Talk:Veselin Šljivančanin

About non-Serb people...

Just to clarify my position: the article does not say he is responsible for the mass killing of about 260 non-Serb people, but only says that he is accused of being responsible. The wording non-Serb people comes directly from the amended indicment (actually it's "Croats and non-Serbs"):

43. From or about 18 November 1991 until 21 November 1991 Mile MRKSIC, Miroslav RADIC, and Veselin SLJIVANCANIN, acting individually or in concert with other known and unknown members of a joint criminal enterprise, planned, instigated, ordered, committed, or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation, or execution of the extermination and murder of Croats and other non-Serbs who were present in the Vukovar Hospital after the fall of Vukovar.

38. At this spot, these Serb forces were assembled on the north side of the site. These Serb forces then killed at least two hundred sixty-four Croats and other non-Serbs from Vukovar Hospital. After the killings, these Serb forces used a bulldozer to bury the bodies of the victims in a mass grave at the same location.

(from the ICTY amendment, emphasis added)

Zsolt Tulassay 08:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Zsolt, you are quite right about one thing. The ICTY has infact made this accusation. I should not have altered it the way that I did. The ICTY is an organisation which is funded by numerous governments, and staffed by its civil servants. This enables them to air statements such as "against non-Serbs" because they are at reporting from home. In reality, there is no International Criminal Court which is flawless and recognised by every world organisation. And even within its recognised territories, there are a number of individuals who cast doubts upon the projects in general. As long as we say "the court has accused Mr.X of XYZ" or "the court found Mr.Q guilty of ABCD, but cleared him of EFG" then there is no problem. I am not here to argue whether the courts are a good thing or a bad thing, so I simply say - allow the reader to make their own mind up. To be honest, saying that one ethnic group killed its non-ethnic members is more of a stylistic ornamentation to tart up the prosecution's case; please the opponents; and further demonise the accused and his party. If a court found that this "enterprise" oversaw the deaths of a thousand people, 900 Croats, 40 Roma and 60 Hungarians; sure they are non-Serb; but they are also non-Korean, and non-Tamil at that too. Now when the court makes this accusation, the accused can rubbish it instantly by producing evidence that there were non-Serbs who were hot harmed by the agressor. Now, yes, on the one hand - it is not the point; the fact is, a man is still accused of harming a thousand (in this example) human beings, Serb, Croat or Brazilian, doesn't matter. But to simply say that it was "human beings suspsected of supporting opposition" may be true, but is not evil-sounding enough for the trial-mongers. To state that an ethnic group is killing non-members gives it more of a holacaust atmosphere, designed to create shock and horror to the spectator. In the four years of todays Croatian territories being under local Serbian rule, every single municipality contained a living, working, thriving non-Serb population. The number was reducing for various reasons, but not because they were given marching orders. Now Sljivancanin originates from Montenegro; he fought for ther JNA in JNA uniform. It is all too easy for Bosniaks and Croats to point to any individual who fought for the Serbs and to say "ah, he is Serb". Asides the fact that the JNA supported the Serbs of Croatia; until their disbanding in 1992, there was a federal prupose behind their actions. It had been hoped then that although they cannot stop certain parts of the old SFRJ to break off, they may be able to salvage some areas; it just happened that in Croatia, it was the Serbian areas which fought against Croatian independence. None of this means that Sljivancanin is Serb. I don't know if you originate from the area, but your nationality is that what you declare. There is no proof that he declared Serb; and sadly in Montenegro, you cannot assume as they all thend to have similar surnames - in Bosnia, it is generally clear who is Muslim, but then again, some Muslims declare Croat or Serb; some Orthodox declare "Bosnian" (not -ak). If we state that Sljivancanin is Serb on tribal principles; then there is no Muslim race, they are nothing more than local Slavs (Serbs and Croats) who converted; and Yugoslavs wouldn't exist either; but they do, and they are recognised, and they are not Serb or Croat. More to the point, if people cannot choose to be something different from their parents - be it something new, or harking back some generations - then the world would be one and the same race. Montenegrins were at the time allied to Serbs, however, this was as a federal unit for the final Yugoslavia - not as "additional Serbs". Montenegrin nationalism has two facets; pro-South Slav unification, against Independence. You're no less Serb, or Croat, or Montenegrin for choosing unification - there are just a few modifications in your irredentist claims (ie. you still claim external areas, but within, you find a way of coping with the situation by making one region a part of one republic, and give its other people autonomy). There is no proof he is Serb. Evlekis 13:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

sentenced

He was sentenced to 5 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7016290.stm). If anyone knows more about his sentence, please add on.--Jesuislafete 17:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

After appeals he was sentenced to 17 years instead (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8033635.stm). It says, the appeals chamber "found that the Hague trial chamber had erred when it acquitted Sljivancanin of aiding and abetting the murders and convicted him only of aiding and abetting torture." This should be added to the page. -- Zsolt Tulassay (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

false quotation

Footnote 5 quotes a sentence that doesn't even exist in the source. That's highly improper and should be removed! Elagabal89 (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Veselin Šljivančanin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080107160243/http://www.gulf-times.com:80/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=175501&version=1&template_id=39&parent_id=21 to http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=175501&version=1&template_id=39&parent_id=21

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)