Human rights activist Zarema Mukusheva’s documentary Crying Sun: The Impact Of War In The Mountains Of Chechnya is available for viewing on Google video. The 26 minute film, which is the first film produced by Memorial and the US based human rights group Witness, documents the effects of the Chechen war on the village of Zumsoi. In an interview with RFE/RL, Mukusheva said that the film
Especially follow[s] one man [Myahdi Muhayev] — during the war, his 15-year-old brother was abducted by Russian troops. Another brother was also detained, and after very cruel torture, became handicapped. Then our character himself is thrown into jail. After his detention by the federal services, he disappears for several days, and then there is an attempt to accuse him of serious crimes.
The other main character in the film is a schoolteacher in Zumsoi whose father is 103 years old. After everyone abandons the village, she starts to work for a human-rights organization and on the cases of disappeared people.
The film shows the lifestyle of these people, their situation, and how they are treated by the [Russian] military troops. It also shows the environment of the village — which is a result of the war; aerial attacks on the village, mop-up operations, and about how the families, one after another, gradually have to leave the village until the village is finally abandoned.
Shout out to A Step at a Time for bringing attention to it.
Ger, you apparently need to comprehensively read over again what was clearly communicated.
Also, Chechen War One (if I’m not mistaken) started more like in late ’93/early ’94.
Mike,
you didnt communicate anything at all. You gave no reasons for it except vague remarks. Thus, I can assume you have conceded the point. Being biased towards Russia does not give license to justifying stupidity.
Unless I’m mistaken, it was late 1994 when it started and when that Russian tank column got their infamous routing in the centre of Grozny.
Childish balderdash gets you nowhere Ger.
Tatarstan, the conditions in Chechnya under Dudayev, etc.
Should we check to see when the first Chechen war started?
Something tells me I’m right. Big league pitching isn’t easy to hit against.
”Should we check to see when the first Chechen war started?
Something tells me I’m right. Big league pitching isn’t easy to hit against.”
Ahem. I just did. In Chris Bird’s ”To Catch A Tatar” and Wilkepdia. It started in november/december 1994, Mike. Very clearly 1994. Not 1993, as you said above.
What was that you were saying, about Big League Pitching? Would you like to expand on the that, in the light of the fact that you have just been shown to be totally wrong?
Tatarstan? What are you talking about? Again, for the cheap seats at the back, I repeat – the Tatars were pushing for independence, as well as the Chechens. This fact has nothing to do with, nor explains, the fact that Russia made the wrong decision, namely invading Chechnya. It helps explain WHY Russia invaded, but not that it was wrong to do so. Russia fucked up. Big Time. Get over it already. You can repeat your rubbish like a parrot, it still doesnt explain anything.
”Big League Pitching” -hilarious. You’re really funny Mike) I am actually laughing out loud)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994
From time to time, even the great ones are off a bit Ger. Dec. ’94 according to Wiki.
Nevertheless, you’re still full of shit about Tatarstan, which has great autonomy, while not being more democratic than a number of areas less autonomous from the political center. That point went right by you as did its relationship with Kalmykia and Chechnya under Dudayev and Maskhadov. Chechnya could’ve been more autonomus than Tatarstan. Russia can’t be blamed for a good portion of Dudeyev’s and Maskhadov’s screwups.
It wasn’t wrong for Russia to see an end to the growing lawlessness under Dudayev. The methodology left something to be desired. I never said anything contradicting that. You’re unable to show how Dudayev was bringing stability to Chechnya because he wasn’t.
Well, you go on thinking you’re hot shit. Whatever makes you happy.
The ground invasion started in december 1994, bombing began at least a month earlier.
Mike, its quite clear from this that even in simple points of fact, such as dates, you are wrong. Which makes one wonder about everything else you write.
Once again, more crap about Tatarstan that has nothing to do with my point at all. Also, nobody said anything about blaming Russia for Dudayev and Maskhadov’s disasters. What I am blaming Russia for is the death of between 40,000-100,000 people, many of who were actually Russians, and that they had no right to invade and were wrong to do so. And your line above that it was ‘a wake up call for Russia’s army’ is flippant, ill-informed and frankly disgusting. You write off a horrendous, unecessary war as some sort of useful excercise for your beloved Russia, ignoring its utter viciousness and calousness. You havent a clue what you’re on about, and repeat the same tired line about Dudayev and Maskhadov.
Weak. I’d love to put you in the centre of Grozny in early 1995, with a couple of Sukhoi 31′s flying in low, ready to fire. Somewhere between pissing yourself and then shitting yourself you might realise that maybe, just maybe, this wasnt a good way to restore law and order. But then again, being you, you probably wouldnt. You’d blame David Johnson for what was happening instead. Have you ever even seen or heard a fighter jet up close Mike? The devil himself is less frightening.
”Well, you go on thinking you’re hot shit. Whatever makes you happy. ”
I take it you mean ”shit hot”. No, I dont Mike, and its actually you who have used phrases above such as ”Big League Pitching” and ”the Great Ones” in reference to yourself. Clearly I’m not the one with the Napolean complex.
You apparently aren’t aware of how the armed enemy can exist in civilian areas.
At least I acknowledge when I’m wrong. Not like your repeated bullshit about my never being to Moscow.
Tatarstan in fact does have great autonomy. Chechnya could’ve have peacefully had more. In the last decade, it was given two opportunites for such.
”You apparently aren’t aware of how the armed enemy can exist in civilian areas.”
That excuses levelling Grozny with fighter-bombers and killing thousands of civilians? Is that what you are suggesting?
”At least I acknowledge when I’m wrong. Not like your repeated bullshit about my never being to Moscow.”
Mike, you only admitted you were wrong because there was no other way out. I have no problem admitting when I’m wrong and have no ego that requires self-massage. You may well have been in Moscow; only you and the Russian border gaurds really know for sure.
”Tatarstan in fact does have great autonomy. Chechnya could’ve have peacefully had more. In the last decade, it was given two opportunites for such. ”
It becomes tiresome repeating myself. Again, I re-iterate, the Russian decision to invade Chechnya was partially precipitated by both Chechen and Tatar desire for independence from Moscow in the early 1990s. The degree, level, or kind of independence either enjoy or enjoyed has got nothing whatsoever to do with my point. As well as that, Moscow cut off funds during both Chechen independence periods. Its hard run a country with no money, or when Moscow is actively trying to sabotage independence, as occurred during Maskhadov’s hopeless reign 1996-1999.
You’re quite dense.
Tatarstan does in fact have great autonomy, which again shouldn’t be confused with great democracy.
In the last decade, Chechnya twice had the opportunity of even greater autonomy. Unfortuntaely, the on the gound Chechen realities worsened under Dudayev and Maskhadov.
A major reason why most Chechens currently favor being a part of Russia.
”You’re quite dense.”
Lovely stuff Mike. Losing the argument, as usual you resort to insults. It actually means yu’ve lost, and am glad you’re doing it. Again, what condition Tatarstan is in now has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with my original point. But like a twat you just present the same rubbish over and over as an answer.
”In the last decade, Chechnya twice had the opportunity of even greater autonomy. Unfortunately, the on the gound Chechen realities worsened under Dudayev and Maskhadov.”
Yes, thanks to no money from Moscow and active attempts at destabilization by the Russian government.
”A major reason why most Chechens currently favor being a part of Russia. ”
Or, more accurately, the Chechens are tired of being attacked by MiGs, Sukhois, and Russias wide variety of killing instruments, and for the moment would rather live normally than be at war, even if it is under the rule of a savage.
Unless we were involved in a stupid contest, I lost nothing to you.
Perhaps you’re mildly retarded, which serves as a valid excuse for some of what you’ve posted here.
The Chechens got tired of the hell they went thru when Dudayev and Maskhadov were running the show. Both instances involved Chechnya being independent in everything but name. Dmitri Simes is among a number of individuals who have expressed this view.
”Perhaps you’re mildly retarded, which serves as a valid excuse for some of what you’ve posted here”
Once again, the insults come out, more proof, if any was needed, that you’re beaten. Again. You have not in any way accounted for your contention that Russia was right to invade Chechnya in 1994. Everyone can see it, and I’m not going to keep repeating myself anymore. And apart from anything else, using insults like ‘retarded’ is a disgrace. Unless I’m mistaken I ended up in a huge battle with someone because he said you worked at Wendy’s. Looking at what you said above, I shouldnt have bothered, because quite clearly you’re capable of worse. And maybe that person was on to something after all, because educated, decent people do not use such phraseology unprovoked.
”The Chechens got tired of the hell they went thru when Dudayev and Maskhadov were running the show. Both instances involved Chechnya being independent in everything but name. Dmitri Simes is among a number of individuals who have expressed this view.”
And that justified levelling the country, mass rape etc? And again ignores that in both independence periods Grozny was denied money to run the country and the attempts, especially in 1996-1999, to make sure Chechnya decended into madness.
You’re the one who initiates insults, only to play innocent when such manner is shoved right back at you.
You’ve not come up with anything to legitimately negate what I’ve stated.
”You’re quite dense.”
This is the first insult thrown above, by you. I didnt start it. Look down through the comments and try reading them for once, and you’ll see.
”You’ve not come up with anything to legitimately negate what I’ve stated. ”
Mike, I’ve asked you to give reasons for your justification of Chechen War One. You havent done that at all. Its very obvious. You made the statement and the onus was on you to defend it. You didnt.
Along with some others, I maintain that Chechnya was getting worse under Dudayev. When Dudayev ran the show there, Russia couldn’t be faulted for the mayhem created in Chechnya.
A similar process developed with Maskhadov.
You’ve yet to show how Chechnya was relatively stable under Dudayev.
”… Russia couldn’t be faulted for the mayhem created in Chechnya.”
Nobody is blaming the Russians alone, as is abvious from what I’ve said. But Moscow did certainly contribute in 1996-1999. But again, that has nothing to do with the fact that you have failed miserably to account for your assertion that Russia was right to invade in 1994. You can use as much smokescreen and bullshit as you like, no-one is conned but you.
J**** f****** C*****!
Are you familiar with the 19 seventies American movie Westworld? You’re like the robotic cowboy figure played by Yul Bryner. He kept coming back after getting blown to bits.
Again, I reiterate, you havent accounted for your appalling view that Russia was right to invade Chechnya. You’ve blustered, mouthed, grumbled and moaned, but got nowhere. And its there for all to see. You’re like a dose of panos, you’d have anyone sitting on the toilet for a week, or one of those zombies in Dawn of The Dead. You’re in bits but keep rising up to take more bullets. Hilarious)
Credit to you for Westworld, which was fine film indeed.
Are you trying to star in the role of an upcoming production of The Dumbbell who Never Learned?
Let’s see if you can get this one:
“Scott, you just don’t get it”.
You’re like Trigger from Only Fools And Horses. Thick as two short planks. He was telling all his friends one time how he got medal from the council for distinguished service. ”I’ve used the same brush for 20 years lads. I’ve changed the handle lots of times, and the head, but its the same brush”
Lets see if you get this one:
”Kiss my hairy Irish arse”
Not going there any time soon as in never.
I’ll leave that for others who might want to go that route for whatever G-d forsaken reason.
Mike,
I wouldnt blame you in fairness. Its not pretty, thats for sure)
Just pointing out that neither of you guys really KNOW why the majority of Chechens support peace with and being a part of Russia (I’m assuming here that they do, as is the general consensus). The only way to do that would be to go to Chechnya and do a scientific poll. Otherwise you’re just speculating, spinning around in your own preconceptions.
If I correctly read their respective commentary, Robert Bruce Ware and Nicolai Petro believe that most Chechens are presently against independence for the reasons I expressed.
It makes sense based on what has gone on in that republic since the Soviet collapse.
I still want to know how this movie got made if there is supposedly an information blackout on Chechnya. Something smells fishy to me.
I still want to know how this movie got made if there is supposedly an information blackout on Chechnya. Something smells fishy to me.
I’ve looked (though admittedly not thoroughly) to find information on this. But I think that the truth of the matter is that there is no media blackout. At least not one the Russians can enforce. Take for example Tony Wood’s article based on his recent visit to Chechnya in the March 22 issue of LRB. He was able to get into Chechnya. If he can, I’m sure the makers of this film could too.
My earlier stated point about the comparative media freedoms in Iraq vs. Chechnya is further confirmed.
But I think that the truth of the matter is that there is no media blackout. At least not one the Russians can enforce.
Andrew Meier addressed this subject in his bool Black Earth, and indeed I though the situation was well known. At least it is to me, being consistently reported amongst journalists who’ve worked in the region.
Yes, there is a government ban on media access to Chechnya, but it can be breached using the usual Russian expedients of bribery and lying about ones true intentions.
By contrast (and in contrast with Averko’s faulty guesswork on the subject), foreign media is not banned from Iraq and they are there in their droves, both accompanied and unaccompanied by the occupying forces.
Newman’s arrogance and ignorance prevails again.
Embedded journalists and journalists killed by occupation forces in Iraq are realities. Whether the latter mentioned point is intentional or not is an issue that has been raised. There was also the matter of once rising NBC star Ashleigh Banfield getting kicked downstairs for challenging the attack on Iraq during the opening days of the war when American mass media was in a bit of a flag waving red, white and bull state.
As per Chechnya: in addition to the at least four examples given at this thread, was the atrocious Andrei Babitsky ABC News NightLine fiasco.
Newman thrives on second hand sources as shown by his clinging to the mass rape hoax in Bosnia. His knowledge of what constitutes good journalism isn’t so good. An example was his characterizing (at another SRB thread) Edward Lucas’ recent Trans-Dniester article as good journalism.
Rather than go through all the errors, lies, and insults in Averko’s latest post, I will simply hightlight the most prominent one as an example which can be applied across the whole thing:
An example was his characterizing (at another SRB thread) Edward Lucas’ recent Trans-Dniester article as good journalism.
Please link to where I have done this. If you cannot, it can be safely assumed that everything else which you have said above is pure fabrication as well, and can be dismissed accordingly.
”Just pointing out that neither of you guys really KNOW why the majority of Chechens support peace with and being a part of Russia (I’m assuming here that they do, as is the general consensus). The only way to do that would be to go to Chechnya and do a scientific poll. Otherwise you’re just speculating, spinning around in your own preconceptions.”
I dont believe I said anthing above about how Chechens feel currently. I may have said they’re resigned, who wouldnt be after having the country levelled and having life reduced to something like a zombie film. What I did say was Russia was wrong and ham-fisted to invade in 1994, which I believe was the heart of this argument.
”preconceptions.”
Not at all. Killing between 40-100,000 people and reducing Grozny to ashes was the wrong way to restore law in order, in my humble opinion. Nothing preconceived about it at all.
“I dont believe I said anthing above about how Chechens feel currently. I may have said they’re resigned, who wouldnt be after having the country levelled and having life reduced to something like a zombie film.”
But you just did in this paragraph! You said they feel resigned, and then gave a reason for it. I think things are more complicated. Lest we forget there was a low-level civil war in Chechnya in 1999 between the Wahabbis in Grozny and the Sufi traditionalists in Gudermes.
I do not believe the figure of 100,000 civilian causualites in CWI, by the way. Not only is it an unverifiable suspiciously large round number, if you do the math it qould require approximately 1 out of 7 civilians in Chechnya to have been killed in 18 months of war. That is a higher civilian kill rate than that of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS on the Eastern Front in World War II.
40,000 I can believe. 100,000? No way. I’m not that gullible.
With the Bosnian Civil war as a prime example, trumping up the death toll for propaganda reasons is nothing new.
***
“Rather than go through all the errors, lies, and insults in Averko’s latest post, I will simply hightlight the most prominent one as an example which can be applied across the whole thing:
An example was his characterizing (at another SRB thread) Edward Lucas’ recent Trans-Dniester article as good journalism.
Please link to where I have done this. If you cannot, it can be safely assumed that everything else which you have said above is pure fabrication as well, and can be dismissed accordingly.”
——–
I’m not about to read thru the many posted comments in the recent SRB threads. In a prior instance, you specifically cited the Lucas article on Trans-Dniester as an example of better analysis than my own. The actual proof is to the contrary.
The errors, lies and insults are regularly coming from your end.
Saying it is “better analysis than your own” is not the same as touting it as “good journalism.” It may just mean that it is “less bad.”
”But you just did in this paragraph! ”
Ah, Shit!)
Groan, the point I was making..oh forget it no-one gives a fuck!) I dont believe I said ‘above the above’ anything or much anyway about Chechen feeling now, I dont have that information and I havent been there. I do know that levelling the place and killing ”upwards of” 40,000 people was the wrong thing to do, the wrong way to restore order.
I certainly agree with you Ger as far as the First War goes. I think War No. 2 was a horrible but unavoidable tragedy, but that its inevitability was in large part due to the first war.
The same can be said of one.
****
“Saying it is ‘better analysis than your own’ is not the same as touting it as ‘good journalism.’ It may just mean that it is ‘less bad.’
”
****
???
Regardless, “less bad” is better.
He has yet to substantively critque my commentary as formally expressed in articles.
My analysis is far from being bad. Some others here can pretend otherwise. The feedback to my commentary is impressive. You know some of the folks saying so.
I should’ve another piece out soon. The kind of “media watch” bit that your pundit friend once did before suddenly dropping it for no explained reason.
Come to think of it, both De Waal and Bird quote figures of around 60-80,000, of which they reckon around 15,000 may have been Russian soldiers. That does seem high, but the Russians did get a massive hiding.
“Newman thrives on second hand sources as shown by his clinging to the mass rape hoax in Bosnia.”
You’re just one sick fuck Averko, I can’t really call you on your bullshit on Russia, but fortunately there are plenty of others doing just that, but this is just to much. It’s honestly sick and tasteless and wrong. “Mass rape hoax” please enlighten me, what exactly do you mean by this. Are you saying no rapes happened? Are you saying that we only saw the normal and expected level of rapes in a war zone? Are you saying there were more than in your average war zone, but not as many as initially reported? What are you saying if anything at all?
Are you just being a tasteless fuck, with absolutely no sources to back you up, but “serbienne” or some such nonsense, in your valiant defence of poor (mostly)Serb rapists. What are your apparently not second hand sources on this, which rapist did you converse with? I only ever spoke with rape victims from Bosnia, or just one actually, but I’m sure she was just pulling my leg, making fun since everybody can enjoy and appreciate a good humored hoax.
But honestly Averko. Sources. Arguments. Coherent. Convincing. Now. You just can’t run around yelling “mass rape hoax” and not back it up. So please get to it, or i’ll write you of as not just a little bit slow(but sweet in your own way), but as a dumb tasteless swine.
And sorry for the language you all, but this is just to much, I have these issues with men sitting in their safe apartments defending rapist or even going as far as denying the rape, basically accusing the victim of being a liar.
Frederik
And please Averko try actually answering.
I went into fact based detail on the mass rape hoax in Bosnia you stupid, lying piece of shit.
If you’re going to come out swinging at least be honest and accurate about it. Otherwise, expect to get what you dish out.
The lack of facts are on your smelly end.
No one has debunked me here.
You’re perfectly free to go back under your rock, you feeble minded imbecile.
I NEVER said that no rapes occurred. It wasn’t on the mass sclae as reported. It’s not a great issue at the NATO kangaroo court because it was a hoax as reported by anti-Serb propagandists.
Pardon the misspell.
If you went into “into fact based detail on the mass rape hoax in Bosnia”, you didn’t do it in this thread as far as i can see. You instead found it tasteful to drop it as aside when trying to smear Newman. I’m referring to your comment from Tuesday, May 29, 2007 8:46:00 PM PDT.
If you can point in the direction of the fact based details you went into at some other time, I would be very interested to read it, since this is a very difficult topic when it comes to fact and details. For some reason neither victims nor perpetrators seem very fond of talking about it. Wonder why, probably because it never happened i guess.
When you’re talking about fact and details, you’re not by any chance referring to the Foca Trial are you? No i guess not since the ICTY is a NATO kangaroo court. Your not referring to the hundreds if not thousands of testimonies from women collected by different ngo’s are you? No i guess not since i’m sure they’re just lying bitches or some such. And what about the raped bosnian-serb women, are they lying as well?
“I NEVER said that no rapes occurred.”
I’m very glad to hear that, so you’re not calling all the woman lying bitches which is good.
“It wasn’t on the mass sclae as reported.”
I do to some degree agree with that. Some of the initial numbers reported were around 60.000 (from Bosnian government i think) which today is impossible to substantiate, but other early numbers were 20.000 (EU parliamentary group finding in 1992 i think) or 12,000 as reported by Tadeusz Mazowiecki, United Nations special rapporteur on human rights, in 1993 i think, are these numbers not high enough for you?
“It’s not a great issue at the NATO kangaroo court because it was a hoax as reported by anti-Serb propagandists.”
Here i disagree, but it’s a very complicated issue that i don’t have the time to go in to now, i’ll just mention my first objection which off course is the “it was a hoax”-thing. Which leads me to ask you, what constitutes a hoax in your opinion, how big must the gap be, what are the real numbers?
And for your line to be true, not only the ICTY has to be a kangaroo court, no the European Parliament and the UN (off course) has to be in on it, and as if that wasn’t enough Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and the Red Cross is in on the big hoax as well since they also work with estimates in the area of 20.000, and they do that why?
Because they for some bizarre reason hate all things serb?
But again, I would be very interested in reading your fact based details, if you could tell me where that would be possible.
And please dont pardon your misspells, not because i myself has plenty(which i’m sure i have), but because it’s absurd when one person feel the need to follow his denial of rape on a mass scale with a pardon for bad grammar and spelling.
And now i’ll crawl back under my cozy little rock
All the best
Frederik
I didn’t “try to smear Newman” anymore than a cop “smears” a motorist for matter of fact speeding.
You seem to have jumped in on the most recent exchange here without noting what I earlier posted.
Even that 12,000 figure is off the wall and was never established at the NATO kangaroo court.
Human rights orgs. are subject to making errors which include getting subconsciously duped by those with agendas.
As for relooking up this material and reposting it: that takes added time and effort. In Newman’s case and that of some others, it makes no difference. They’ll continue believing what they want to from the vantage point of their own prejudices, which are greatly influenced by an overall lack of knowledge and the overly subjective preference for some otherwise faulty material.
Even that 12,000 figure is off the wall…
Mike,
Do you even know how that figure was obtained? Have you actually read Mazowiecki’s report?
Yes. Have you?
Did you bother challenging such numbers?
“You seem to have jumped in on the most recent exchange here without noting what I earlier posted.“
Actually I’ve been a steady lurker at this blog for quite some time now, but i guess i must have missed that one time you went into “fact based details“
“Even that 12,000 figure is off the wall and was never established at the NATO kangaroo court.“
Well no it wasn’t, and nobody claimed that it was. And it would indeed be strange if it was, since it’s not the scope of ICTY to establish aggregate numbers of rapes. ICTY tries individuals for war crimes, as they did in the Foca case (and please look that one up, it’s fairly easy googling that one). And what do you care by the way, am i totally off the mark if i suggest that you would have dismissed it even if the “kangaroo court” had established a number?
“Human rights orgs. are subject to making errors which include getting subconsciously duped by those with agendas.“
And who might “those” be? All the lying bitches i assume…
And by the way, i really hope HRW, Amnesty, ICRC get that in their next internal review “be aware of getting subconsciously duped by those with agendas.“
“As for relooking up this material and reposting it: that takes added time and effort.“
Yes i can appreciate that, and off course one can’t demand that anybody should take that “added time and effort” needed to substantiate their denial of mass rapes, but your comment on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:26:00 AM PDT gave me the impression that you had already done all this at some earlier time, or maybe i’m misreading this:
“I went into fact based detail on the mass rape hoax in Bosnia you stupid, lying piece of shit.“
Since i only master a somewhat broken English please excuse me if this does not imply that you already took that “added time and effort“. If indeed my reading of what you wrote in such colourful terms is correct, could you please either link directly or just give me a clue as to where i might possibly find it?
“They’ll continue believing what they want to from the vantage point of their own prejudices, which are greatly influenced by an overall lack of knowledge and the overly subjective preference for some otherwise faulty material.“
Well we have a saying for this in danish, sadly it’s very difficult to translate, but i think you have one in English as well, again my English is somewhat lacking, but is it something with a pot calling a pan or a kettle something?
And to Sean(and the rest of you), i’m terribly sorry for commenting at such length on a subject completely unrelated to the post. I will try to be brief if i comment again, which i truly hope will be on numbers and fact based details regarding this giant “hoax”.
All the best
Frederik
Mike,
So you know that 12,000 was obtained by multiplying 119 by 100. In your opinion, which of the two factors is “off the wall”?
You quoted mathematic formula has NOTHING to do with the reality of the subject matter.
Hey Fred, you came out swinging against me and got it right back. I’ll gladly tone down.
In addition to the masa rape hoax, a number of figures were hoaxes. Like the absurdly quoted 200,000 to 350,000 killed during the Bosnian Civil War. We live in an age of extreme imagery via PR lobbying clout. It’s quite easy for the mentioned orgs., to get matter wrong.
The misinformation can be further read between the lines. For the past few years, when watching news outlets like the BBC, the sensationalistically quoted rape figures aren’t discussed. Instead, Srebrenica is the overwhelming news item on the subject. Mass rape isn’t mentioned on that point.
Pardon “you” instead of “your” in my last post.
To make the history clearer for Frederik, here’s a brief compilation of Averkisms about the “Bosnian rape hoax”:
BTW, the first reported to the UN claim of rape in Bosnia came from Serbs. In another instance, an identified Bosnian Muslim rape victim gave birth to a Black baby. I don’t think there were too many if any Blacks fighting on the side of the Serbs. If that woman was raped, than the likely party involved are the UN peace keepers. I detailed how the figures were initially presented in large numbers, only to dwindle because of the sheer fallacy of them. You don’t follow the anti-Serb tribunal at the Hague. Rape is rarely if ever discussed. Trumping up numbers and-or creating other false images to instigate military action is nothing new. The Nazis employed this tact as a means for attacking Poland in 1939. Rape was committed by all sides during the Bosnian Civil War. Nothing to the extent of what was initially reported.
A comment by Mike Averko citing someone else’s article, and another comment from Mike citing yet another person’s article. All very conclusive, no doubt.
And buried in this old comment is my take on Srebrenica, to which Mike never responded.