Srebrenica massacre 25 years

Please treat other members in a constructive manner and abide by our Forum Rules at all times.
    • Official Post

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53346759


    The massacre was a disgusting thing and within Europe's borders at that, but what made it all the worst, was, it never should have happened. Fearing for their own lives, the small Dutch peacekeeping force protecting the city, left, thus allowing the Serbs to carry out this massacre.


    Unfortunately, we've had many wars since, but what lessons could we learn from the break up of Yugoslavia, I thinking with a particular eye to Syria at the moment? Safe UN enclaves seem an excellent idea to me, to protect civilians in war torn countries, but to do this there needs to be political will and that seems very lacking from world leaders at the moment.

  • This was ethnic cleansing in the extreme. It is currently happening in Myanmar, aka Burma where the Muslim community is being persecuted and driven out (a country now supposedly led who supposedly fought for democracy against the generals

    The UN peace keepers, wearers of the light blue berets, are not allowed to intervene against violent opposition. They did the same in Rwanda where hundreds or thousands were murdered in front of them. Really no point in them being there

    I think it was Simon Reeve on one of his travel programmes visited Cyprus where they are supposed to keep the peace between the Greeks and Turks. Basically they built a high wall and stand and look at it

    • Official Post

    It was American power that ended the disaster that was the breakup of Yugoslavia and really it's the Americans who are the only ones who can sort out other problems too. The UN is and always will be utterly useless, but if and when the Americans (minus Trump) do come back into their traditional role, they could create safe havens in places like Syria and Burma and prevent more killings.

  • It was American power that ended the disaster that was the breakup of Yugoslavia and really it's the Americans who are the only ones who can sort out other problems too. The UN is and always will be utterly useless, but if and when the Americans (minus Trump) do come back into their traditional role, they could create safe havens in places like Syria and Burma and prevent more killings.

    I think there is a general mood and movement in the US to question why they should be the policeman of the free world, basically what is in it for them

  • 9 times out of 10 the US will create a problem so they can then intervene. It's a means to an end. They probably had agents over there for years setting seeds and stirring up trouble. Ethic cleansing is on the rise, just look at what the Chinese are doing and then you have the KKK, Nazi's and other extremist groups are on the rise in the US which are now spreading here and in other paces. Their platform to spread it worldwide is the internet and social media along with memes and all the other junk. Racism and ethnic cleansing it at the base of it all and it's something that has never left since WW2 and is on the rise again. It's even deeper than racism and ethnic cleansing and is more about disruption for political change. We see this with the BLM movement on the face of it seams like an anti racist fight but dig deeper and it's more about political change and the downfall of capitalism. The two are very closely tied, racism and anti racism and ethnic cleansing is political rather than social. Always has been and always will.

  • There is absolutely no reason any western country should be involved in internal disputes in different areas in the world.. The UN is not fit for purpose and the US are not the world's policemen.. There will always be fighting in developing countries. Let them get on with it. Whoever wins will have to set up a stable government to be recognised by the rest of the world. There will always be Marxists, Communists, Anarchists and other L/W agitators stirring up racial tensions and out and out warfare in any country stupid enough to allow them any position of influence. That can also happen in Western countries, the BLM political movement being a glaring example.


    The massacre was inevitable the signs were there for a long time.

  • Yugoslavia has broken into its component nations since 1995. Before then Yugoslavia was a sort of United Kingdom but much more forced together than the willing collaboration as we are in the UK (still just about). I don’t think many here knew what was behind the war and why it started. I always assumed it was an inevitable aftershock of the break up of the soviet block and the region was laden with pent up racial tensions. The genocide was horrific and from memory was the master plan of a nasty bastard called Radovan Karadic or something like that. He was the founder of the Serb Democrat party (left wingers note that everyone). He has been convicted of genocide and war crimes since. Apart from the genocide there were also the concentration camps which were liberated and hundreds of skeletal figures were saved. The whole thing was bloody horrific. It is difficult to understand the level of barbarism and cruelty that was used.

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • There is absolutely no reason any western country should be involved in internal disputes in different areas in the world.. The UN is not fit for purpose and the US are not the world's policemen.. There will always be fighting in developing countries. Let them get on with it. Whoever wins will have to set up a stable government to be recognised by the rest of the world. There will always be Marxists, Communists, Anarchists and other L/W agitators stirring up racial tensions and out and out warfare in any country stupid enough to allow them any position of influence. That can also happen in Western countries, the BLM political movement being a glaring example.


    The massacre was inevitable the signs were there for a long time.

    The trouble with not doing anything at all, is that a refugee crisis inevitably ensues and countires neighbouring the war zone become swamped with people trying to escape fighting, and even genocide. And refugees don't stay put in one place. They then start to move around, looking for somewhere to settle permanently. Many end up here.


    Personally, I'm glad when we are able to help. In my opinion, we SHOULD take as many refugees as we can.


    I half suspect from your message though, that you think people living in war zones would simply sit tight in the hope that the fighting will go around them and that they won't be affected. That's not a realistic scenario.


    The worst element of how the war in the Balkans got so bad wasn't that nobody tried to stop it happening (although the failure of any attempt to resolve the differences diplomatically was bad enough), but that we stood by for too long and allowed the worst of the violence to civilians happen. By the time the west woke up to the humanitarian crisis, the worst atrocities had already been committed.


    I don't advocate sending in combat troops whose mission is to join in with the war. I also agree that the UN is all too often riddled with factions who will interfere with well meaning attempts to resolve a situation, in order to pursue their own countries political agendas. If one permanent member of the Security Council (say, Russia) has a national interest in destabilising a region, they will exercise their veto to prevent diplomacy or peacekeeping operations. If they don't exercise their veto, they horse-trade outside the chamber to get amendments to the resolution put in place that will have the same effect.


    The end result is the same. People suffer.


    Much has been made of the refugee crisis in Europe, particularly in Italy which has borne the brunt of much migration from war zones. It's not surprising that economic migrants also latch onto the refugees, hoping to slip through the net. People traffickers and smugglers also see a window of opportunity and exploit it where they can.


    The problems are very complex and no simple answer fits all. An example of the complexity of the consequences of regional conflicts being exploited by others from outside the area, is that the atrocities committed in the Balkans against Kosovan Muslims was a major factor in the expansion of Al Qaeda, who were able to use what happened to those who were massacred, to recruit a lot of very angry young men who were easily persuaded that the West had to be punished. And we all know how that turned out.


    I know this will go down like a lead fart, but we need to be more proactive in diplomatic missions and if they fail, more amenable to refugees and supportive of people in regions via effective aid packages and their distribution.


    Yeah, yeah, yeah.... charity begins at home... I know all that .... but the amounts involved in diplomacy or aid are negligible compared to the cost of being involved in a war*, or having to deal with a refugee crisis.


    We can't simply say "It's sod all to do with us" because it doesn't work like that. The refugees will come. The consequences to British political, business and trade interests could be astronomic.


    We ignore them at our peril.







    * At the height of the Iraq / Afghanistan wars, the cost to the British taxpayer of being involved was running at £800 million a week.

  • If we are going to intervene we need to go all in and pick a side. Trying to split up two drunks brawling in street is likely to end with them both turning on you. Better to pick a side then defeat the opposition and then hang around to rebuild and install a government that isn’t made up of nutters.


    I think the prevention of the flee of refugees is vital. There are some like yourself who welcome unlimited numbers but there are many more who see our own way of life being eroded by the increasingly diverse population and demographic shift.


    Sticking around to stabilise countries and regions is basically invasion and colonisation even if temporarily. This will not go down well with everyone. It is easy to see the issues of the past, accusations of colonialism and bullying starting to emerge or the other end of the scale which we are at now which is save refugees by moving them here. That isn’t a favourite with the natives either.


    Why does this happen why do we need to get involved at all? Religion, tribalism, poor education and over population are starters here. Maybe if we sort the basics the whole world might be more stable.

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

    Edited once, last by Armitage Shanks ().

  • Firstly, I will take exception to your comment that I "Welcome unlimited numbers". That is a false assumption on your part. One of many you frequently make. What I believe is that we should accept OUR SHARE of the refugees that inevitably ensue from humanitarian disasters such as war and famine. The problem of refugee distribution inevitably arise in those countries in close geographical proximity to a conflict. If there is a war in the middle east and large numbers find a way (usually helped by people traffickers) to take to boats in the Mediterranean, it's likely that they will land in countries such as Italy as we have seen. That then presents Italy with a refugee crisis and all the concomitant problems that go with it.


    A properly co-ordinated response among nations would be to distribute the refugees more equitably among the member nations. But of course, there is then the problem of nationalist factions in the member states saying "It's not our problem, we don't want THEM here." Which sounds very much like your argument. Fortunately for the EU, it's most belligerent, bloody minded, obstructive member has voted itself out of the equation. It'll make life much easier for them to work together in the future, I'm sure.


    Say..... two million refugees flood into Italy = a seriously huge problem for Italy. But two million people distributed to 27 countries = less than 75'000 each. Much more manageable. OK... that's a bald figure and there would be other factors to weigh in such as the member states size, existing population, economy, etc, etc...... That's a given but you see the point. Equitable distribution with the agreement of all spreads the load, the responsibility, the cost and the difficulty of it all.


    If we had remained, it's likely that more than our agreed share may want to come to Britain. Well, some would be disappointed, but the legal requirement to provide safe haven would have been discharged if they have to settle in Holland or Poland or wherever. They'd just have to accept it. Of course we'd try to accommodate as many people's wishes as possible but at the end of the day, it's about escaping the war and if that criteria is fulfilled they can't complain. Always remember, that Britain ALWAYS had the right to close its borders. The EU was never able to dictate that we take refugees. What I'm talking about here is the agreement of nations to share the load.


    But of course..... Britain isn't a team player any more. We therefore face the problem where those who want to come here will come here regardless one way or another, legally or otherwise. Openly or clandestinely. The EU 27 will have no treaty obligations after 1 January next year to be helpful or accommodating, or include us in whatever plans they devise to deal with future refugee crises. And if, in the future, a thousand refugees a day want to get on a boat at Calais bound for Dover, the French will be under no obligation to stop them. "They're your problem now, m'sieu."


    We, of course, would want to turn them back, but that'd only likely result in them claiming political asylum, or that they'd face the death sentence if returned to their country of origin or some other tactic. All of which would no doubt be enforceable under international law. Many would simply refuse to budge and with the huge numbers involved, that would give us a very ugly problem to deal with, all of which will undoubtedly find its way into the world's news media. Aggravating humanitarian crises is not a good way to impress and influence countries who you're attempting to do trade deals with.


    The simplistic answer of "Just stick 'em on the next boat back" isn't going to work.


    We need agreement. We need co-ordinated, joined up effort. We need collaboration and co-operation.


    And you may or may not have noticed, but we voted all those things right out of the window. And our government is doing nothing to help put in place any arrangement to alleviate the effect of that from next year.


    Brexit has not stopped immigration, nor will it in the future.


    https://www.independent.co.uk/…igures-work-a9362531.html


    379'000 in the year to last September, from outside the EU. The highest net increase on record (and yes, we told you this would happen).


    They're going to come here regardless, legally or illegally. White or black. Gay or straight. Muslim or Christian. They will come.


    If we accept them, recognise and allow those who have a legal right, they will come here to work, pay taxes, contribute to society and be beneficial as citizens. If we try to block them, many will drop out of sight. Work in the black economy. Become criminals. Pay no taxes and become a burden on the state.


    What do you prefer...? It's your call.





    PS* "Enoch was right. Send 'em back." Is not an acceptable answer.

  • Say..... two million refugees flood into Italy = a seriously huge problem for Italy. But two million people distributed to 27 countries = less than 75'000 each. Much more manageable. OK... that's a bald figure and there would be other factors to weigh in such as the member states size, existing population, economy, etc, etc...... That's a given but you see the point. Equitable distribution with the agreement of all spreads the load, the responsibility, the cost and the difficulty of it all.

    Sadly the nationalistic movement is growing in countries like The Netherlands and France and other members so the chances of getting EU agreement on distribution are very slim if not impossible

    Perhaps the answer lies in persuading them to invest in the home countries of the refugees so they have no need to leave

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!