Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

My girlfriend's European history professor claimed that Ron Paul denied the Srebrenica Genocide, however, to my knowledge, the only evidence he gives is his single dissenting vote on the Srebrenica
commemoration resolution proposed in 2005.

I haven't been able to find an answer online. Does anyone know whether he did or did not deny the Srebrenica Genocide and why he voted no? I'm presuming that Ron had other reasons for voting no.

Search for text "Ron Paul" on both of these pages: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASrebrenica_massacre/Archive_15

Thanks

Yeah, the vote "no" probably had little to do with the event.  It likely had to do with how little the event has to do with the Constitution or even the U.S. for that matter.

Tell your g/f to drop or to confront the teacher in class or something.  The confrontation thing always goes well.

Ah, the original IRL troll before the invention of the Internet...

Clayton -

How exactly do you deny something that does not exist?

Surely you mean to ask, did Ron Paul ever deny the Srebrenica Genocide myth?

No, I do not believe he did. He has however characterized the claims of genocide in Kosovo as 'lies' ("Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo to pave the way for President Clinton’s bombing campaign against Yugoslavia."). So perhaps the teacher in question is conflating things.

It is easier to label a person a denier than it is to prove who did what to whom.

I'm from Serbia, and can tell you that the Srebrenica killings has been grossly exagerated for political reasons. No one is saying that a crime wasn't committed (shooting of PoWs), but to increace the numbers and fabricate lies about how there was women and children shot (against which Lewis MacKenzie testified against) is not only distasteful from the perspective of Serbian people who was not only satanized, but bombed under the pretence of "Srebrenica genocide", but it is also disrespectful of those who were the victims. Also the fact that regurally isn't mentioned is that Srebrenica was a response to massacres of Serbs in that area in which many woman, childred and elderly were murdered.

Kosovo has the fifth largest supplys of lignite, which are now under control of the USA. Of course the USA needed something to justify it's attack on Serbia, so Bosniak and Albanian (whose terrorist organisation KLA was funded and trained by USA similarly like they trained Wahabbis to fight agaist the USSR, except that Serbia didn't aggress against Kosovo because it was a part of Serbia for dozen centuries) losses in the war were exagurated and politized

Also, one of the best films covering the brake up of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav war is Weight of Chains, you can watch it here in full:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waEYQ46gH08

Disregard the economic finesses about free market, this is not about movie about economic philosophy, but about geopolitics, so if the narator uses "free market" for western crony capitalism, don't hold it agaist him.

 Also, one of the best films covering the brake up of Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav war is Weight of Chains, you can watch it here in full:

That movie is garbage and pure stupidity. It is a fantasy, a story of a prosperous, peaceful and industrialized nation that never existed (which explains the massive migrations to Canada, Australia, Germany and the U.S.) but which was destroyed by some imaginary evil conspiracy. It shares the same structure, the same narrative as all the other stories, put forth by the seemingly endless number of communist apologists, explaining the collapse of various communist states (such explanations, of course, never bother to mention malformed incentive structures as a result of weak social institutions and property rights, or intense corruption as a result of torrential bureaucratization, or the lack of accurate information signals guiding production). The problem is always some imaginary, malicious exogenous spirit that will not allow humanity to progress to the 'final stage of society,' the 'final epoch in human history.' 

As far as Srebrenica is concerned, I would stick to the official story. I know that's a hard thing to ask on an internet forum, where wild conspiracy theories are usually preferred, but I think the actions of Serb forces, the way it conducted itself throughout Bosnia at that period, really does speak for itself (the mass raping's and murders extended far beyond Srebrenica). 

It is a fantasy, a story of a prosperous, peaceful and industrialized nation that never existed

Yeah, you lived here, so you would know.

but which was destroyed by some imaginary evil conspiracy.

Conspiracy? It's called government and economic instrests (of big business that controls it) that it fights for.

It shares the same structure, the same narrative as all the other stories, put forth by the seemingly endless number of communist apologists, explaining the collapse of various communist states (such explanations, of course, never bother to mention malformed incentive structures as a result of weak social institutions and property rights, or intense corruption as a result of torrential bureaucratization, or the lack of accurate information signals guiding production)

As I said, the movie is not about economic philosophy, it is about geopolitics.

As far as Srebrenica is concerned, I would stick to the official story. I know that's a hard thing to ask on an internet forum, where wild conspiracy theories are usually preferred, but I think the actions of Serb forces, the way it conducted itself throughout Bosnia at that period, really does speak for itself (the mass raping's and murders extended far beyond Srebrenica).

1. 'Official' story? What is the 'official story'? Which story is official and where is it official?

2. Certainly you can point to evidence to this effect? It is a serious allegation so I'm sure, in keeping with the principle the more serious the acusation the greater the burden of proof, you have overwhelming evidence at your disposal to be making such a serious charge? So can you maybe share some of if? Can you present an actual case that may be argued with for what are you saying, or are you content to argue by assertion? Because I'm sure you wouldn't make an allegations of this nature lightly and frivolously would you now?

3. Even in the wild conspiracy theory version of the events pushed by the Empire what took place was still only a massacre of 8,000 people. Even presuming that is factual, never is a massacre of 8,000 a 'Genocide'. Or do you disagree?

It is easier to label a person a denier than it is to prove who did what to whom.

Well put.

 Yeah, you lived here, so you would know.

In fact I did. What now?

My problem with "genocide" is that it refers to mass murder of people who were marked for death based on genetic factors. Since, according to the accounts I am familiar with, the people killed were arab combatant prisoners of war, and arab noncombatants who were also present were not killed, I think that "genocide" is an unfitting word. This isnt to excuse any war crimes that may have been committed, simply to raise an issue of terminology. I am entirely certain that killing one thousand people because of the genetic material they have would be genocide. However if you killed 1000 soldiers because youre at war with them and you have just taken them prisoner, thats just murder (potentially).

There were no Arab combatants in the Srebrenica area. The units which included Arabs in their ranks were used primarily in Central Bosnia and never outside the main body of territory held by the Bosnian Muslims. Srebrenica was a Bosnian Muslim-held enclave wholly surrounded by Bosnian Serb-held territory and therefore beyond the reach of any such units.

Ok, check. So theres no evidence for genocide whatsoever?

Reading the posts between stsoc and Esuric made me giggle.

Ok, check. So theres no evidence for genocide whatsoever?

I'm not sure what you mean. What took place was plainly not genocide just from the point of view that for mass killings to constitute a genocide against an ethnic group they surely have to at least be demographicaly significant. Eliminating 8,000 individuals of a nationality which counts close to 2,000,000 individuals (0.4% killed if the figure of 8,000 is taken at face value) is not a genocide. At most it may be an atrocity in pursuit of genocide (an "attempted genocide"), but then even the kangaroo ICTY court never claimed the Bosnian Serbs ever aimed at, or made a shot at, eradicating the Bosnian Muslims from the face of the Earth (and they had the power to kill far more than they did had they wished to, in this and on countless other occasions). So the only thing we are left with is "Srebrenica Genocide" as a genocide against the specific X number of individuals murdered there, but that again is not what genocide is said to be.  
  
There is certainly plenty of evidence of mass killings immediately following the fall of Srebrenica. The question is the scale and the nature of the atrocities. There is also the matter of context.   
  
At the very least some 500 people were executed. This is only the absolute lowest possible figure, based on the number of blindfolds and ligatures recovered from exhumations. The more realistic figure may be twice that and is very likely in excess of 700. This would put the number of Bosnian Muslims, alleged members of the 28th Division, killed after capture by Bosnian Serb forces in the neighbourhood of the figure of Serb civilians killed around Srebrenica by members of the said Bosnian Muslim force in its raids from the UN-protected Srebrenica zone into surrounding Serb-held areas in the preceding three years of war. Also this would be in addition to up to a few thousand combat deaths sustained by the 28th in the course of its 90 kilometres long fighting withdrawal from Srebrenica across rugged, enemy-held territory in direction of the Bosnian Muslim lines around Tuzla. These would then be combat deaths and not part of a war crime albeit the fighting was very one-sided and it is possible that on occasion Bosnian Muslim troops may not had been given a chance to surrender albeit without a means of offering further effective resistance, but there is no evidence as to that either way, so that would be pure speculation on my part.

What is a libertarian definition of "war crime?" I think we can all agree that when two belligerents agree to conduct their contest of arms according to certain rules, a violation of those rules would be an offense. I think we can also agree that outsiders have no reason to dictate those rules of war. So whose version of international law is even supposed to apply?

Marko:

What took place was plainly not genocide just from the point of view that for mass killings to constitute a genocide against an ethnic group they surely have to at least be demographicaly significant. Eliminating 8,000 individuals of a nationality which counts close to 2,000,000 individuals (0.4% killed if the figure of 8,000 is taken at face value) is not a genocide. At most it may be an atrocity in pursuit of genocide (an "attempted genocide")

Bingo. It seems like genocide is a somewhat ambiguous term, completely unlike decimation, which in this case also didn't occur.

Malachi:

What is a libertarian definition of "war crime?" I think we can all agree that when two belligerents agree to conduct their contest of arms according to certain rules, a violation of those rules would be an offense. I think we can also agree that outsiders have no reason to dictate those rules of war. So whose version of international law is even supposed to apply?

That's a good question. I think there might be two different ways to look at it:

1) War crimes are just crimes that just so happen to occur during a war.

2) Crimes that are specific to war only.

The first seems pretty self-explanatory, but the second I think is what your question is about. I think you might be onto something when you talk about two belligerents agree to rules and one (or both) break them. If you and I were having a boxing match over whatever, we might agree to certain rules, such as no hitting below the belt. If I were to break that rule, it would be a crime, as you didn't agree to it. I don't see how it would necessarily be different if we agreed to a fight with the possibility of death.

The only problem is that with war, can you really say that every party agreed to the rules? It might be hypothetically possible, but I think it would be damned near impossible to prove in real life.

I can think of any number of ways it might not happen in a real war, but if two clans had rivalrous claims and chose to forego arbitration, they could agree that prisoners may not be mistreated, and women and minor children are noncombatants and may not be attacked, and surrender must be accepted. These kinds of agreements would be hard to enforce, but its possible I guess.

the main thing for me is that I have an interest in the study of social cooperation among belligerents. So this is part of that field.

I can think of any number of ways it might not happen in a real war, but if two clans had rivalrous claims and chose to forego arbitration, they could agree that prisoners may not be mistreated, and women and minor children are noncombatants and may not be attacked, and surrender must be accepted. These kinds of agreements would be hard to enforce, but its possible I guess.

Right, but who is doing the agreeing? Are you agreeing to rules just by virtue of being in Clan X? Or do just the heads of the two rivalrous clans agree to terms, and they enforce the rules upon their own clan?

But no matter what, not all rules can be enforced 100% of the time in any system.

the main thing for me is that I have an interest in the study of social cooperation among belligerents. So this is part of that field.

Yeah, it's too bad we let that other thread die. We'll have to necro it sometime.

I actually found a section in a poker book that talks about computing odds that is applicable to the calculations we were talking about (in that other thread). I have been meaning to take some screenshots and arrange to post them.

Please do, when you get a chance.

There are a few threads, popping out now and then, where one can palpably feel the fear of the simple concept of self-determination. Rather strange for a libertarian forum, I’d say.

the main thing for me is that I have an interest in the study of social cooperation among belligerents. So this is part of that field.

In which case the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina is a great conflict to study. You had the widely practiced institution of prisoners exchange, countless number of informal cease-fire agreements made at the lower levels, bustling trade across the front lines (and therefore between enemies) in food (to areas supposedly blockaded), in fuel (to the embargoed Serbs) and in munitions. And seeing it was a four-way civil war it had some unique dynamics, like the good old shifting alliances, hooking up with your nominal enemies to fight your supposed allies, or even your former army (in the case of break-away Bosnian Muslims), or the lovely institution of heavy munitions renting. At the heyday of the Muslim-Croat war in Bosnia there was actually a going rate per shell the Serbs would charge to fire against your Muslim or Croat foes respectively. There's so much focus on the negative, but really in many respects it was a remarkably civilized war with all kind of highly advanced commercial and diplomatic activity going on.

Thats awesome.

the lovely institution of heavy munitions renting.

any idea if the rates that were available have been recorded anywhere? Or do I have to interview people

any idea if the rates that were available have been recorded anywhere?

No, I don't think so there wasn't a serious attempt at recording of this sort. The only thing there is is that some news piece will come out claiming this or that number. For example here. If you use google translate you will learn a witness at the ICTY, a VRS officer claims a tank could be rented for 30,000 DEM (I assume this included the crew) and that the Bosnian Serb military earned between 12 and 15 million DEM letting heavy weapons like this.

Also I should add something, it was not a bidding war between Bosnian Muslims and Croats for the same pieces of equipment, as you may have gathered from my previous post on the account the Serbs were generally willing to lease to the Bosnian-Herzegovinan Muslims only in the northern Herzegovina theatre (where the Croats had the upper hand) and to the Bosnian-Herzegovian Croats only in the Central Bosnia theatre (where the Muslims had the upper hand). So they were doing this out of their strategic calculation, but they also wanted to be paid for it if possible. So it wasn't as highly civilized and commercial profit-driven as it could have been, but still a lot better than nothing.

Thanks Marko!