General

Re: Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

Malachi — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:02:54 GMT

Thanks Marko!

Re: Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

Marko — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:52:32 GMT

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.

Re: Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

Malachi — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:08:01 GMT

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

Re: Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

Marko — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:32:01 GMT

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.

Re: Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

Merlin — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:16:02 GMT

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.

Re: Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

gotlucky — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 04:01:03 GMT

Please do, when you get a chance.

Re: Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

Malachi — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 01:56:35 GMT

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.

Re: Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

gotlucky — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 01:45:07 GMT

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.

Re: Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

Malachi — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 01:34:37 GMT

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.

Re: Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

gotlucky — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 01:13:02 GMT

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.

Re: Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

gotlucky — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 01:07:38 GMT

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.

Re: Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

Malachi — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 00:51:30 GMT

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?

Re: Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

Marko — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 00:07:27 GMT

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.

Re: Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

SkepticalMetal — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:15:14 GMT

Reading the posts between stsoc and Esuric made me giggle.

Re: Ron Paul & Srebrenica Genocide, deny?

Malachi — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:12:57 GMT

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