CiKoLa
Amicus
Gotovina Heroj!
Posts: 3,728
|
Post by CiKoLa on Apr 23, 2009 3:46:29 GMT -5
THE International Criminal Tribunal implicated accused war criminal Dragan Vasiljkovic in acts of violence and intimidation towards Croats and other non-Serbs during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia in 1991.A document tendered to the NSW Supreme Court yesterday revealed that, in 2007, the ICT made an adverse finding against Mr Vasiljkovic, ruling that he "participated in the furtherance of the common criminal purpose" of the forced removal of the non-Serb population from the disputed territory of Krajina.
Mr Vasiljkovic, 54, who was not prosecuted by the ICT, is suing Nationwide News for defamation over an article published in The Australian in September 2005, which detailed his alleged activities during his time as a commander of a Serbian paramilitary unit in the Balkans in the early 1990s. In 2007, a jury found the article contained a number of meanings that were defamatory of Mr Vasiljkovic, including that he condoned the rape of women and girls, was a mercenary and a "death squad" commander. During the four-week defamation hearing, Nationwide News, which is defending the truth of its article, intends to call up to nine witnesses to give evidence. Some will testify via videolink from Croatia. Yesterday, Ilija Glisic, a witness for Mr Vasiljkovic, and a member of the community group Serbs for Justice and Democracy, said the former army commander was well regarded for humanitarian work, through which he had "helped over 60,000 unfortunates", including many non-Serbs. He said Mr Vasiljkovic was considered an "exemplary" figure within the Serbian community in Australia and overseas. But Mr Glisic admitted he was "unaware" that the ICT had made adverse findings against the ex-soldier in 2007. Counsel for Nationwide News, Tom Blackburn SC, tendered the ICT document as proof of the adverse findings against Mr Vasiljkovic. Asked by Mr Blackburn whether knowledge of the findings would affect his view of Mr Vasiljkovic, Mr Glisic said his opinion of the former military commander would not change "unless there was some solid evidence". Mr Glisic said Mr Vasiljkovic had often told him how "very upset" he was by the September 2005 article in The Australian, because it had "started the whole, unjust (extradition) process". Mr Blackburn questioned Mr Glisic over his claim that Mr Vasiljkovic was more concerned about the newspaper article than he was about the prospect of returning to Croatia to answer allegations of his involvement in war crimes. "The plaintiff thinks he might be killed (if he is extradited to Croatia), doesn't he?" Mr Blackburn asked. "He believes there's a very, very strong possibility, yes," replied Mr Glisic, who also denied the suggestion that he had provided "tainted" testimony toenhance Mr Vasiljkovic's reputation. Mr Vasiljkovic was arrested in Sydney in January 2006. Following the defamation hearing, he may be extradited to Croatia, where he is wanted for questioning in relation to his alleged war crimes. He has unsuccessfully appealed against his extradition. As Nationwide News is defending the defamatory article on the basis that it is true, the NSW Supreme Court will have to determine whether Mr Vasiljkovic is a war criminal before he defends any such charges in court -- a first for a defamation trial in Australia. The hearing, before judge Megan Latham, will resume tomorrow. www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25368299-2702,00.html
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Apr 23, 2009 13:13:56 GMT -5
Anthologic, how many national armies were apart of 91-95? Do you really know what the correct definition of a cival war is?
|
|
MiG
Amicus
Republika
Posts: 4,793
|
Post by MiG on Apr 23, 2009 14:06:09 GMT -5
^ Well lets see. There was;
JNA TO SV HV HVO ARBiH VRS VSK VJ ARM KLA (A)NLA
Did I missed some? That sounds like a full blown civil war to me.
|
|
paja
Membrum
Posts: 193
|
Post by paja on Apr 23, 2009 14:22:50 GMT -5
^ No war is civil!
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Apr 23, 2009 14:23:39 GMT -5
Look there is no doubting there were many sectors of the war and mini wars withing the larger picture. But a civil war for example would be in Sri Lanka between the rebels and the govt. Our war was a war made up of not only 1 country but of 3 countries. Just because we were apart of 1 country before it happened it it doesn't mean it was a civil war amongst our own people. Even under Yuga we were recognised as entities.
|
|
paja
Membrum
Posts: 193
|
Post by paja on Apr 23, 2009 14:44:13 GMT -5
A civil war is a war between organized groups to take control of a nation or region, or to change government policies. How does this not pertain to Yugoslavia?
|
|
MiG
Amicus
Republika
Posts: 4,793
|
Post by MiG on Apr 23, 2009 14:57:03 GMT -5
Look there is no doubting there were many sectors of the war and mini wars withing the larger picture. But a civil war for example would be in Sri Lanka between the rebels and the govt. Our war was a war made up of not only 1 country but of 3 countries. Just because we were apart of 1 country before it happened it it doesn't mean it was a civil war amongst our own people. Even under Yuga we were recognised as entities. Um, What? Here's how it goes..
Yugoslav Civil War (25 June 1991 - June 10, 1999/November 2001)10 Day War (Slovenia) 27 June 1991 - 6 July 1991TO/SV vs. JNA Croatian War of Independence (Croatia) 25 June 1991 - December 14, 1995TO/HV/HVO vs. JNA/VSK/VRS Bosnian Civil War (Bosnia and Herzegovina) April 1, 1992 – December 14, 1995ARBiH/HVO vs. JNA/VRS/VSK ARBiH vs. HVO vs. JNA/VRS/VSK ARBiH/HV/HVO vs. VRS/Remnants of VSK Kosovo Conflict/Operation Allied Force (Kosovo/FRY) January 1998 - June 11, 1999KLA vs. VJ KLA/NATO vs. VJ ** Presevo Valley Conflict ** (Extension of the Kosovo Conflict) UCPBM (KLA Branch) vs. VJ Macedonian Conflict/Tetovo Incidents (January - November 2001)ARM vs. (A)NLA That is one hell of a civil war/strife.
|
|
|
Post by soko on Apr 23, 2009 15:07:07 GMT -5
It's only a civil war if you look at the whole of exyu as a whole, anyways. I do not see how more religious freedom and liberal economics would have held Yugoslavia together? religion is just the extension of nationality among BHS speakers, and it was the collapse of the socialist economy that brought about the job losses, and such.
Ultimately, Yugoslavia could only have been held together as a social state, if a large enough number of its citizens primarily identified as members of a "modern" South Slavic nation, and cast aside history from ancient times as nothing more then history, interesting but irrelevant.
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Apr 23, 2009 15:10:32 GMT -5
^Exactly right. A civil war would be a war between Croats vs Croats, Serbs vs Serbs. That war wasn't, in some small instances it was only because certain people wanted to outs certain others for the power of each country, but as a whole it was a not civil war.
|
|
Anthologic
Amicus
"Lord of all Reality"
Ha!
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by Anthologic on Apr 23, 2009 15:19:18 GMT -5
Well, now it's about Illyria your personal definition of a civil war vs. matter of fact semantics. From a political perspective, they were all citizens of one country at the time of the start of war, that's why it is recorded as a civil war.
In any case, I'm confused why Australia chose to extradite him to croatia..
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Apr 23, 2009 15:21:51 GMT -5
Yes citizens of one country, a country that did not exist after '91 (only in today's Serbia was it still technically Yugoslavia) The war was not in Yugoslavia after '91 but in Croatia and Bosnia apart from the US shelling of Belgrade which was not really a war now was it? Read my post above. You guys still don't get it.
Back to Dragan, well where will they send him to? Yugoslavia, a country that doesn't exist and where he didn't even commit the crimes in? You want them to send him to the Hague?
|
|
|
Post by soko on Apr 23, 2009 15:33:46 GMT -5
what you want to term the wars that accrued with the collapse of the SFRJ depends on a combination of your ethnicity and political stance......
so this argument has no meaning seen as the war is in a gray zone when it comes to just that....
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Apr 23, 2009 15:55:36 GMT -5
Ok then, there was no Yugoslav ethnicity, only a made up nationality that people had no choice but to accept. The war DID NOT EVEN occur in Yugoslavia. So this was not a civil war.
|
|
|
Post by soko on Apr 23, 2009 16:04:54 GMT -5
actually, a lot of people felt like Yugoslavs, some of those that are a serb-bos-cro-mac mix still do... i don't see how its any more made up then the medieval bs fairly tales that we base our current ethnicities on..
anyways, I don't care what terms are used, it's all about using technicalities to use a term that fits with you own view.
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Apr 23, 2009 16:29:02 GMT -5
I don't care what they felt, it still wasn't an inter ethnic civial war. It was a war between countries.
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Apr 23, 2009 19:32:24 GMT -5
|
|
Anthologic
Amicus
"Lord of all Reality"
Ha!
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by Anthologic on Apr 23, 2009 19:32:47 GMT -5
I don't care what they felt, it still wasn't an inter ethnic civial war. It was a war between countries. At first it wasn't a civil war according to you... now apparently it has to be an inter-ethnic civil war to be a civil war by your standards?
|
|
|
Post by SKORIC on Apr 23, 2009 19:54:59 GMT -5
Back to Dragan, well where will they send him to? Yugoslavia, a country that doesn't exist and where he didn't even commit the crimes in? You want them to send him to the Hague? The hague doesnt want him. When he testified at the Milosevic trial they offered him a immunity contract thing protecting him from being put on trial in the future but he refused saying he doesnt have a reason to be protected or have imunity. Someone who knows he's guilty wouldnt do that.
|
|
MiG
Amicus
Republika
Posts: 4,793
|
Post by MiG on Apr 23, 2009 20:05:44 GMT -5
Civil War 101A civil war is a war between organized groups to take control of a nation or region, or to change government policies. It is high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale. Civil wars result in large numbers of casualties and the expenditure of large amounts of resource. A civil war involves two-sided violence; for example, a massacre of civilians by the state is not a civil war. Similarly, less intense forms of societal conflict, such as riots or social movements, are excluded from the definition.Civil wars since the end of World War II have lasted on average just over four years, a dramatic rise from the one-and-a-half year average of the 1900-1944 period. While the rate of emergence of new civil wars has been relatively steady since the mid-1800s, the increasing length of those wars resulted in increasing numbers of wars ongoing at any one time. For example, there were no more than five civil wars underway simultaneously in the first half of the twentieth century, while over 20 concurrent civil wars were occurring at the end of the Cold War, before a significant decrease as conflicts strongly associated with the superpower rivalry came to an end. Since 1945, civil wars have resulted in the deaths of over 25 million people, as well as the forced displacement of millions more. Civil wars have further resulted in economic collapse; Burma (Myanmar), Uganda and Angola are examples of nations that were considered to have promising futures before being engulfed in civil wars. Scholars of war divide theories on the causes of civil war into either greed versus grievance. Roughly stated: are conflicts caused by who people are, whether that be defined in terms of ethnicity, religion or other social affiliation, or do conflicts begin because it is in the economic best interests of individuals and groups to start them? Scholarly analysis supports the conclusion that economic and structural factors are more important than those of identity in predicting occurrences of civil war.DefinitionJames Fearon, a scholar of civil wars at Stanford University, states that "a civil war is a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies". Ann Hironaka further specifies that one side of a civil war is the state. The intensity at which a civil disturbance becomes a civil war is contested by academics. Some political scientists define as civil war as having more than 1000 casualties, while others further specify that at least 100 must come from each side. The Correlates of War, a dataset widely used by scholars of conflict, classifies civil wars as having over 1000 war-related casualties per year of conflict. This rate is a small fraction of the millions killed in the Second Sudanese Civil War and Cambodian Civil War, for example, but excludes several highly publicized conflicts, such as The Troubles of Northern Ireland and the struggle of the African National Congress in Apartheid-era South Africa. Based on the 1000 casualties per year criterion, there were 213 civil wars from 1816 to 1997, 104 of which occurred from 1944 to 1997. If one uses the less-stringent 1000 casualties total criterion, there were over 90 civil wars between 1945 and 2007, with 20 ongoing civil wars as of 2007. Further definitionsThe Geneva Conventions do not specifically define the term 'civil war'. They do, however, describe the criteria for acts qualifying as "armed conflict not of an international character", which includes civil wars. Among the conditions listed are four requirements: * The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory. * The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory. * The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent. * The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military."
Causes of civil war in the Collier-Hoeffler ModelA comprehensive studies of civil war was carried out by a team from the World Bank in the early 2000s. The study framework, which came to be called the Collier-Hoeffler Model, examined 78 five-year increments when civil war occurred from 1960 to 1999, as well as 1167 five-year increments of "no civil war" for comparison, and subjected the data set to regression analysis to see the effect of various factors. The factors that were shown to have a statistically-significant effect on the chance that a civil war would occur in any given five-year period were: Availability of financeAn economic dependence on commodities, such the diamonds being mined by these children in Sierra Leone, is correlated with an increased risk of civil war. (See also blood diamond.) A high proportion of primary commodities in national exports significantly increases the risk of a conflict. A country at "peak danger", with commodities comprising 32% of gross domestic product, has a 22% of falling into civil war in a given five-year period, while a country with no primary commodity exports has a 1% risk. When disaggregated, only petroleum and non-petroleum groupings showed different results: a country with relatively low levels of dependence on petroleum exports is at slightly less risk, while a high-level of dependence on oil as an export results in slightly more risk of a civil war than national dependence on another primary commodity. The authors of the study interpreted this as being the result of the ease by which primary commodities may be extorted or captured compared to other forms of wealth, e.g. it is easy to capture and control the output of a gold mine or oil field compared to a sector of garment manufacturing or hospitality services. A second source of finance is national diasporas, which can fund rebellions and insurgencies from abroad. The study found that statistically switching the size of a country's diaspora from the smallest found in the study to the largest resulted in a sixfold increase in the chance of a civil war. Opportunity cost of rebellionHigher male secondary school enrollment, per capita income and economic growth rate all had significant effects on reducing the chance of civil war. Specifically, a male secondary school enrollment 10% above the average reduced the chance of a conflict by about 3%, while a growth rate 1% higher than the study average resulted in a decline in the chance of a civil war of about 1%. The study interpreted these three factors as proxies for earnings foregone by rebellion, and therefore that lower foregone earnings encourages rebellion. Phrased another way: young males (who make up the vast majority of combatants in civil wars) are less likely to join a rebellion if they are getting an education and/or have a comfortable salary, and can reasonably assume that they will prosper in the future. Low per capita income has been proposed as a cause for grievance, prompting armed rebellion. However, for this to be true, one would expect economic inequality to also be a significant factor in rebellions, which it is not. The study therefore concluded that the economic model of opportunity cost better explained the findings. Military advantageHigh levels of population dispersion and, to a lesser extent, the presence of mountainous terrain increased the chance of conflict. Both of these factors favor rebels, as a population dispersed outward toward the borders is harder to control than one concentrated in a central region, while mountains offer terrain where rebels can seek sanctuary.GrievanceMost proxies for "grievance" - the theory that civil wars begin because of issues of identity, rather than economics - were statistically insignificant, including economic equality, political rights, ethnic polarization and religious fractionalization. Only ethnic dominance, the case where the largest ethnic group comprises a majority of the population, increased the risk of civil war. A country characterized by ethnic dominance has nearly twice the chance of a civil war. However, the combined effects of ethnic and religious fractionalization, i.e. the more chance that any two randomly chosen people will be from separate ethnic or religious groups the less chance of a civil war, were also significant and positive, as long as the country avoided ethnic dominance. The study interpreted this as stating that minority groups are more likely to rebel if they feel that they are being dominated, but that rebellions are more likely to occur the more homogeneous the population and thus more cohesive the rebels. These two factors may thus be seen as mitigating each other in many cases. Population size The various factors contributing to the risk of civil war rise increase with population size. The risk of a civil war rises approximately proportionately with the size of a country's population.Time The more time that has elapsed since the last civil war, the less likely it is that a conflict will recur. The study had two possible explanations for this: one opportunity-based and the other grievance-based. The elapsed time may represent the depreciation of whatever capital the rebellion was fought over and thus increase the opportunity cost of restarting the conflict. Alternatively, elapsed time may represent the gradual process of healing of old hatreds. The study found that the presence of diaspora substantially reduced the positive effect of time, as the funding from diasporas offsets the depreciation of rebellion-specific capital.Duration of civil warsAnn Hironaka, author of Neverending Wars, divides the modern history of civil wars into the pre-nineteenth century, nineteenth century to early twentieth century, and late twentieth century. In nineteenth century Europe, the length of civil wars fell significantly, largely due to the nature of the conflicts as battles for the power center of the state, the strength of centralized governments, and the normally quick and decisive intervention by other states to support the government. Following World War II the duration of civil wars grew past the norm of the pre-nineteenth century, largely due to weakness of the many postcolonial states and the intervention by major powers on both sides of conflict. The most obvious commonality to civil wars are that they occur in fragile states. Effect of the Cold WarThe Cold War (1945-1989) provided a global network of material and ideological support that perpetuated civil wars, which were mainly fought in ex-colonial weak states, rather than the relatively strong states that were aligned with the Warsaw Pact and North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In some cases, superpowers would superimpose Cold War ideology onto local conflicts, while in others local actors using Cold War ideology would attract the attention of a superpower. Using a separate statistical evaluation than used above for interventions, civil wars that included pro- or anti-communist forces lasted 141% longer than the average non-Cold War conflict, while a Cold War civil war that attracted superpower intervention resulted in wars typically lasting over three times as long as other civil wars. Conversely, the end of the Cold War marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 resulted in a reduction in the duration of Cold War civil wars of 92% or, phrased another way, a roughly ten-fold increase in the rate of resolution of Cold War civil wars. Lengthy Cold War-associated civil conflicts that ground to a halt include the wars of Guatemala (1960-1996), El Salvador (1979–1991), Nicaragua (1970-1990) and Peru (1980-2000).If you are willing to look further into it.. here ya go; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War
|
|
|
Post by Sh1 Shonić on Apr 23, 2009 23:14:13 GMT -5
Yes citizens of one country, a country that did not exist after '91 (only in today's Serbia was it still technically Yugoslavia) The war was not in Yugoslavia after '91 but in Croatia and Bosnia apart from the US shelling of Belgrade which was not really a war now was it? Read my post above. You guys still don't get it. Ti si ovde najpametnija. U Hrvatskoj su Srbi ,gradjani Hrvatske (ako ne SFRJ ) ratovali protiv Hrvata, gradjana Hrvatske. U Bosni su Hrvati, Srbi i Bosnjaci (svi gradjani BiH) ratovali izmedju sebe. Srbi protiv Hrvata + Bosnjaka Hrvati protiv Bosnjaka Bosnjaci (Alijini) protiv Bosnjaka (Babini) Takozvani Bosanski lonac, opsta klanica. I tako dalje i tako dalje... Glupa si ko noc, kad je mesec jos mlad iveoma oblacno. Ides mi na onu stvar zajedno sa Zadnjim Bosancem i Cikolom. Ti nisi za ovaj forum. Idi kod Spartakusa na forum on ce te razumeti i bices njegova muza, napisace knjigu (ili barem pricu) o tebi, mozda snimiti film...................... Koja si ti Koza i to ona Sjenicka............................... Izvinjavam se ostalima (obicno nisam prost i ne vredjam) ali mi ova Ivanka stvarno ide na onu stvar.
|
|