News Radovan Karadzic finally caught

[cHodAX]

After 13 long years the murdering bastard has finally been caught. I hope they fry the fucker.

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Serbia captures fugitive Karadzic

 

[Raven]

About bloody time too!

execution would be to good for him

 

[Shagrat]

About time, they need to arrest whichever idiots were helping him from the last govt as well

 

[old.Tohtori]

7500 people is horrible these days?

Wonder how many people were taken down when "operation freedom" went to effect

Not to mention; "But Mr Karadzic's wartime military leader, Ratko Mladic, remains at large.".

Well...

Not nice that 7500 civilians died but, meh really. This guy ain't no worse then the "civilized" soldiers.

 

[Uara]

Yeah but trials at the hague go on for soo long and generally the people charged get to live a relatively good life whilst they're there. I think the serbians should just put him up against the wall and shoot him. Everyone would be happy.

 

[Ctuchik]

7500 people is horrible these days?

Wonder how many people were taken down when "operation freedom" went to effect

1.033.000 as up to aug 2007.

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

think they lost count after that.

/edit: add maybe half a million or so and u'd probably get a pretty accurate number.

 

[Gorbachioo]

7500 people is horrible these days?

Wonder how many people were taken down when "operation freedom" went to effect

Not to mention; "But Mr Karadzic's wartime military leader, Ratko Mladic, remains at large.".

Well...

Not nice that 7500 civilians died but, meh really. This guy ain't no worse then the "civilized" soldiers.

Thats just Sbrebrenica. The real number is alot higher.


But yeah, now that the Yugoslav war criminals and Sudans president have been prosecuted by the ICC i think its time to move on to president Bush.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah Gorb, i was thinking it was just the official one incident numbers. Still funny, compared to what Ctuchik just said.

Thanks by the way for that, didn't have time to dig up numbers.

Just "funny" how big world leaders get away with it and are so "holy" to catch other "terrorists" doing exactly the same thing.

 

[Dukat]

This guy ain't no worse then the "civilized" soldiers.

I do hope you're not talking about our troops

 

[old.Tohtori]

I do hope you're not talking about our troops

I'm not talking about troops taking orders, but commanders and such of any nation who are involved in killing innocents.

I don't make any difference between american, brazilian, UK, marsian, Iraqi or any other troops. Actions are actions and the outcome should be as equally punishable to all or none.

 

[Calaen]

I doubt the current forces in Iraq are given orders to kill/execute members of the public for a laugh.

 

[Gorbachioo]

I doubt the current forces in Iraq are given orders to kill/execute members of the public for a laugh.

No they are not. However, ive personally seen some VERY disturbing footage from Iraq and even though its not an ethnic cleansing taking place in Iraq you have to ask how that death toll got to 1 million. (90% of casualties in Iraq are civilians)


And btw, im not blaming any individual soldiers here. I have nothing but respect for those guys. Its their leaders that are responsible for this.

 

[Dukat]

you have to ask how that death toll got to 1 million. (90% of casualties in Iraq are civilians)

I would imagine it has more to do with suicide bombings and roadside bombs, mines and other sorts of killings perpetrated by the leftovers of the old regime and/or other insurgents - how often do you hear about bombs going off in crowded marketplaces ? They arent our bombs doing it, thats for sure. While civi's might get caught in the crossfire and shot by western troops, surely common sense would point to bombs specificly targetted at civilian area's like marketplaces will do much more damage?

Suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specificly:
BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iraq Shias massacred on holy day
BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Car bombing kills dozens in Iraq
Pair of bombs kills 53 in Baghdad, officials say - CNN.com

 

[Chronictank]

I doubt the current forces in Iraq are given orders to kill/execute members of the public for a laugh.

so he could just say there were terrorists and get away free?, it's not as if you actually need proof nowadays
Just look a hop skip and a jump away in Israel, pro-active defence and all that tosh

 

[old.Tohtori]

I would imagine it has more to do with suicide bombings and roadside bombs, mines and other sorts of killings perpetrated by the leftovers of the old regime and/or other insurgents - how often do you hear about bombs going off in crowded marketplaces ? They arent our bombs doing it, thats for sure. While civi's might get caught in the crossfire and shot by western troops, surely common sense would point to bombs specificly targetted at civilian area's like marketplaces will do much more damage?

Go search, for example, US bomb kill civilians and you'll get plenty more.

Cluster bombs left in iraq, bombs killing civilians etc.

Like i said, no side is innocent and if one is judged, all should be judged.

 

[Dukat]

Go search, for example, US bomb kill civilians and you'll get plenty more.

Cluster bombs left in iraq, bombs killing civilians etc.

Like i said, no side is innocent and if one is judged, all should be judged.

This really just isnt true, you'll find a couple of incidents involving a couple of deaths, but just a couple, as opposed to the two hundred deaths caused by the insurgents in just three examples picked out of a page full of them.

And as I said earlier, its not like anyone on our side is aiming at the civi's in the first place, is it? Where as the insurgents are targetting them on purpose.

If you cant see the difference between them then I really do have to wonder whats going on.

 

[old.Tohtori]

This really just isnt true, you'll find a couple of incidents involving a couple of deaths, but just a couple, as opposed to the two hundred deaths caused by the insurgents in just three examples picked out of a page full of them.

And as I said earlier, its not like anyone on our side is aiming at the civi's in the first place, is it? Where as the insurgents are targetting them on purpose.

If you cant see the difference between them then I really do have to wonder whats going on.

Well if you think US/UK bombs/troops(etc) have only killed a "couple" civilians in all bombings, raids, etc, i really don't know either.

Ofcourse the news wouldn't broadcast "UK bombs kill a 100 civilians" or "Thousands of US bombs left in Iraq" 'cause that would be rather silly from your own propaganda machine.

Not to mention, i believe i was talking of military, not military vs terrorists.

 

[Athrun]

Ofcourse the news wouldn't broadcast "UK bombs kill a 100 civilians" or "Thousands of US bombs left in Iraq" 'cause that would be rather silly from your own propaganda machine.

but they do? -.-

are you saying "the news" wouldnt broadcast UK bombs killing xxx civilians because "they" are supporting the military

or

are you saying "the news" couldnt broadcast UK bombs killing xxx civilians because they wouldnt have any news/facts to report from because of a military cover up

?

maybe somethings lost in translation but i cant help but think you are talking about the 1st
last time i checked im not living in China and i cant recall there ever being (in modern times) a combined UK military and major UK news reporting station (such as the BBC etc) involved together for a cover up involving civilian deaths
and im not talking about such stations as the BBC reporting about events with misleading or unreliable information given to them... im talking about the BBC etc reporting events with the intention to mislead the public knowing full well they are not reporting the truth.. 2 very very different situations.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm talking about basic news propaganda which has been effective for thousands of years.

Do you really think vietnam war went as they teach in US schools for example?

I'm saying, even if this whole thing is way off-topic, that news are not a non-biased media and that they don't report all/worst f*ck ups of own. Not to mention those that don't even reach the news unless reporters see them.

"General, we blew up a bus full of kids!"
"Tell them it was an insurgent bus."
*closes visor*
"Keep firing assholes!

EDIT: By the by, it woulödn't be much of a cover-up either if you knew about it. More like a "tuck in for night"

 

[Athrun]

I'm talking about basic news propaganda which has been effective for thousands of years.

Do you really think vietnam war went as they teach in US schools for example?

I'm saying, even if this whole thing is way off-topic, that news are not a non-biased media and that they don't report all/worst f*ck ups of own. Not to mention those that don't even reach the news unless reporters see them.

"General, we blew up a bus full of kids!"
"Tell them it was an insurgent bus."
*closes visor*
"Keep firing assholes!

EDIT: By the by, it woulödn't be much of a cover-up either if you knew about it. More like a "tuck in for night"

then it shouldnt be so hard for you to show just one instance of a major UK news station like the BBC not "reporting all/worst f*ck ups of own" involving UK forces in some kinda cover up? or?

and yes ofc not all "news" will reach reporters, but thats not the issue here tohorti -.- its about the UK major news reporters being transparent in reporting whether it shows its own country wrongly or rightly, which pretty much in the modern era they have been? or?

ofc there have been fuck ups by UK forces in various conflicts, but im asking for you to show just military 1 fuck up that has been covered up by just 1 major UK news reporter..

im not questioning a senario like a bus full of kids being blown up where it has tried to be covered up a military.. im questioning how a major news reporting can knowingly lie about it when they actually know the full facts of what happened.

 

[old.Tohtori]

How can i show that something is covered up?

Not to mention my original post wasn't about that, so don't go into "this isn't about that".

Oh ah, you mean "show me a cover up that's been exposed". But just beause there wouldn't be one(don't know if is), doesn't mean they don't do it.

 

[Raven]

more importantly he looks like santa!

And your mate and mine mr Saddam Hussein

What have they got against Christmas!?!?!?!

 

[Athrun]

How can i show that something is covered up?

Not to mention my original post wasn't about that, so don't go into "this isn't about that".

Oh ah, you mean "show me a cover up that's been exposed". But just beause there wouldn't be one(don't know if is), doesn't mean they don't do it.

well thats the thing isnt it -.- u cant show it because there is no evidence ..
and yes you are right in saying "just because there wouldnt be one, doesnt mean they don't do it" but at the same time it doesnt mean they did/have/will do it.

western media is just so ferocious for news of any kind right now i just cannot for 1 minute believe there is (atm) a conspiracy of news reporting connecting a western democratic major news reporting station and the militiary of that country involving a cover up of civilian deaths, it just would not be possible.

ill give you a vey basic scenario
1. random western news station called BCC (for arguments sake) agrees with its own goverment to cover up the bombing of a childrens hostipal in iraq.
2. someone in the BCC is not comfortable with this and passes on information to a rival news station called ITM
3. you think ITM wont report this?

well ofc there are numerous situations that can be showed as something covered up by both its own military and its own media take china? take darfur? zimbabwe? just to name a few of recent times.
but ofc these are medias that are heavily influenced by its own goverment..
but the media in a western democratic country? nope :>

maybe you cant give one example of a combined UK military + UK media cover up (which i asked for) because there is no cover up by the media, and especially in the UK seeing as you named them.

its pretty much the same thing as conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 (and i really dont want to go into that) because talking about combined military and UK major news reporting stations cover ups involving civilian deaths will always be just that... "theories" without evidence
and you can be sure as hell that many many people are looking for that "evidence" and if it is there, it will be found.



you didnt answer the first question i gave you btw :/ pls answer it just to clarify :

are you saying "the news" wouldnt broadcast UK bombs killing xxx civilians because "they" are supporting the military

or

are you saying "the news" couldnt broadcast UK bombs killing xxx civilians because they wouldnt have any news/facts to report from because of a military cover up

 

[old.Tohtori]

Your choices didn't offer my point of view and i did answer.

I simply stated that you shouldn't blindly trust your own media, as HISTORY shows that the media has always been used for propaganda on nations own people and against the enemy.

You really think the Iraqi insurgents are THAT bad?
You really think this Radovan guy was so "horrible"?
You really think Saddam was some mustard gas throwing lunatic?

No, but it's easier for the people to believe so and it's easier for the government and news agencies to portray the "enemy" as "great evil".

It's not a "conspiracy theory", it's fact, propaganda is always present in the media when in war.

About "not providing an example", i've been busy doing other stuff and if i can, i'll check into that and find some "cover up blown" incident for you.

AND again, stop making it look like i'm changing the subject or avoiding an issue when you're the one who changed it from what i said.

Noticed something, and here's the difference:

I consider media as a whole, no matter where the info comes from or who twists it etc(as towards dukies post about "there's no UK troops bombing innocents").
I think you're talking about a cover up by idividual stations?

 

[kiliarien]

I loved the words used on several programs.

"We want him tried in a just and fair manner, and then swiftly punished"

Lol, innocent until proven guilty!! (In this case this works, the evidence should be pretty overwhelming)

 

[Dukat]

Your choices didn't offer my point of view and i did answer.

I simply stated that you shouldn't blindly trust your own media, as HISTORY shows that the media has always been used for propaganda on nations own people and against the enemy.

You really think the Iraqi insurgents are THAT bad?
You really think this Radovan guy was so "horrible"?
You really think Saddam was some mustard gas throwing lunatic?

No, but it's easier for the people to believe so and it's easier for the government and news agencies to portray the "enemy" as "great evil".

It's not a "conspiracy theory", it's fact, propaganda is always present in the media when in war.

About "not providing an example", i've been busy doing other stuff and if i can, i'll check into that and find some "cover up blown" incident for you.

AND again, stop making it look like i'm changing the subject or avoiding an issue when you're the one who changed it from what i said.

Noticed something, and here's the difference:

I consider media as a whole, no matter where the info comes from or who twists it etc(as towards dukies post about "there's no UK troops bombing innocents").
I think you're talking about a cover up by idividual stations?

Woah Toh... ?

Do you really think Iraqi insurgents that take people off of the street and make a video of cutting thier heads off arent that bad?

I agree with you that the media are largely gossip-mongers but do you honestly believe this stuff you're saying here?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Woah Toh... ?

Do you really think Iraqi insurgents that take people off of the street and make a video of cutting thier heads off arent that bad?

I agree with you that the media are largely gossip-mongers but do you honestly believe this stuff you're saying here?

Not as bad as media potrays them.

Sure, taking people off the street and beheadings are bad, hell, we got few of those in our past(westerners that is), but they ain't those monsters that media potray them.

And shot dead/cut head, same deal to me. So any innocent shot by a US soldier or insurgent beheading is on equal ground.

 

[Dukat]

So any innocent shot by a US soldier or insurgent beheading is on equal ground.

You're trying to tell me you think that when an innocent person gets shot by a US soldier by accident, its on equal ground to when someone is taken off of the street by insurgents intentionally and purposefully of killing them to make a point?

I just dont understand this logic

 

[old.Tohtori]

You're trying to tell me you think that when an innocent person gets shot by a US soldier by accident, its on equal ground to when someone is taken off of the street by insurgents intentionally and purposefully of killing them to make a point?

I just dont understand this logic

Never said by accident. But do you really think soldiers don't shoot some, at one point or other, people "just because" and even without a cause? Hell, especially US soldiers are somewhat conditioned to believe it's a "game" and the enemy ain't even real people.

Don't try to make me sound like someone who accepts beheadings of innocents

I simply don't differentiate actions or such. If you shoot or behead a person, you're as bad.
If you invade a country(for one reason or other) you're as bad as the next guy.
If you launch a nuke at a US city or at a japanese city, you're as bad.
If you bomb london or if you bomb baghdad, you're as bad.(by plane in wartime)

 

[Tilda]

I'm not talking about troops taking orders, but commanders and such of any nation who are involved in killing innocents.

I don't make any difference between american, brazilian, UK, marsian, Iraqi or any other troops. Actions are actions and the outcome should be as equally punishable to all or none.

toto, i'm sorry but come back when you have a clue and can comment sensibly on a thread.

Karadzic - ordered the deliberate and systematic killing of innocent civilians, men and children. = war crimes

Bush/Blair etc - ordered the invasion of iraq. = not war crimes

I'm not saying you have to agree with the invasion of Iraq, but as far as I know, nobody involved in iraq has said, sure shoot up the terrorists kids to teach them a lesson.
You'd have to be stupid or being deliberately obtuse to miss this point.