U.N.T.S. No. 1021, vol. 78 (1951), p. 277 CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948. .............. Art. 2. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. ................ Nezavisimo ot statistikite za zhertvite v Kosovo i ot dosta nekonkretnoto opredelenie, dadeno v "Konvenciata za predotvratioavane i nakazvane na genocida", veche mozhe da se tvardi edno: genocid v Kosovo sashtestvuma samo v zapadnite PR-kampanii. Zapadat IZLUGA za genocida v Kosovo. V kraia na izlozhenieto si sam paste-nal statia, koiato sravniava Holokosta s Rwanda (kadeto zhertvite sa nad 1 milion). Vrpochem, zamisliali ste se, che sravneniata na Milosevic s Hitler vsashnost volno ili nevolno namaliavat znachenieto na genocida, izvarshen ot nacistite? Predpolagam, che sachuvstvieto kam sarbite na niakoi ot uchastnicite tuk e iskreno. Az razbiram tova sachuvstvie, no mi e trudno da se prisaedinia kam nego (ako izkljuchim, razbira se, personalno kam vsiaka edna nevinna zhertva ot koiato i da e strana). Az iskam da razgledam luzhata "genocid" ot edna po-razlichna gledna tochka. Kakvi za izvodite za Bulgaria i drugite balkanski strani ot tazi luzha? Kakvi sa prognozite za badeshteto povedenie na Zapada na Balkanite vaz osnova na tazi luzha? Tai kato drugite materiali sa obemni, shte bada kratak. Лъжaтa "genocide" pokazva, che tazi voina ima obshto sas vsichko drugo, no ne i s interesite na balkanskite strani. Za Zapada da razigrae kartata "genocid" e vapros edinstveno na niakakva PR obrabotka. I zabelezhete, obrabotkata e prednaznachena za SOBSTVENOTO obshtestveno mnenie (koeto se tseni na zapad, za razlika ot Balkanite). Minava vreme, veche nikoi ne govori za genocid (zashtoto shte mu poiskat smetka za luzhite), dori grazhdanite na zapadnite strani sigurno sa zabravili za "genocida nad albancite". Utre shte bade razigran nov PR-teatar v druga tochka na sveta i t.n. Iskam specialno da oburna vnimanie na fakta, che zapadnite lideri, koito plediraha za bombardorovkite NITO ZA MOMENT ne sa si i pomisliali che ima genocid, t.e. luzhata e savsem PREDNAMERENA, a ne se dalzhi na "pogreshna razuznavatelna informacia" (Gen. MacKenzy). Vsichko drugo bi oznachavalo Clinton i Co i sluzhbite, koito stoiat zad tiah da sa palni oligofreni, a te NE sa takiva (prochetete za Rwanda i Holokosta i shte vi stane iasno). Ottuk natatak sledva prognozata - obeshtaha ni nov "Plan Marshall" sled voinata, posle toi be zamenen s "Pakt za Stabilnost". Az mislia, che pragmatichniat izvod ot analiza na minaloto e pravilna prognoza za badeshteto. Prognozata v sluchaia e, che "Pakta za Stabilnost" shte si ostane tova, koeto e i v momenta - listi nepotrebna hartia. Niama da ima nikakva realna pomosht za balkanskite strani, vkl. Bulgaria. Taka, kakto izlugaha za genocida, taka sega luzhat za badeshta podkrepa. Balkanite i zanapred shte si ostanat ruska kolonialna zona (vprochem, roliata na Rusia za "pobedata" na Zapada v Kosovo e pokazatelna v tova otnoshenie). V momenta prichinata za neraboteshtia pakt za stabilnost e Milosevic. S drugi dumi, Zapadat mnogo iska da pomogne, ama zaradi pustia Slobo ne mozhe. Sled godina-dve shte e neshto drugo. I t.n., prichini i izvinenia vinagi shte se nameriat. Balkanskite strani, v tova chislo Bulgaria, ne mogat sami da dostignat (ili dori da se doblizhat do) nivoto na razvitie na zapadnite demokracii bez tiahnata (na Zapada) pomosht. Pone ne mogat v obozrimo badeshte (sledvashtite 50 godini). Lipsata na takava pomosht ni ostavia v ruska neokolonialna zavisimost - tova, ot koeto uzhkim se stremim da se izmaknem prez poslednite 10 godini. Luzhite na Zapada v minaloto i nai-veche PREDNAMERENATA im sashnost, obache, ni obeshtavat edinstveno i luzhi za badeshteto. Pravete si izvodite! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rwanda and the Holocaust http://www.africa2000.com/indx/rwanda2c.htm AFRICA DIRECT BM CAM London WC1N 3XX (0171) 278-9908 e-mail: dave@africa-d.demon.co.uk In October 1994, a United Nations Commission of Experts found that, "the concerted, planned, systematic and methodical acts of mass extermination perpetrated by Hutu elements against the Tutsi group in Rwanda constitute genocide." While mass murder has taken place in Africa before, commentators have sought to distinguish the killings in Rwanda by reference to their pre-planned and motivated nature. Not surprisingly, the scenario of an extremist state planning and coordinating the extermination of a racial minority has drawn many comparisons with the Nazi Holocaust of the 1940s. This comparison, while compelling, is deeply flawed and dangerous. It is flawed for a number of reasons: 1. Any attempt to draw a comparison between the Germany of the 1940s and the Rwanda of the 1990s is ludicrous. Germany, even in the 1940s, was one of the world's leading powers, fighting a war for global domination. It was a highly developed industrialised nation with a large and highly sophisticated army and a powerful working class movement. Rwanda, in sharp contrast, is one of the world's least powerful and poorest nations. The majority of its population are rural peasants forced to eke out a living on one square kilometre of agricultural land for every 400 people, and the country has long since relied on foreign aid for its survival. 2. The Nazis used trained soldiers and sophisticated technology in their systematic attempt to destroy an entire race of people. The vast majority of the people killed in the Rwandan massacres of April to July 1994 were killed with machetes and hoes -- the common agricultural implements owned by every rural family in Rwanda. The weapons used show that this was not a pre-planned assault by a well-armed military machine as it was in Nazi Germany, but a spontaneous eruption of violence in which people grabbed the first weapon they could find to attack their victims. 3. The picture of Rwanda prior to the massacres unleashed on 6 April 1994 bears no comparison with Nazi Germany as the Second World War loomed. Here was a government losing its grip on power and becoming more and more isolated in the world. The Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA), was advancing through the country, with the support of a number of key African and Western states. The economy was falling apart. The Rwandan government was under sustained pressure from the international community to move towards sharing power with its political enemies. It was under pressure internally not to concede any such power to its enemies. It had lost the support of Belgium, the old colonial power and close ally. The country was in the grips of a four-year civil war which the government was losing. The picture is one of a state losing control and waging a final, desperate, bloody battle for survival. Yet somehow this explosive, chaotic situation in an African state has drawn comparisons with wartime Germany, where one of the leading world powers set out to achieve global domination! 4. The suggestion that the 'genocide' in Rwanda was racially motivated in the same way as the genocide against the Jews is highly questionable. The Hutu government and militia specifically targeted those people who supported the invading army, be they Tutsi or Hutu. It was assumed that all Tutsis would support the RPA invasion, and as such all Tutsis became targets. However, Hutu supporters of the RPA were also targeted in large numbers. In fact the propaganda vehicles of the Hutu government, Radio Milles Collines and Kangura newspaper, exhorted people to kill the 'ibyitso' -- the Rwandan word for 'accomplices', and clearly a political rather than a racial term. The reality is that despite the ferocity of the violence, and the scale and speed of the massacres, the killings of April-July 1994 bear more resemblance to bloody civil wars in Africa than to the Holocaust in Germany. 5. The evidence of planning and motivation in the Holocaust is not matched by the evidence of a pre-planned genocide in Rwanda. Much of the evidence cited to prove a pre-planned genocide in Rwanda, proves only that the government had in place plans to wipe out its political opponents and their supporters in a sustained and large-scale violent attack Again, this kind of plan could be found in any country in which a desperate war for power is being fought. The much-quoted Dallayer memo which is supposed to prove the pre-planned nature of the genocide did no such thing. The memo revealed that the Interahamwe (the Hutu militia) had trained 1700 men. It states that an informant claims that the Interahamwe had changed its strategy from defending the capital from the RPA to attacking civilians. It notes that Tutsis are to be registered, and states that the informant, 'suspects it is for their extermination'. Finally it states that the informant is willing to reveal the location of a 'major weapons cache' containing 135 weapons! This memo reveals that one side in a civil war was preparing to pursue that war -- yet it has been held up by the media and NGOs as evidence of the pre-planned nature of this genocide. The comparison between the massacres in Rwanda and the Holocaust is also extremely dangerous. This is because it suits the agenda of those historians and commentators who have attempted to relativise and trivialise the Nazi experience. By drawing parallels between the planned extermination of six million Jews and the ferocious massacre of around half a million Tutsis and Hutus in the course of a violent civil war, we reduce the Holocaust to just another violent event of our century. There are many historians currently attempting to obfuscate the sordid past of German imperialism by drawing such comparisons. We should not be helping them to do so. What took place in Rwanda was large-scale massacre of civilians in the course of a bloody civil war. Sadly, it bears comparison to a number of other wars in that continent. It was not another holocaust -- and it does not advance the cause of preventing further holocausts to pretend that it was.

Тони би ли ми обяснил все пак по-аналитично, защо цитирания от теб пасаж с определение на що е това е геноцид, а именно: genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Та защо реши че това определение не отговаря на случая с Косово? По точка а/ - Имаме ли Killing members of the group? Имаме. По точка b/ - Да изгониш под дулата на автомати и оръдия 800 000 човека според теб не причинява ли bodily or mental harm to members of the group? По точка c/ - Систематичните полицейски и икономически репресии не са ли Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part По точка d/ - Лошите албанци твърдят че през 80-те години е била упражнявана практиката на стерелизация. Разбира се, пред вид че това се казва от самите албанци няма никава стойност в очите на расовите славяни. По точка е/ - Няма такива обвинения, нито доказателства. Но дори и да няма нищо по точка е/ ще ти обърна внимание на genocide means ANY of the following acts. А ние тук имаме на лице три точки със сигурност и една под съмнение. Би ли обяснил кой се опитва да лъже? Ти или НАТО? Поне да не беше цитирал въпросното определение. А ти го цитираш и най-невъзмутимо твърдиш че някой те бил излъгал.

"with intent to destroy" Необходимо условие заедно с изброените действия. На това му казват "елемент от субективната страна на състава". Той се доказва, а не се предполага/презумира. Да не говорим че елементите от обективната страна (действията) по т. а-е също не са доказани.

Има достатъчно исторически документи, които черно-на бяло доказват intent to destroy от страна Сърбия.

Това че са се отнасяли по един и същи начин със сърбите и със босненците. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ UN Reports on Srebrenica Massacres UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ The United Nations says it failed to help save thousands of Bosnian Muslims from a Serb mass murder in 1995 because of errors, misjudgment and ``an inability to recognize the scope of the evil confronting us.'' In a long-awaited report on the Srebrenica massacres the worst in Europe since World War II Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Monday the United Nations treated Serbs and Muslims equally when they should have made a ``moral judgment'' that the Serbs' campaign of ethnic cleansing was evil. The secretary-general, who headed U.N. peacekeeping operations during the war in Bosnia, said the fall of Srebrenica was ``shocking'' because of the magnitude of the killings. Starting July 11, 1995, just a few months before the end of the 3-year war, Bosnian Serb forces overran the eastern town, which was designated a U.N.-protected zone. When the slaughter was finished, as many as 8,000 men and boys older than 14 were missing. The remains of close to 2,500 people have been found in mass graves, and several thousand more will likely be found in other burial sites that will be excavated next year, Annan said. At the root of the U.N. failure, he said, was the Security Council's decision to respond to the war in Bosnia with an arms embargo, humanitarian aid and a peacekeeping force. The arms embargo left the Serbs in a position of overwhelming military dominance and deprived Bosnia of its right to self-defense. And neither humanitarian assistance nor peacekeepers could solve a problem ``which cried out for a political-military solution,'' Annan said. ``The cardinal lesson of Srebrenica is that a deliberate and systematic attempt to terrorize, expel or murder an entire people must be met decisively with all necessary means, and with the political will to carry the policy through to its logical conclusion,'' he said in the 155-page report to the U.N. General Assembly. Bosnian U.N. Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey called the report a ``courageous step'' for the United Nations. ``This is not about vengeance. This is not about pointing fingers at people. This is about learning lessons and on the other hand, of course, moving along with the process of reconciliation and peace,'' he said. Annan said primary responsibility for the tragedy lies with wartime Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and his military chief, Gen. Ratko Mladic, who embarked on the systematic killing of the Srebrenica Muslims. But Annan also pointed fingers at U.N. staff in New York including himself, U.N. peacekeepers on the ground in Srebrenica and the six-nation ``Contact Group'' that oversees the Balkans: the United States, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and Italy. The enclave's inhabitants believed that the presence of 150 Dutch U.N. peacekeepers and the might of NATO airpower would ensure their safety, Annan said. But Serb forces pushed aside the U.N. troops and overran Srebrenica with ease. Then, the Serbs depopulated the town within 48 hours, he said. Dutch Defense Minister Frank de Grave said today he was relieved by the report, calling it a fair portrayal of the role played by the Dutch soldiers charged with defending the town. Annan encouraged the 188 U.N. member states to address issues raised in the report including its institutional commitment to impartiality even when confronted with attempted genocide, and ``the pervasive ambivalence within the United Nations regarding the role of force in the pursuit of peace.''

Procheti statiata za Rwanda, tam e obiasneno. UMISHLENO sam opredelenieto na genocid, za da se vidi kolko neiasno e opredelenieto na OON (i tova ne e sluchaino, pogledni godinata). Na tova opredelenie otgovariat vsichki voenni prestaplenia (ot vsichki voini v istoriata), otgovaria naprimer i "vazroditelnia" process, otgovaria i akciata na Moskva v Chechenia v momenta. Genocidite sa 2: armenskia i Holokosta. Nishto drugo ne e genocid! Drugoto sa voenni prestaplenia. Tehnite vinovnici triabva da badat nakazani, Milosevic triabva da bade saden, no genocid sreshtu albancite NIAMA. I tova e bilo predelno iasno na tezi, koito trabiaha "genocide". Luzhata e absolutno prednamerena i nagla. Ako si biaha ostanali na nivoto "v YU se izvarshvat voenni prestaplenia" vsichko shteshe da si e tochno, no PR-efekta niamashe da go ima. Kade po-silno e "dokazvash", che ima "genocide". Vprochem, prikazkite za genocida veche nikoi ne gi puska v obrashtenie, nito v OON, nito v NATO. Veche se govori samo za voenni prestaplenia, i to kakto varvi shte se okazhe, che tehnia razmer e 4-5 pati po-malak ot obiavenia. I tova e dobra novina! Loshata si ostava za badeshteshtite ochakvania.

Аз също. Брой на убитите, поименно изброяване, терминология... Инструментариума е богат.

Az ne govoria za "поименно изброяване", a za "Лъжaтa "genocide" KONKRETNO. Vprochem, na opredelenieto na OON otgovariat i operatsia "Allied Force", kakto i Chernobilskia atomen incident.

Глупости.

Vse poveche shte ti triabvat.