Radovan Karadžić has been found guilty of genocide for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and was sentenced to 40 years in prison. That’s Radovan Karadžić: Bosnian Serb leader, Bosnian Serb politician, Bosnian Serb war criminal, Bosnian Serb. But that’s not, if you have followed the past 20 years of international media coverage, Radovan Karadžić…European Christian.
Thank you Mr. Christensen for this article. I remember having a very difficult time trying to understand the situation in Bosnia at the time of the conflict. The reporting was horrifically contradictory and I could not tell if it was the news readers who didn't have a clue or just outright disinformation. I am now sure it was both. Fortunately, with sources such as CD it is easier to observe events with appropriate filtration to winnow out the spin. Unfortunately, the masses still rely on mass media.
This is an example of someone being brought to "justice" by the winners. Another example is WWII. The outrageous war crimes committed by the winners are overlooked. WAR IS A CRIME!
Good point, and that does not make him and his team and better or worse than the Muslims that blow themselves up in cafes, airports or subways.
If i remember correctly the UN and European countries pussyfooted around the Balkan war for years just like they do today with Islamic terrorism. All it took to calm the place down was a couple of weeks of fine targeted bombing by the US Air Force and everyone was at the negotiation table.
You completely missed Mr. Christiansen's point.
Excellent very poignant point.
Thank you, Mr. Christensen. I am always barking up this same tree as I see such strained attempts in matters specific to violence against women being framed as Gender Neutral; or equally strained efforts to conflate the actions of an MIC unhinged from public accountability with the illusion of absolute consent on the part of the governed. Oh, and then there's the constant and deliberate references to the grand WE, all citizens/Americans, and/or human nature served up to take the spotlight off very real BAD actors and specific agencies that are guilty of major crimes.
"This is the power of language: the power of a single word to alter how we understand and react to news. If the media will not define Karadžić as a “Christian” out to kill Muslims, we should ask why. Or, inversely, if they are willing to define a perpetrator in religious terms only if he/she is Muslim, we should ask why."
Indeed, ask why! In a time of PR tested buzz words, experts in mind control, and a pervasive mass media whose dominant talking heads all say the same things (and term it "news") ... the power of language is real and one word (yes versus no) can mean a great deal.
No, not really. he's trying to excuse Islamic terrorism by pointing the media didn't focus on Karadjic's Christianity. Thing is him and his acolytes were nationalists not holy warriors driven by religion. They were killing catholic Croats too.
Isis is killing Muslims too. The fact is that as The Serbs were killing the Muslims they singled out the fact they were not Christian .
Yes, we should ask why. The power of language is real and can be very nuanced.......language can also be used as a bludgeon to focus on one word often out of context rather than the meaning a person is trying to communicate.......take "we" for example - a word with several meanings. We as several, or as a group, or as a collective. We must take words in context.......
And the Croats who killed Serbs were acquitted or not brought to trial.
And the deportation of over 100000 Bosnian Serbs which accompanied the secession of Croatia from Yugoslavia and which gave rise to the formation of Serb militias in Bosnia has not been addressed by that NATO court.
BTW Bin Laden's cohorts went to Bosnia to fight against the Serbs but not much was made of it in the msm.
Another point omitted by the amnesiac msm is the history of WW II, when fascist Croats slaughtered Jews and Serbs mercilessly, and Bosnian Muslims allied with Croats. Historical memory dies hard and often creates new victims.
Oh yes. They used to call each other cetnic (Serbs) and ustash (Croats). Let's just say neither one of them were angels in WWII. Nobody is in a war, otherwise we'd call it goodwill mission. And yes, Hezbollah did send fighters to Bosnia. Common knowledge at the time. I wasn't expecting many in the US to know about it tho. A fairly high number have no idea what the US neighboring countries are.
Not Hezbollah, as far as I know. Not their kind of war. It was Bin Laden's folks, mainly radical islamist sunni, in Bosnia, probably Al Qaeda types.. At the time Hezbollah was primarily Shi'a, and they have not gone around the world to carry their message. They were too busy consolidating political power in Lebanon and focusing on Israel.
Has Donald Trump met this guy? I'd bet they would like each other.
Given the events since 2003 and the potential outcome of the POTUS elections Karadzic was an amateur
Are you seriously lecturing ME on the context of the use of the term "We"?
I am the ONLY one in this forum who has bothered to show how it's used to forge consensus--erroneously.
And lately I've seen that OTHERS are questioning this frame. And I don't mean you.
Too many take possession of the WE-frame to force consensus for their views and then turn around and make up excuses about rhetorical references and so forth.
When the term WE applies to a specific set of actors who are specifically responsible for specific acts and events, I, for one, am not going to embrace the we meme.
It's used disingenuously to apply guilt and culpability to the generic whole in order to protect very real and guilty parties.
It's also used by white males to claim that all other groups share their particular perspectives.
It's used by the white culture to define the Black experience and it's used by males to define the feminine experience, etc. ad nauseum.
"We must take words in context."
The term "must" is authoritarian and thus suggestive of asserting control or demanding acquiescence to standards that authority sets.
Second, I'll make this easy for you...
"Whose context," genius?
I would not assume to lecture you Siouxrose, your voice here is a very valuable one, one that does bother to explain errors in language usage I for one appreciate. My only intent is to suggest in some regard a more constructive, gentle, tone and emphasis.
The "we" and "voters" are particular cases/terms in point. I get that you have a real problem with some, including me, using the term "we" in comments to suggest/hope/encourage voters to support interests for the 99% rather than the 1%, as you write "to forge consensus" - but I am not "taking possession of the "WE-frame" to force consensus - I do intend to influence others to alter their perceptions, thinking, beliefs - that's not "erroneously" but intentionally, and not "force" - I want to change minds (and sometimes hearts) on issues dear/meaningful to me and toward a common-good, a "we" - that is my context.
When I say "hopefully voters will" or "we should listen", I'm not ignoring corrupting powers behind "voter" ignorance or loyalty to a specific party or candidate - the media, party establishments, talking-heads, et al are implied for brevity in a specific comment, if not usually mentioned in most/others.
People here don't really know each other except thru our writings, and "we" hopefully will carry a posters bent, previous writings, and meanings thru to different comments - to see their wider more inclusive meaning of terms in wider context, not to deprecate them for failures in a specific comment. Tone is important.
I am truly sorry the term "we" carries and has such negative connotations for you re: male dominance, white culture, political power, et al - also my use of the term "we must" - my intent was not authoritarian in any sense or meaning - clearly it is in your context, and for that I apologize for my ignorance - and for my hopefully gentle prodding to soften your contributions.
Good. So, according to Mr Son-of-a-Christian, Christians are one more time collectively guilty of something they are not even aware of. Except its all wrong.
Radovan Karadzic and the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina have nothing in common with medieval Crussades, and they have all reasons to be treated as a direct continuation, a 3rd halftime of WW2 in Balkans. And in WW2, ethnic group nowadays called Bosnian Muslims predominantly sided with Hitler and with Croatian nazi leader Pavelic. In WW2, Bosnian Muslim fighters joined Hitler's SS "Hanjar Division" and Croatian Ustashe troups, having committed a genocide of Serbs in Bosnia of a several times larger scale than Bosnian civil war 1992-95. In WW2, there were around 1,5 million people killed in former Yugoslavia, huge majority of them Serbs, and 95% of victims were killed by Bosnian Muslim and Croat nazi collaborators. In civil war in Bosnia 1992-95, around 100 thousand people were killed, around 65 thousand of which Bosnian Muslim, around 25 thousand Bosnian Serbs, and up to 10 thousand Bosnian Croats.
In both civil wars, Roman Catholic Croats were close allies with Bosnian Muslims, against Orthodox Christian Serbs, not because of a religion. The major casus beli of both civil wars was a mere land grab.
Radovan Karadzic is many things, most of them very wrong. But he is not a 20th century Christian Crusader.
The author in the case of Bosnia (Im not talking now about Arabs etc...neither defending a clear war criminal) forgets one crucial thing that in the former Yugoslavia Muslim (Musliman) was recognized NATIONALITY through their religious or historical background (Turkish or Slavic but of Muslim faith) with this name MUSLIMAN (Mulim, transl.). There was NO other TERM for those people until the Term Bosniac (Bošnjak) got into use, but latter. The term Muslim as a nationality was perceived in the former Yugoslavia as the same as Serb of Croat - as a NATIONALITY because those people did not considered themselves not Croats nor Serbs....So in Bosnia were Bosnian Muslims (not Arabs or Islamic people but Mulimani-s as a recognized nation), like Muslims of Sandžak were considered Sandžački Muslmani - yes with large "M"... because were recognized as a nation with that name. when you write with small letter "m" in our South Slavic languages it is about religion (the member of any religion member is written with small letter).. but when you write with large M like it was with Bosanski Muslimani (Bosnina Muslims) it was about the nation that in this case of ex-Yugoslavia (Bosnia) has the same name as a religion... ...Maybe the authors intention were good and noble but in case of Bosnia he mixed apples with pears.
He did not kill only Bosniaks but also Croats meaning every non Serbian was killed. Also in Kosovo was the same because we are predominantly Muslims but we are also Roman Catholics, they attacked every non Serb.