Thought you weren't denying anything...?

The Finnish report was pretty clear... and didn't use methods heavily prone towards false positives like Belarus and Serbia. (What a surprise... outdated tests that happen to falsey point the way they'd want to point if someone so much as smoked a cigarette.)

Yes... it does matter....

and what great political advantage exactly is Kosovo?

It's a tiny insiginifcant country made from (no offense player) a tiny insignificant country.

I'm sure there were some political reasons... but it wouldn't be worth any sort of fabrication, or startin something if there wasn't ethnic cleansing.

Kosovo is tiny insiginficant country, Afghanistan is not so tiny, yet seemingly insiginficant country, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. As for Yugoslavia, I wouldn't call it insiginficant by European standards (not in borders of modern Serbia though), especially if it would have grown (as there were plans) to the size of Balkan federation.

Throughout it's history after dissolution of Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire there were forces supportive and not so supportive of region consolidation around Belgrad for whatever reasons they might had. It was just a bad luck for Serbs, that nobody wanted them around (especially EU), and chances of Yugoslavia survival after dissolution of SU were slim. Sure, there were a lot of reasons for Yugoslavia to fall appart besides NATO. Milosevic did somewhat make an act of political cannibalism when he gained popularity thanks to Serbian nationalists and put them as an opposing force against socialists in the goverment (but that's common for all socialist countries at the time, if you have lack of political stability, it sure should be filled with smth more sturdy, why not nationalism?). NATO bombings were just last accord, but they did an imporant thing - see how ex-SFRY countries are following in limitrophe regimes steps, and how their political elites consider eurointegration as an undiscussable imperative, even Serbian politics, even nationalists. It's like a tar baby for Brer Rabbit :D

 //If people so concerned about other people killing each other, why not to be a little consistent? Did somebody cared about Rwandan genocide? Nope, though there were a lot of opportunities to stop it. But nobody cared, MSM didn't even bother to lit a light over the events until it was all over. And THAT's what I call a genocide:

If there're people worse than these bastards it'd be moralists. So when you see someone saying he cares about some people killing each other in some far far away, no doubts he either a hypocrite or an idiot, not sure who's worse.

How would it of grown?

Anyway, like i'm said, i'm sure there were some minor political reasons that helped push them over the hump when the genocide was happening.  Along with other bigger issues.   There is always some political advantage to be gained in any situation like that.

As for why the US didn't intervene in Rawanda.  Blame Somalia.

In actuallity the US congress was ready to authorize military military action to Rwanda... they had a full bipartisian support and were waiting for Bill Clinton to pull the trigger and ask congress as Commander in Chief to give him permission to deploy.

Clinton never did pull the trigger though, because Rwanda happened after the pullout in Somalia.

Which was the huge costly military disaster nobody talks about.

Clinton was afraid to step in because he didn't really know anything about Rwanda and it's tribes and he was afraid it was going to be Somalia part 2.

Not doing so was actually listed by the Clinton Administration as one of it's greatest mistakes.

There's big difference between random political advantages and purposeful actions to gain those advantages.

As for the Rwanda, there were UN troops deployed prior to events that were doing... nothing. As there were peackeepers from Netherlands in Srebrenica, who again did nothing. Slackers. Though what would you expect from Netherlands? :D

Yeah, the UN ordered them to do nothing.

The US though did have the political will to send troops to actually do something in Rwanda.  Clinton just didn't have the will.

Do you know how the whole Racak hoax was triggered? William Walker came to visit some KLA leaders in the village and they started whining to him about military support .

As for the finnish report this is what they said, based on their examination of 37 bodies :

• there were no executions
• no mutilation of bodies
• there were no shooting marks from close distance 

The leader of the finnish team, Helena Rant, did state the most of victims were unarmed  based on fact they had no ammo in their pockets. The gun holes on their body,do however suggest that they were either killed on crossfire or on battlefield. And while she did call thiis a crime against humanity (which can be found in every war) she never called it a massacre, genocide or ethnic cleansing.

However, when she published her autobiographical book in 2008, she said she was under EXTREME pressure from William Walker and the Finnish foreign affairs when she was in Kosovo. She said Walker demanded from her that her words be ''more convincing and exaggerating''. Finnish affairs wanted that her report be more ''in depth'' (ie they were looking for a reason to accuse serbs). At one point, she even said Walker hit her with a thrown pencil out of rage and unsatisfacton for her report.

In a russian documentary ''The End'' she stated just how mad Walker was about her report, and she even went as far to show the actual report, never seen before.

So as you can see, the finnish report was quite clear indeed...

Right.   She said she was under pressure... and she DIDN'T alter her report at all.

She also said there weren't soldiers.

So the Serbians massacared them at range.  That changes... nothing.

The fact that she didn't alter her report and it STILL held the Serbians at fault is strong proof of the ethnic cleansing.

Though considering that wasn't even the biggest serbian crime, I don't understand your fixation on it.

Forget Rwanda. It's was just an example how nobody cares (including UN) when there's no political advanatges. My point is pretty clear, no need to overcomplicate it. There're reasons behind this and numerous other wars besides what official propaganda might and did say ("for everything that's good, against everything that's evil"), political entities are fight for political purposes. I understand that people are influenced by propaganda regardless of how rational they might be (d-oh! everyone wants to be moral, even when there's absolutely no way to regard oneself as moral), but that's not a reason for Joel-like stupidness (yeah, I love the guy and his undisturbed mind :D ).

That's enough of truisms for today from me, so you may go on on pointless discussion wheter there were ethnic cleansings or not. Thread is hopelessly derailed (should be noted - without my help).

Note to Player: you're doing it wrong (I mean the discussion). Attack, do not defend. Remind him about Indians genocide, concentration camps for Japanese, Vietnam, Japanese bombings or smth along those lines especially from modern history, there's always a material that could be brought to discsussion and blown out from proportion :D As I've said everyone wants to be moral, or by Kaz's words "People who are part of countries who commit ethnic cleansing never want to own up to the fact that they let it happen". P.S.: You may talk to me in Serbian.

A)  Except, Rwanada proves my point.  People did care.  Clinton just blew it.

B)  America already admitted and apologzed for the Indian Genocide and Japanese concentration camps.   The Indian genocide was specifically mentioned in my first (or second) post.

Those aren't things i'd deny happening.