[Controversial] The War Crime Tribunal against Radovan Karadžić - A Genocidal Criminal Or A "Patriotic War Hero"?

[Mephistopheles]

These are the current charges against former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić:

• Eleven counts of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other atrocities
• Charged over shelling Sarajevo during the city's siege, in which some 12,000 civilians died
• Allegedly organised the massacre of up to 8,000 Bosniak men and youths in Srebrenica
• Targeted Bosniak and Croat political leaders, intellectuals and professionals
• Unlawfully deported and transferred civilians because of national or religious identity
• Destroyed homes, businesses and sacred sites

Source: BBC NEWS | Europe | Karadzic boycotts start of trial

Here is a short summary of his way to The Hague (from Russia Today):

I wonder how the tribunal turns out. I think that Karadžić is a nationalistic mass murderer and I hope he wont't die in his prison cell likeSlobodan Milošević before the end of the tribunal.

[Nemmerle]

The only real difference between a hero and a monster is which side you're on. You say kartoffel I say potato, and which of us is more violence decides the difference.

[Commissar MercZ]

I hope they get something out of this, but revisionists have been hard at work to lessen the brutality that happened in that war and try to pass it off as things that tend to happen in ethnic strife.

While they are doing this, the people who were victims of this can only wonder why it's taking so long for this process to go through. Of course to me it has demonstrated that many times these kinds of proceedings are dragged along to improve the political image of the countries holding them.

[SeinfeldisKindaOk]

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

The only real difference between a hero and a monster is which side you're on. You say kartoffel I say potato, and which of us is more violence decides the difference.

I don't know, I think it depends on the circumstances. To me, there's a difference between civilians dying because they were caught in the crossfire and civilians being rounded up and executed. If the civilians killed were directly targeted then it's worse.

[Commissar MercZ]

Originally Posted by Professor Dr. Scientist

I don't know, I think it depends on the circumstances. To me, there's a difference between civilians dying because they were caught in the crossfire and civilians being rounded up and executed. If the civilians killed were directly targeted then it's worse.

That is the problem currently. The revisionists are trying to downplay the intentional massacres as cross-fire and isolated incidents of rampaging squads. The evidence surrounding the Srebrenica is still being debated and Serbian nationalists are attempting to pass it off as a political fabrication by the nations who went to war against them during the Balkan conflicts.

Unfortunately the man who carried out the massacre in question (Ratko Mladić) is still missing.

[Crazy Wolf]

So, why has it taken so long? Was he especially good at hiding? With how spottily these sort of laws are enforced, it often seems that genocide isn't a crime unless the guys in charge don't like you.

[Huffardo]

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

So, why has it taken so long? Was he especially good at hiding? With how spottily these sort of laws are enforced, it often seems that genocide isn't a crime unless the guys in charge don't like you.

When people are nationalistic enough they will look past the crimes and look at what was done for the pride of the country, at that point hiding what they consider war heroes from the evil government and international forces probably seems like the right thing to do. Needless to say many there still are nationalistic beyond belief, what happened could easily happen again if nobody is ready to slap them when they start executing people.

[Roaming East]

Did he win the war? if no then yes, he is whatever the victors wish to portray him as.

[Admiral Donutz]

Originally Posted by Professor Dr. Scientist

I don't know, I think it depends on the circumstances. To me, there's a difference between civilians dying because they were caught in the crossfire and civilians being rounded up and executed. If the civilians killed were directly targeted then it's worse.

Agreed, ofcourse which "side" you are on "spoils" your view of who's good and bad. An attack which costed the lifeof civilians might be an outrage to one and an unfortinate colateral damage to an other. But planned mass executions are bad in the books of most people.

[Nemmerle]

If I lose I'm sure some mass executions can be 'found' to legitimise the war against me post-facto, and if I win I'll write whatever I want people to believe. To you - as with everyone else who wasn't there - there's a difference between someone who has been reported to have authored such an act and someone who hasn't. And the reporting depends very much on who wins.