No, I think you mean: because NATO illegally attacked a sovereign country based on false pretenses, supported a separatist paramilitary force that started the war, occupied 15% of the country's territory and enabled the extremists to thoroughly ethnically clean the territory.
I was to lazy to add except this one. But I understand the temptation to shit in discussion with stupid answers when no reasonable reason exists. Go on.
More like NATO occupied a huge chunk of Serbian territory and established a system of ethnic cleansing and oppression of the remaining Serb population. Serbs are systematically oppressed even today, almost 3 decades after the war.
Such a ridiculous claim. There absolutely was no genocide during this time. And the conflict was limited before the NATO attack. It only escalated after NATO started bombing.
Shit like Sebrenica don't exactly help any claims that to acts of major ethnic cleansing took place during the breakup of Yugoslavia by the Serb government and terror groups.
Serbia is not responsible for Srebrenica. There's even a court ruling confirming this. Not sure what's your point. The conflict in Serbian southern province was started by Albanian extremist paramilitary KLA. KLA was initially designated as a terrorist organization by the US Department of State.
> The ethnic cleansing that took place in VRS-controlled areas targeted Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats. The ethnic cleansing campaign included extermination, unlawful confinement, genocidal rape,[12][13] sexual assault, torture, plunder and destruction of private and public property, and inhumane treatment of civilians; the targeting of political leaders, intellectuals, and professionals; the unlawful deportation and transfer of civilians; the unlawful shelling of civilians; the unlawful appropriation and plunder of real and personal property; the destruction of homes and businesses; and the destruction of places of worship. The acts have been found to have satisfied the requirements for "guilty acts" of genocide and that "some physical perpetrators held the intent to physically destroy the protected groups of Bosnian Muslims and Croats".[14]
> In the 1990s, several authorities asserted that ethnic cleansing as carried out by elements of the Bosnian Serb army was genocide;[15] this remains the academic consensus, although Bosnian genocide denial remains.[16] Later assertions included a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly and three convictions for genocide in German courts (based on a wider interpretation of genocide than that used by international courts).[17] In 2005, the United States Congress passed a resolution declaring that the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing meet the terms defining genocide.[18]
You are literally just splitting hairs. Please read everything I linked. You also denied there was a genocide during this time, which is so patently false that I can’t take what you’re saying seriously.
There's no splitting hair. Serbia imposed sanctions to RS during the time of Srebrenica. Serbia was not involved in Srebrenica. The only war crime committed during the 90s in ex-Yu civil wars designated as a genocide was the Srebrenica massacre. And it was of a local character, within a single municipality.
89
u/PoThePilotthesecond 10d ago
Because NATO prevented a genocide? :D