody emigration not cherishing the irrational hatred towards anything Serbian. No matter how much evil Ustashe have done in WW2 it couldn't contain their bloodthirst. I doubt that even now those people are satisfied, when they've got their fucking dream come true, Croatia without Serbs, because there is a lot of territories in Serbia that have a lot of Croats there, why not try to 'free' those too? So you say your relatives have had nothing to do with terrorism. Ok, fine, and I tell you that each man that raises a child poisoning him with hatred towards some nation, presenting to him mass murderers and genocidal maniacs as heroes, each parent that does not teach you tolerance and respect towards all other nations is a bloody terrorist.

  I don't think any political goal was worth this nightmare, and if you are a decent man, neither should you. I would never be proud of such a 'free' state if I were a Croat. It's too late to change now what happened, but it's our obligation to make this never happen again, and that means try to do everything humanly possible to stop the hatred and amend injustices. I as a Serb wouldn't want Krajina back if that would mean another war, but if Croats just ignore the yearning of all those Serb refugees from Croatia to return to their homeland, if they meet them with hatred and spitting, if they deny them their rights, they're bound to end up in another war some time in the future. As for the war criminals, they should be judged at home countries. Lot of western people justify ICTY saying it's needed in order to make reconciliation between our nations possible. I don't have an idea why those people are so stupid, the fact is that only way the faith of those nations in each other will be restored, is if their respective people show that they condemn their own butchers by judging them themselves. Why on earth would I reconciliate with a Croat because West has condemned their soldier for war crimes, how will that help me believe this guy is not hating me and not wanting to see me dead?!
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 7:09 am
  Jari, jest?? no way, I still got the scars from the last time I said something in jest :)

  I wondered if you could comment on the apparent sharing of rules by the ICTY/ICTR and if there is any difference in the interpetation of these rules by each court.

  My reason: If there is a difference then that is another indication of the ICTY's anti-Serb policy.

  Appoligies for not making it clearer
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 11:09 am
  Blair: He’s at it again. Mouthing off about another regime change following his ‘successful’ campaign in Kosovo and the toppling of Milosevic, which he never looses a chance to boast about.

  His behaviour reminds me of a dog I kept many years ago. He was a stocky mongrel of the Heinz 57 variety. To save his embarrassment in his heavenly kennel I’ll rename him “Poodle”.

  The house backed on to a park. Poodle would ‘see off’ a bulldog that occasionally came to eyeball him through the high impenetrable wire mesh fence. You never heard such a racket of barking as Poodle flung himself at the fence in a series of impressively vicious ‘attacks’. Bulldog gazed at him impassively in silence.

  One later day while walking in the park Poodle, a short distance ahead, was confronted with Bulldog advancing steadily upon him. In a flash Poodle turned about, raced and hurled himself at my chest with such force that I nearly fell on my back. Clutching the trembling dog in my arms I was fearful of what was to follow. Fortunately Bulldog, having made his point, stood there imperiously while I turned and hurried from the park with the cowering Poodle still in my arms.

  Why does this remind me of Blair? His tanks are not fit for desert warfare. Much of his navy is out of commission. His air force is seriously depleted and is desperately short of munitions. The new attack helicopter fleet cannot see service until twelve years hence as the new model shoots off its own tail in attack. Infantry rifles jam and the overloaded NHS will be robbed of much needed medical staff in order to provide field hospitals to support the army. Chancellor Brown has declared that Britain cannot afford a war with Iraq. But here he is strutting about the world stage with his megaphone diplomacy putting the frighteners on Soddem Hussein – ONLY in the close company of George Bush. Why does he do it?

  In a disgraceful TV discussion last night New Labour luvvies and media hacks such as Shea were debating ways to convince a reluctant British that despatching Hussein was worth the death and destruction it may entail. More propaganda (for propaganda read lies) a la Kosovo campaign was the general opinion. The British people are to be misinformed yet again. As in Kosovo Iraq like Serbia poses no threat to Britain so the primary justification for war does not exist. That is why a ‘threat’ must be invented by propaganda (read lies). If it is al Qaeda we’re after start looking at the British Secret Service and their contacts in the Balkans or Saudi Arabia, a regime which rivals Iraq for evil and was the hotbed of the WTC bombers along with their cells in Britain, Germany, the USA and the Balkans.

  This one time pacifist, CND campaigner, and ‘humanitarian’, who used fragmentation bombs and radioactive weapons in support of a terror campaign (including al Qaeda) in Kosovo, remains silent as the minority population, some quarter of a million people, remain exiled by his intervention. This so called Right Honourable gentleman behaves dishonourably in his failure to honour Resolution 1244 negotiated by British Forces.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 11:26 am
  

  Latest:

  Worth reading: HERE
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 11:51 am
  

  Peter,

  I hope there is more oposition to the war in England than here in the USA. One reason why only 39% of the electorate voted making it possible for the Republicans to take both houses of Congress was total disgust with the ja-sayers of the Democrats, going along without any qualms with the Bush boys plans for war . . .
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 12:28 pm
  OK, Simon. Sorry. I have some hasty remarks, for a large part based on Gogol's latest link (again).

  I don't know how IT/122 can change anything. I read the small summary (?) of it at the McGill URL given by Simon. And the question is: Is that it? Art. 1 refers directly to the basic documents, and that's about it! What does the Trial Chamber want to do with IT/122?

  It does seem clear that the Trial Chamber is only playing games with ICSDM, as Jared Israel points out. This is contrary to the general administrative principles that require the officials to cut all the unnecessary red tape to expedite the handling of a request and, if necessary, to send the request to the competent organ, if the request has been sent to the wrong place.

  But on the other hand, there is something extraordinary in the ICSDM request too. Maybe I shouldn't say this. But they are two amici curiae already. OK, Wladimiroff left but the two others stayed. Milosevic has constantly protested even against them, saying he has the right to defend himself in person. As he undoubtedly has.

  I can't remember which came first: the decision that Milosevic can defend himself (if there was such a decision) or the decision to appoint the amici curiae (or maybe they were made at the same time)? If the decision OK'ing Milosevic's own defense preceded the decision to appoint the amici curiae, then I think his right to defend himself in person is not only independent of the amici curiae but also supersedes it.

  But if Milosevic is against the amici curiae, I wonder what would be the point for ICSDM to replace the present ones and become the new set of amici curiae. Especially when the ICSDM already has a designated attorney, Tisbaine. If Tisbaine got the job, would any amici curiae be necessary?

  So could it be that the ICSDM is playing games as well? I guess I can say that now that it is obvious the Trial Chamber is playing games just as patently, which it shouldn't, even if the ICSDM did!

  But again, these are only my first thoughts. Things are happening at an incredible speed. But isn't it interesting what Jared Israel reports Hartmann as saying: once Slobo is diagnosed as a nut case, his defence will be taken care of by someone else. You don't even need the statement by Hartmann, because the scam is borne out by the events that led to this week's decisions.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 12:37 pm
  

  Mr. Milosevice's refusal to appoint councel lead the court to appoint the amici not to assist Mr. Milosevic but to assist the Court in dealing with a defendant representing himself, in other words to protect the court from him!

  And now we see why!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 12:44 pm
  

  Further: I believe a defendant is either fit or un-fit to stand trial. I have never heard of placing someone else on the defendant's seat to conclude the trial of a declared un-fit accused. It does not even happen when conducting a trial in absentia a procedure which is not in the ICTY statutes.

  More:

  Where are the luminaries, the fat cats of international Law, why don't we hear their protestations about this Show Trial gone amock?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 12:52 pm
  Well, it seems we have something similar in Erdemovic case. The Trial Chamber accept his guilty plea and then sent him to the shrink! Later his attorney was trying to argue that he was just as crazy when he made the guilty plea, so it should be withdrawn, but the Trial Chamber was quite happy with it.

  As to the differences between Rwanda and Serbia, I don't have the foggiest.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 1:01 pm
  

  Simple:

  BLACK and WHITE
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 1:13 pm
  

  First of all, I want to say that the amicus curiae, during the pre-trial position, each of us, we feel that we should not raise issues that have not been raised by the accused. So at this stage, we feel appropriate to react to issues that have been raised by the accused. That's for the very reason that we do not want to replace him in terms of raising issues. It's for the accused to raise the issue and we are there to comment on that by assisting the Court the argument raised by the accused.

  So in this approach we feel that the Court should allow the accused the broadest possible room to manoeuvre to argue his case, and as we have said in our brief, that also may include reasons which, on the face of it, might not directly be legal reasons but, more or less, political reasons, because the establishment of the Tribunal, his main challenge, also includes, as we have set out, possible political reasons.

  Transcripts 29 October 2001
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 1:15 pm
  Sorry about the htlm error
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  La Fole Amerique

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 1:19 pm
  

  JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Wladimiroff, I have heard your explanation as to the understanding of your role. I understand what you have said, but in my view, it is perfectly open to the amici to raise any arguments that they wish so long as it will assist the Chamber, and that is perfectly clear from the motion, from the ruling that the Chamber gave. So I understand what you have done, but for the purposes of the rest of the trial, I think it is important that you understand that your role is a bit wider than that. It is not simply to react to arguments raised by the accused. You are there to assist the Chamber in the consideration of this case.

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 1:31 pm
  

  "Hague Tribunal Shows Desperation by Cutting Milosevic's Statements from Transcript " HERE
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 1:43 pm
  

  MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, throughout this time I've tried to be brief and perhaps I'll be as short as possible now. When we discuss -- come to discuss everything in the light of all the proposals that have been put forward thus far, one thing remains outstanding as far as I understand it and one thing that will remain dominant, and that is what it says in the Statute of this very Tribunal.

  Article 21.4(D), not so much whether Mr. Slobodan Milosevic will defend himself or not and whether that will be a problem, a hurdle to overcome, but in view of his health. There is something much more important to be considered, and that is that he be tried in his presence, whether he is healthy or not. We cannot work here in this courtroom if he is incapable of attending the proceedings however you decide to solve the problem. So that will be the main line of thinking that you will have to deal with.

  We won't be able to do without him whatever option you choose. So much from me. Thank you.

  Nov.11 2002
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 6:25 pm
  The Prosecution case is a farce and the things that are coming out are most embarrassing for the West (read UK and US) and its role in the Balkans. And Slobo has not even begun to introduce his evidence about the West's role and in particular its sponsorship of Muslim fundamentalism in the Balkans (read Al Qaeda etc). The whole Milosevic "trial" has backfired BADLY and if it continues along the existing lines people are going to start asking more and more questions about the rubbish we have been fed for the last 10 or so years. That's going to have a negative effect on the "war" against Iraq and "terrorism". Along the lines of "If they managed to feed us bull about YU for ten years, then what sort of bull are they feeding us about Iraq and terrorism etc?"

  So how do they get out of the predicament? Simple! They find Slobo's health is affected by the current situation, so they release him ostensibly so he can defend himself while on bail. That has the wonderful effect that it makes them appear as if they are humane and are genuinely interested in justice. It also allows them to avoid killing Slobo in custody and it allows them to arrange a hit by an "unknown assassin" who is so disenchanted that Slobo is released from jail after all he's allegedly done that he just has to exact his/her own justice.

  Presto! The big fish is gone! The trial is terminated and Slobo's defense, his evidence and the huge problems which arise from the TRUTH of what they have been doing to YU are over. Not to mention the problem of how they have been able to manipulate public opinion on such a massive global scale!

  Then they can refer the rest of the war criminals to their own countries for trial and the whole thing disappears from the international scene. Dead, buried and forgotten, just like Slobo and the new ICC.

  Then I will no longer be distracted by the past and I can concentrate on the fresh diet of bull I am fed about the war on terrorism... which is merely a pretext and an extension of what happened in YU but applied on a much broader scale.

  Can someone please bring back the Cold War? The globalisation story is sending me broke and I can't afford to increase my Prozac consumption yet again.

  Slobo is most likely a goner, and I'm sure Slobo is smart enough to know it too. But if he is, then I sincerely hope he continues to go down fighting.

  The Balkans have long been a geographic, cultural, historical and political crossroads. The very least we can do is to hope that Slobo's case turns into one too so that our kids and the remaining generations worldwide won't have to live like mushrooms.

  In which case, the huge price paid by ALL the people of former YU - Muslims, Serbs, Croats, etc - will have been a historical imperative.
  
  David Juri
  Australia

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 9:35 pm
  I think that the tribunal is a big bus that got stuck in the deep thick Mud of Yugoslavia. Now they are looking for THE TRACTOR. to get them out. The question is: Who has the tractor ,and who is going to drive it. My opoinion is that the tribunal was not ready for Milosevic. They never thought that Milosevic will be given to them on the plate by YG goverment. After he arrived in Hague the tribunal had to scramble for evidence,and they picked up every file and declarations made by thousanda of people all these years. At the trial we can see that a lot of witnesses were surprised to find out that they had to come to Hague.Even they say that they did not know that they will be called to testify. A lot of the declarations look like bogus to me,they were given for different reasons( a lot of them personal ) . Also I see that the witnesses were given a second chance to make new declarations years after the first were taken,and like a miracle the second time they remembered a lot more than the first time ,and the declarations were in line with the prosecutors indictments . My question is: This trial is a historico political trial that deals with the events in YG . The ICTY should follow the law that was governing Yugoslavia at that time. They said that yugoslavia was not capable of conducting the trial there; but the laws of Yugoslavia were never challenged as absolete. Is ICTY following them ,or they made new sets of laws that should have governed Yugoslavia then. Vera . I see that today in YG the political situation is very fluid with some politicians suporting the release of Milosevic and other politicians oposing it. What's the story?
  
  Vasile Ianos
  NJ

• Friday November 15, 2002 at 10:46 pm
  I rest my case with Bogdan's very sensible post. ................................. I want everyone doubting my opinions to read Bogdan's post closely. There is no doubt from the contents of this post that Bogdan is a very reasonable and understanding young man, despite his somewhat innacurate assumptions of me. ......................... Bogdan explains why certain things are this way and that...from his views on the most recent war. His points of view, however, differ greatly from the Croats. ...if there can't even be a fundamental understanding of another's ideas and ideals.....merely assumptions....... then there cannot be a prosperous and peaceful future. How do we stop this????? Stop thinking about it, and forget it. I have nothing more to say.... Cast your doubts upon me.......but I believe there is always the ability to be optimistic from the most difficult of positions. I strongly believe that by returning to the actions of the past war is not being optimistic....rather realistic and at the worst pessimistic for the future probabilities of peace. These are my opinions..they are not designed to disadvantage anyone.....they are constructed on the fundamentals on decency to others..no matter their heritage and faiths.....and they aim for a future peace...unsullied by the misgivings and miscalculations of others. I have exhausted the topic of discussion........ also there are just way too many of you...... i will from now on make tiny and rather insignificant observations about the trial and the rest of your posts.
  
  ivan kokotovic
  sydney
  australia