One Place Fewer In Hell

PDJ

On a break
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
4,132
Location
brum
From yahoo. com

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - Former Yugoslav leader
Slobodan Milosevic, the so-called "butcher of the Balkans" being tried for war crimes after orchestrating a decade of bloodshed during his country's breakup, was found dead Saturday in his prison cell. He was 64.
ADVERTISEMENT

Milosevic, who suffered chronic heart ailments and high blood pressure, apparently died of natural causes and was found in his bed, the U.N. tribunal said, without giving an exact time of death.

He had been examined following frequent complaints of fatigue or ill health that delayed his trial, but the tribunal could not immediately say when his last medical checkup was. All detainees at the center in Scheveningen are checked by a guard every half hour.

The tribunal said Milosevic's family had been informed of his death, which came nearly five years after he was arrested, then extradited to
The Hague.

His wife, Mirjana Markovic, who was often accused of being the power behind the scenes during her husband's autocratic rule, has been in self-imposed exile in Russia since 2003. His son, Marko, also lives in Russia, and his daughter, Marija, lives in the Serb-controlled half of Bosnia.

Borislav Milosevic, who lives in Moscow, blamed the U.N tribunal for causing his younger brother's death by refusing him medical treatment in Russia.

"All responsibility for this lies on the shoulders of the international tribunal. He asked for treatment several months ago, they knew this," he told The Associated Press. "They drove him to this as they didn't want to let him out alive."

Milosevic asked the court in December to let him go to Moscow for treatment. But the tribunal refused, despite assurances from Russia that Milosevic would return to finish his trial.

Borislav Milosevic also told the AP his family does not trust the U.N. tribunal to conduct his brother's autopsy impartially.

Milosevic has been on trial since February 2002, defending himself against 66 counts of crimes, including genocide, in Croatia, Bosnia and
Kosovo. He was the first sitting head of state ever to be indicted for such crimes.

He was accused of orchestrating a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against non-Serbs during the collapse of the Yugoslav federation — his attempt to link Serbia with Serb-dominated areas of Croatia and Bosnia to create a new Greater Serbia.

Supporters in Milosevic's homeland declared his death a "huge loss," while citizens of Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo said his death brought some justice to his victims.

"Finally, we have some reason to smile. God is fair," said Hajra Catic, who heads an association of women that lost their loved ones in the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslims in the eastern Srebrenica enclave by Serb troops.

Milosevic spent much of the time granted for his defense fighting allegations of atrocities in Kosovo that took up just one-third of his indictment. He also faced charges of genocide in Bosnia for allegedly overseeing the Srebrenica slaughter — the worst massacre on European soil since World War II.

The trial was recessed last week to await his next defense witness. Milosevic also was waiting for a court decision on his request to subpoena former
President Clinton as a witness. He was due to complete his defense this summer.

The hundreds of witnesses included former U.S. Gen.
Wesley Clark, the
NATO commander during the Balkan wars. Milosevic also tried to subpoena former U.S. Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright, former German Chancellor Gerhard Shroeder and British Prime Minister
Tony Blair.

Steven Kay, a British attorney assigned to represent Milosevic, said Saturday the former Serb leader would not have fled and was not suicidal.

"He said to me: 'I haven't taken on all this work just to walk away from it and not come back. I want to see this case through,'" Kay told the British Broadcasting Corp.

Milosevic's death came less than a week after the star witness in his trial, former Croatian Serb leader Milan Babic, was found dead in the same prison. Babic, who was serving a 13-year prison sentence, committed suicide.

His testimony in 2002 described a political and military command structure headed by Milosevic in Belgrade that operated behind the scenes.

Milosevic's death will be a crushing blow to the tribunal and those looking to establish an authoritative historical record of the Balkan wars.

"Justice was late," said Hashim Thaci, the leader of ethnic Albanian insurgents against Milosevic's forces in 1998-1999 in Kosovo's capital, Pristina. "God took him."

Though the witness testimony is on public record, history will be denied the judgment of a panel of legal experts weighing the evidence of his personal guilt and the story of his regime.

"It is a pity he didn't live to the end of the trial to get the sentence he deserved," Croatian President Stipe Mesic said.

The
European Union said Milosevic's death does not absolve Serbia of responsibility to hand over other war crimes suspects.

The death "does not alter in any way the need to come to terms with the legacy of the Balkan wars," Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik, whose country holds the rotating EU president, said in Salzburg.

Milosevic, a figure of beguiling charm and cunning ruthlessness, was a master tactician who turned his country's defeats into personal victories and held onto power for 13 years despite losing four wars that shattered his nation and impoverished his people.

Milosevic led Serbia, the dominant Yugoslav republic, into four Balkan wars during the 1990s. The secret of his survival was his uncanny ability to exploit what less adroit figures would consider a fatal blow.

He once described himself as the "Ayatollah Khomeini of Serbia," assuring his prime minister, Milan Panic, that "the Serbs will follow me no matter what." For years, they did — through wars that dismembered Yugoslavia and plunged what was left of the country into social, political, moral and economic ruin.

But in the end, his people abandoned him: first in October 2000, when he was unable to convince the majority of Yugoslavs that he had staved off electoral defeat by his successor,
Vojislav Kostunica, and again on April 1, 2001, when he surrendered after a 26-hour standoff to face criminal charges stemming from his ruinous rule.

Bosnia also has sued Serbia, accusing it of genocide in the first case of a country standing trial for humanity's worst crime.

Milosevic was born Aug. 20, 1941, in Pozarevac, a drab factory town in central Serbia best known as the home of one of the country's most notorious prisons.

His father was a defrocked Orthodox priest and sometime teacher of Russian. His mother also was a teacher. Both committed suicide.

In high school, he met his future wife, the daughter of a wartime communist partisan hero. Markovic also was the niece of Davorjanka Paunovic, private secretary and mistress of Josip Broz Tito, the communist guerrilla leader who seized power in Yugoslavia at the end of World War II.

Milosevic became president of Serbia in 1989 elections widely considered rigged. His rise alarmed the other peoples of former Yugoslavia — Slovenes, Croats, Macedonians, Albanians and others — who feared that the hard-line nationalist would allow Serbs to dominate the country.

In 1991, Croatia and Slovenia declared their independence from Yugoslavia. Milosevic sent tanks to Slovenian borders, triggering a brief war that ended in Slovenia's secession.

Serbs in Croatia, encouraged by Milosevic, took up arms. Milosevic sent the Serb-led Yugoslav army to intervene, triggering a conflict that left at least 10,000 people dead and hundreds of Croatian villages and towns devastated before a U.N.-patrolled cease-fire was arranged in January 1992.

Three months later, Bosnia-Herzegovina declared its independence, too. Milosevic bankrolled the Bosnian Serb rebellion, triggering an even bigger war that killed an estimated 200,000 people before a U.S.-brokered peace agreement was reached at Dayton, Ohio, in 1995.

During those conflicts, Yugoslavia was ostracized worldwide, and the United States called Milosevic "the butcher of the Balkans." Strict international sanctions and government mismanagement devastated the economy and left its people impoverished.

At Dayton, Milosevic accepted a deal abandoning Croatia's rebel Serbs, who were driven from their homes when the Croatian army recaptured almost all the land the Serbs had seized there in 1991.

The Dayton agreement also meant giving up the nationalist goal of a Serb state in Bosnia. Nevertheless, it bought Milosevic time and transformed his image from Balkan villain to benign peacemaker.

Milosevic's term as Serbian president ended in 1997 and the constitution prevented him from running again. However, he exploited loopholes to have parliament name him president of Yugoslavia, which then included only the republics of Serbia and Montenegro.

It was the thorny problem of Kosovo, the majority Albanian province that served as his springboard to power, which finally set the stage for his downfall. In February 1998, Milosevic sent troops to crush an ethnic Albanian uprising there.

The United States and its allies responded with sanctions that were lifted after the Bosnian war. In 1999, after Milosevic refused to sign a Western-dictated peace agreement at Rambouillet, France, NATO launched 78 days of punishing airstrikes against Yugoslavia.

Milosevic refused to back down and instead ordered his troops to crack down on Kosovo Albanians even harder. More than 800,000 Albanians fled into neighboring Albania, Montenegro and Macedonia before Milosevic finally accepted a peace plan and handed over the province to the
United Nations and NATO in June 1999.

Before the conflict ended, the U.N. tribunal indicted Milosevic and four of his top aides for war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in Kosovo. Later, they broadened the charges against him to include genocide.
 
Maybe so, Mo, but at least no more time, effort, and money is wasted on this thing, and survivors are spared appearing in court to re-live appalling experiences.

Paul, how is it one place fewer in Hell - I'd have thought it was one place MORE with this bag o'shite now in residence? (Not that I actually believe there IS a Hell, any more than there's a cosy little Heaven awaiting the righteous. Although this bastard did his best to make his part of the world as hellish as possible.)
 
It is all relative, Jon. There are still plenty of places left for those who need them.
 
Well, in relation to the existence of a Hell, Paul, I'd far rather they had the experience administered while they're here on Earth and alive, so they can appreciate it! :teeth:
 
Well I don't believe in Hell but if I did I would like it to be the worst kind of pain imaginable. Beyond the realm of human comprehension.
 
Originally posted by PDJ@Mar 11 2006, 06:48 PM
Well I don't believe in Hell but if I did I would like it to be the worst kind of pain imaginable. Beyond the realm of human comprehension.
Aah, a wee bit like Graham Norton, then.
 
Originally posted by PDJ@Mar 11 2006, 06:48 PM
Well I don't believe in Hell but if I did I would like it to be the worst kind of pain imaginable. Beyond the realm of human comprehension.
If you don't believe in hell then you can't believe in heaven.

In the books of any religion, if you don't believe in heaven, you will go to hell. So shouldn't you want it to be a nicer place than you just described?

I think that if there is a hell, it will be full of people who didn't believe in ''god''. So a paradox emerges where hell (devoid of bible/koran/torah bashing feck-cants) would probably be a better place than heaven (full of bible/koran/torah bashing feck-cants).
 
On another forum I post at, someone posted this:

"Extremely sad news to hear that his great Serbian patriot has now left the buidling. A true nationalist and an individual that was willing to stand up to the interests of imperialists. If only our rodent of a PM was willing to hold the interests of the state in such high regard. Long live Slobodan. "

It was eventually deleted, especially after several people were so infuriated by these words. I for one was disgusted and aghast that someone would even dare to *honour* a person whom caused hate, genocide and death upon others (over 230,000 in total, with 3 million still unaccounted for).

I think the thing that made me lose it was the part of "If only our rodent of a PM was willing to hold the interests of the state in such high regard."
The way I interpreted that sentence was: that this person does not tolerate a multicultural society, and believes in ethnic cleansing, or a total white dominated society.

As for Slobodan, I felt a touch of sadness this morning for those victims of the Yugoslavian war of the 1990's. Justice did not serve them correctly in the end. But at the same time, this human symbol of Satan is no loss for anyone. If there is such a thing as Hell (and I hope there is), I dearly hope he is in the middle of it, feeling a crumbling emptiness alongside the likes of Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot.

Humanity is definitely better off without this filth in it.
 
Originally posted by Grand Armee@Mar 12 2006, 06:08 AM
The way I interpreted that sentence was: that this person does not tolerate a multicultural society, and believes in ethnic cleansing, or total white dominated society.
Slightly deflecting from the Slobodan debacle, don't we ourselves live in a country full of proud patriots where Joe Average wouldn't tolerate a multi-cultural society?

Otherwise we wouldn't have stringent immigration policys and a racist media ran by Australian entrepeneurs and descendants of Victorian landowners.
 
I've deleted two of your topics, BI, since you're going off on one again, and there's only so much self-gratification any of us need - I think you've just had one wank too many at present. Calm down, or shoot over to your anarchists' sites and have a good pull there, and come back when you feel better.

Why shouldn't some of our news media be owned by a non-Brit? Harrods (the essence of British shopping) is owned by an Egyptian, and we even allow dear old Stelios to fly us in non-British owned aeroplanes. Let alone the thousands of businesses owned and run by - to name a few - Indians, Pakistanis, Bangla Deshis, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Moroccans, South Africans, Jamaicans, Australians, Canadians, Americans, New Zealanders, Swedes, Saudis, Dubaians, Omanis, Poles, Rumanians, Czechs, Russians, Germans, French, Italians, Spaniards, Zambians, Nigerians, Jordanians and hopefully, soon in their own right, Palestinians. What is this country coming to? Globalisation, one of your many pet subjects, that's what, with entrepreneurial opportunities for pretty much one and all, which is a helluva lot more than what's offered by many others.
 
Originally posted by Brave Inca+Mar 12 2006, 08:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Brave Inca @ Mar 12 2006, 08:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Grand Armee@Mar 12 2006, 06:08 AM
The way I interpreted that sentence was:  that this person does not tolerate a multicultural society, and believes in ethnic cleansing, or  total white dominated society.
Slightly deflecting from the Slobodan debacle, don't we ourselves live in a country full of proud patriots where Joe Average wouldn't tolerate a multi-cultural society?

Otherwise we wouldn't have stringent immigration policys and a racist media ran by Australian entrepeneurs and descendants of Victorian landowners. [/b][/quote]
For one I don't live in England, and two I am extremely proud to call myself an Australian, so please cut the criticism you seem to so deeply thrive on.
 
Originally posted by krizon@Mar 12 2006, 11:20 AM
I've deleted two of your topics, BI, since you're going off on one again, and there's only so much self-gratification any of us need - I think you've just had one wank too many at present. Calm down, or shoot over to your anarchists' sites and have a good pull there, and come back when you feel better.

Why shouldn't some of our news media be owned by a non-Brit? Harrods (the essence of British shopping) is owned by an Egyptian, and we even allow dear old Stelios to fly us in non-British owned aeroplanes. Let alone the thousands of businesses owned and run by - to name a few - Indians, Pakistanis, Bangla Deshis, Chinese, Japanese, Turks, Moroccans, South Africans, Jamaicans, Australians, Canadians, Americans, New Zealanders, Swedes, Saudis, Dubaians, Omanis, Poles, Rumanians, Czechs, Russians, Germans, French, Italians, Spaniards, Zambians, Nigerians, Jordanians and hopefully, soon in their own right, Palestinians. What is this country coming to? Globalisation, one of your many pet subjects, that's what, with entrepreneurial opportunities for pretty much one and all, which is a helluva lot more than what's offered by many others.
I have no idea where to start so I won't.

All I can say is if I went on one in some anarchist room, i'd be ranting to nodding dogs. Voicing my far-left views in a predominantly right wing forum is hella-interesting & stimulating. That, and it's less lop sided than preaching to the converted.

Also, in the last 5 mins in my own house, the term 'Munich Bastard' has popped up more times than it had to. Therefore, it is in my environment and primary nature to kick off where I'm outnumbered and in the moral minority. It's not me deliberately being an antagonist, it's just me being me. It's not easy being the only lefty in the village you know and I'd hope for (but certainly no expect) a little sympathy. Besides, what's wrong with a little diversity?

But feck it. When in Rome, I should respect how the romans do. On the other hand, I'm a Manc and when Mancs are in someone elses town - we try to make it our own. Rock and hard place you dig?

Anyways Kri, thanks for openly admitting that you thought policed my threads. As far as authoritarians go, you're definately my favourite:)

Btw, I once briefly lived in Albany before moving to Perth. Nice people but shitty values and history. So here's a big 'get 'darned'' to Australia and a supersized one for Mr John Winston Howard :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
 
There's little to be thankful for whilst Karadzic and Mladic - two men who directly got their hands far dirtier than Milosevic ever did - are still out there.
 
I know, BI, I know - we all know, though, since apart from those of us who've joined as newbies in the last couple of months, we were treated to your outpourings as 'Kotkijet' in the same manner! I've needed a course of multivitamins since then, to regain my strength. So, I prefer you as Brave Inca, on balance! (And I will always let anyone know if I've felt it necessary to thought-police their threads - hopefully not too often.) ;)
 
It is easy to demonise Milosevic and cast the Serb leadership in the role of villains. Milosevic was not the only leader in the Balkans with blood on his hands.

The NATO bombings were a direct consequence of an oversimplified view of that complex and deep-seated conflict. Thousands of civilians were killed and the environmental damage, especially to the Danube, is still untold. To what purpose?

The next blunder about to be made is to start serious negotiations with Croatia for EU membership before a long-term settlement to the Kosovo and Bosnia situations is reached.
 
Back
Top