Thread: Convicted war criminal dies after drinking 'poison' in court

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Oh fuck off does it.

Which means it showed that he committed genocide just because he was a nasty fucking c u n t.

He's dead, and better still he died a common prisoner.

Good fucking riddance.

Shame there are is no commenting on that shit fansite.

What Hague Tribunal said about "exonerating Milosevic"

Clark made his conclusion based on the guilty verdict passed to Radovan Karadzic, which does not explicitly mentioned Milosevic's role in the crimes committed in Bosnia.

Also, Clark noted that there was "no official announcement or press conference regarding the exoneration of Milosevic" - a former Serbian and Yugoslav president, and a Hague indictee himself, who died before the end of his trial.

Radio Free Europe asked the Hague Tribunal for comment on this matter, and received this reply:

"The Trial Chamber of the Karadzic case found, at paragraph 3460, page 1303, of the Trial Judgement, that 'there was no sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan'. The Trial Chamber found earlier in the same paragraph that 'Milosevic provided assistance in the form of personnel, provisions and arms to Bosnian Serbs during the conflict'."

https://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes....5&nav_id=98895

^Antrobertson writes me:

Here, have your red back with some interest.

There is nothing by myself, so you give the red to people quoted?

Originally Posted by Klondyke

What Hague Tribunal said about "exonerating Milosevic"

Clark made his conclusion based on the guilty verdict passed to Radovan Karadzic, which does not explicitly mentioned Milosevic's role in the crimes committed in Bosnia.

Also, Clark noted that there was "no official announcement or press conference regarding the exoneration of Milosevic" - a former Serbian and Yugoslav president, and a Hague indictee himself, who died before the end of his trial.

Radio Free Europe asked the Hague Tribunal for comment on this matter, and received this reply:

"The Trial Chamber of the Karadzic case found, at paragraph 3460, page 1303, of the Trial Judgement, that 'there was no sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan'. The Trial Chamber found earlier in the same paragraph that 'Milosevic provided assistance in the form of personnel, provisions and arms to Bosnian Serbs during the conflict'."

https://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes....5&nav_id=98895

It doesn't matter how many times you post this bullshit, it still says the same thing you fucking moron.

//CLOSED//

^ Harry is disturbed, sorry for that. Why you don't skip the posts with facts you do not like to read?

'Butcher of the Balkans' wasn't a butcher, after all
The media that vilified Slobodan Milosevic are silent on his exoneration.

The Milosevic ruling also vindicates those who didn’t think he was the villain that Western powers, especially the United States, made him out to be. “The idea that he started (the war) is completely false,” says James Bissett, who served as Canada’s ambassador to Yugoslavia in the early 1990s and testified on Milosevic’s behalf. “I don’t think he was guilty of wanting a ‘Greater Serbia’ or genocide.”

Will those who vilified Milosevic admit they were wrong? Not likely. As Bissett puts it: “Even in the early days, it was apparent that most of the media reporting about the cause and course of the Yugoslav fighting was biased. In effect, the Serbs were branded as the bad guys, and any news developments were interpreted on that basis.”

It seems that when governments need a bad guy to justify questionable actions, propaganda supersedes the truth.

Opinion: ?Butcher of the Balkans? wasn?t a butcher, after all | Montreal Gazette