The black baby story, reminded me of Jackie Arklöv. He’s a Swedish neo-Nazi doing a life sentence for the murder of two Swedish police officers, then last year he was convicted for war crimes(the first ever in Swedish history) committed against Muslims in Bosnia in 1993, while fighting as a mercenary for the Croats.

The things is that he’s black – born in Liberia(black father, white mother) and adopted by a Swedish couple – and call me a racist but at black neo-Nazi just ain’t natural.

Sweden is one amazing country, if that’s not integration of immigrants I don’t know what is.

All the best

“Like yourself, that report doesn’t address the lengthy material I’d posted on the subject.“

As for the report, I agree that it IS a fatal flaw that it does not address stuff posted by you, but isn’t it a little bit excused since it was published in early 1993?
I on the other hand can’t use that excuse. But Mike I really am trying to do that by addressing material which is lengthy, posted by you and on the subject. So Mike I beg of you, I’m on my knees now, please please tell me where that mysterious lengthy material is to be found. Please Mike, have some mercy and tell me.

But if it’s the Norm thread don’t bother, I took a second look at that one, and it seems clear that I must offer my apologies to among others Tim Newman, Irishman and Lyndon for repeating some of their arguments, but imitation (even the unwilling one) is a very sincere form of flattery. So considering I’ve been writing absurdly long comments repeating not only myself but also others I’ll try with two last points.

On of your main arguments (if not the only thing you say that could almost be described as such) seem to be, that the “NATO kangaroo court” – which most people know as ICTY – is not focused on rape, and you take that to prove that the whole thing is a hoax. Tim Newman does a good job of trying to explain to you whats wrong with that reasoning:

“The reason that rape cases have not been brought before the various courts dealing with the Balkan wars is because proving rape is a notoriously difficult thing to do, especially once a few years have passed. An absence of rape charges considered in a court is not not evidence that accusations of rape in the Balkan wars is a hoax.

To this I’ll just add that the individual nature of most rapes place them below the scope of ICTY.

But it still seems that we’re all wrong on this anyway, the thing is the premises is wrong (not surprising since it’s one set by Averko). As a matter of fact it’s absurd to claim that rapes have not been brought before the court or that it’s not a big issue(although one might claim that it should be given even more attention). A quick count can tell you that at least 21 indictments is directly concerned with rapes out of a total of 161, here you could add all the prison camps indictments where rape or some other form of sexual violence is a part the indictment, and that will push the number close to 30, which means that almost 1/5 of every indictment is about rape. Add to this the landmark Foca conviction, and you might understand why there seem to be a consensus that ICTY, together with ICTR, is breaking new ground when it comes to rape as a war crime and not just as the soldiers usual spoils of war. As I said, it was only a quick count, so I would be happy if you would please check the data here, here and here.

And then back to your last post:
“Going to a select choice of hospitals and noting claimed rape instances without fully confirming who did the raping doesn’t acknowledge a complete review of the claim in its totality. Like checking into Serb claims of being raped during the same period.“

This is just so funny and sad at the same time. I’ll only note that you earlier claimed that you actually did read the report. So please tell me how it escaped you that the report did check into Serb claims?

“Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
14. At one specialist maternity hospital in Belgrade, there were five recorded cases of pregnancy due to rape. Medical records were obtained regarding these cases, which included three late terminations of pregnancy and two deliveries (see details below). “

And off course it checks serb rape victims. This might be distressing to you, but everybody is not just arguing a biased case, a lot of people is simply interested in knowing what actually happened, regardless of the victims possible Russian, Chechen, Bosniak, Croat or Serb background.

Sadly your lie about having read the report, is the final proof that you’re not arguing in good faith. So with this I’ll consider this “discussion” with you finished. I will only return to this subject in the very unlikely event that you have anything slightly interesting to add, or maybe in the much more likely event that some outrageously silly stuff you post force me back just for the fun of it.

All the best
Frederik

Furthermore:

Going to a select choice of hospitals and noting claimed rape instances without fully confirming who did the raping doesn’t acknowledge a complete review of the claim in its totality. Like checking into Serb claims of being raped during the same period.

Partly inspired by Johns comment in another thread about some of the exchanges being unhelpful and distressing, I must say that I agree, and that I feel I myself crossed the line in my last comment. I wasn’t just rude, I wasn’t constructive either, so apologies for that.

So I’ll try to finish off once again, this time with fewer insults, and more fact based details and references.

Hi Mike,
Thank you for at long last posting something more concrete, but I must say that i’m still a litlle bit disappointed in your fact based details, since I really can’t see how that story is very helpful. Please note that i’m not saying the story isn’t true, just that it doesn’t really make a difference. And yes I can see how you would say that it is showing a tendency of false reporting regarding the rapes, but it’s not really conclusive is it?

I personally can’t imagine anyone that has until now been believing for instance the Mazowiecki report, suddenly changing their mind after reading that story, because they find it to be more conclusive – I know it hasn’t rocked my world.

So I can’t for the life of me understand why you’re not going after the Mazowiecki report(or something else with a little bit more substance) instead, although I have this sneaking suspicion that you’re happy about that article partly because it has a UN peacekeeper on record saying he had a peaceful tour in Bosnia, thus showing even the “war” to be a hoax (and trust me this is a point I have absolutely no intention of discussing with you.)

But I digress. As I said, I think especially the factor 100 the Mazowiecki report use to get the 12,000 could be attacked. As others have said as well, rape is a very difficult topic not lending itself easily to conclusive research, and hard numbers are difficult to come by. I did some fast googling on it, and couldn’t find that factor 100 anywhere. I did manage to find some numbers though, sadly i can’t link since my computer crashed and all disappeared, but somewhere it was claimed that 8% of rapes result in pregnancies(a big difference from the 1%). It didn’t say how that number was found, but if true it would in one quick sweep reduce the number of rapes to somewhere around 1500(and even doing it on the reports own premises, and please note the report does itself mention several problems regarding the factor 100. To that one could reply that since not all rapes were vaginal or done with anything that can make anybody pregnant the factor should be higher. Pushing it down again would be the fact that many rape victims were very young girls with the accompanying high fertility levels, then again some were so young that they couldn’t get pregnant at all, (but that was not common as far as I know), and off course some were killed before any pregnancy would have shown it self).

But it also seems clear that the 119 pregnancies due to rape identified in the report is an absolute minimum number, it’s only from 6 hospitals and only covering a period of less than a year.

All this somewhat tasteless back and forth to show that you could have chosen to engage in a discussion concerned with the so called “fact based details”, which would seem more fruitful – to me at least – than just claiming that the report is bogus and that everybody that disagrees with you are lying or at the very least being subconsciously duped by those with agendas.

And then to some questions,
you said that “That report is bogus in relation to the detailed material I’d posted.“

First your use of bogus here confuses me, i’m not sure what “bogus in relation to” mean, does it mean the same as irrelevant?

Please Mike if the article that Lyndon linked to and which you posted and called “A slam dunk on the Bosnian rape hoax” is not a part of “the detailed material” you posted, please tell me what is.

I ask because the report seems to me to be very relevant to at least that article. It’s claim of trumped up rapecharges is based mainly on it’s criticism of two “official” reports, one is the EC-thing that I can’t find and the other is the Mazowiecki report, on which it uses a paragraph. And I do think, that I showed that what it writes about the report is mainly wrong (the authors name it’s Mazowiecki not Mazowicki, the dates it was made was january 12 to 23, not january 10 to 17, and off course by far most important the number of pregnancies after rape identified in the report is 119 and not 19(and it mis characterizes the number as an estimate, which it is not, at least not in your everyday usage of the word) which in my opinion does call the rest of the articles trustworthiness into question.

And finally I slide back into childish behavior and ask what kind of person copy/pastes his own comments, including misspells and all here and here, thats just strange.

All the best
Frederik

Here’s another example of an unsubstantaited claim, which in the bloew instance has been acknowledged as such:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/06/01/4225601-sun.html

CNEWS (CANADA)

June 1, 2007

Ex-soldier acquitted of rape

By DEAN PRITCHARD, SUN MEDIA

A former soldier acquitted of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl because
he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder will have to wait awhile
longer to learn if he will go to trial again on the charge.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal reserved its decision in the case of Roger
Borsch after hearing Crown and defence submissions yesterday morning.

Borsch was a prison guard in The Pas when, in 2004, he broke into the home
of a fellow guard and sexually assaulted her daughter at knifepoint in her
bedroom. Borsch taped the girl’s mouth shut and threatened to kill her if
she screamed.

At his trial last spring, Borsch claimed he had no memory of the attack and
was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder after a six-month tour of
duty in Bosnia in 1994.

Borsch claimed he was traumatized by his experiences in Bosnia, which he
said included killing a Serbian soldier he caught raping a young girl and
seeing another young girl killed after she dropped a landmine.

In appealing the verdict, Crown attorney Don Knight argued Justice Nathan
Nurgitz erred in accepting the testimony of defence psychiatrists without
evaluating the credibility of Borsch’s wartime claims.

NO RECORDS KEPT

No one corroborated Borsch’s war stories and no records were kept of the
incidents, Knight said.

“All we have, in effect, are opinions that are worthless because they are
not based on findings of fact,” Knight said.

Knight also argued Nurgitz should have agreed to hear the testimony of a
last minute Crown witness who served in Bosnia with Borsch.

If he had been allowed to testify, Cpl. Craig Price was expected to say his
tour of duty was a quiet one and that he was unaware of several acts of
violence Borsch claims to have witnessed or participated in.

Borsch’s lawyer Mark Wasyliw said the Crown had plenty of time to come up
with rebuttal witnesses before the trial started.

“They clearly couldn’t,” Wasyliw said outside court. “You can be believed on
your own evidence and acquitted on your own evidence, which (Borsch)
obviously was.”

*****

Big difference between some rape versus mass rape. Some US soldiers raped in Vietnam.

The same goes for numb minded dopes like the Irishman.

They counter with no evidence to the contrary, as they launch one insult after another.

its a pity you’re not going to keep commenting, as you had some pretty coherent stuff to say. You should reconsider. These battles with Mike take place all the time, and no matter what evidence you put in his way, he’s not interested if it goes against his cases. He says himself he’s got a ‘Russocentric’ bias, which by definition means he cant be an analyst(as surely an analyst is not supposed to be biased), which he claims to be also.