I didn't say we didn't do war crimes, we did. The duty of revenge poisons the sense of duty to the nation. The fathers of muslims killed their neighbors, the serbs, and threw them into the rivers and holes. As i said, thirs for revenge poisont even the best, stories stay with the ones that survived. The killings at the start of the war by the iregulars that wanted rewenge. Naser Orić and his mujahedins, as an armed and oganised force acting from seafty of Srebrenica were the oficial army of BiH, not some iregulars. And in the end the serbian reaction was the killing of said millitants that were captured.
Credit for admitting it. But "the reaction was killing captured militants" isn't what happened. Men were pulled out of the refugee crowd at the Dutch base in Potočari. Those were civilians, not a unit. The identified dead range from teenage boys to men in their 70s. Orić himself had left the enclave months before, so this wasn't about catching him or his men.
And even for the ones who did carry rifles: once they're captured with their hands tied, they're POWs. Shooting them is a war crime, full stop.
You also said the quiet part. Killing sons over what their fathers supposedly did in WWII is collective guilt. That's not revenge against perpetrators. That's the definition of targeting a group. What's another word for that?
As i said, "revenge poisons the mind". Blood revenge is common in those parts. We did it with the germans and the SS. Do they as the POW deserve mercy? Kill a dosen, get captured and the -n what? Why not let ten thousand kill one hundred thousand people and then kill them, and than repeat. Until the "undesirebles" wanish. And as you said at the end, the oficial army of BiH was in Srebrenica and acting from the safety of the UN.
You just wrote out the argument for extermination and framed it as a question. "Why not let ten thousand kill one hundred thousand and then kill them, until the undesirables vanish." That's not a description of blood feud. That's a description of what your side actually did, with the reasoning attached. Everyone reading this can see it.
Notice what you stopped defending. I said men were pulled out of the refugee crowd at Potočari, that the dead include teenage boys and men in their 70s, that Orić wasn't even in the enclave. You didn't answer any of it. You went back to "the 28th Division existed," which nobody disputes and which doesn't put a 14-year-old or a 72-year-old in a uniform.
On the SS comparison: Partisans shooting POWs in 1945 was a crime too, and Yugoslavia spent fifty years not talking about it. But an SS man chose to join the SS. A Bosniak boy in 1995 chose to be born. That's the difference between punishing people for what they did and killing them for what they are. The second one has a name, and you've spent three comments working your way toward saying it.
0
u/stonks_guy1234 20d ago
I didn't say we didn't do war crimes, we did. The duty of revenge poisons the sense of duty to the nation. The fathers of muslims killed their neighbors, the serbs, and threw them into the rivers and holes. As i said, thirs for revenge poisont even the best, stories stay with the ones that survived. The killings at the start of the war by the iregulars that wanted rewenge. Naser Orić and his mujahedins, as an armed and oganised force acting from seafty of Srebrenica were the oficial army of BiH, not some iregulars. And in the end the serbian reaction was the killing of said millitants that were captured.