Lindy

True. I am aware we've gone way off topic, but not necessarily off-theme. Underlying this discussion is the concept of what constitutes a fair trial for accused war criminals.

Also, people who post on forums like this can't really include lots and lots of detail and evidence to back up their points - that's why we provide links. So that anyone who wants to check the details can do so.

Also, Mishka. I confess to not knowing enough about the trials of Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac to directly comment here. However, this article has given me an introduction from which to read more. For that I thank you.

Jay, it's great to question, but why do you only question one side of the story? You question Srebrenica, for which the "official story" is backed up by loads of witnesses, including Serbs, but you don't question the Serb sob story about Operation Storm. If you object to kangaroo courts, then you should be the first to praise this article because it's objecting to a show trial, it's questioning the official story. Or is there an exemption for Croats? Don't they deserve justice too?! And, Killarney, if this underlying discussion is about fair trials for alleged war criminals, why are you going on about Serbs and ignoring the obvious miscarriage of justice in this article? Looks to me like you only care if certain people receive injustice, that as long as it's a Croat in jail it doesn't matter if they're innocent. And I think that stinks!

So, I can't be trusted because I use the word "contemptible" and once wrote a book review for Quadrant Magazine... but my critics (and their links) can be trusted because they have big "question marks" about Auschwitz, 9/11, and Srebrenica? I rest my case....

I made the remarks re: 'contemptible' and 'Quadrant'.

But I did not cast any doubts on Srebrenica, Auschwitz, nor 9/11.

So what point have you made?

Mishka.
...Q.E.D, my case also rests, an "official" story is not good enough, Why shouldn't we question every tiny detail of history?
Case in point the Katyn Massacres, because people pushed for the truth the Germans were vindicated and the Soviets exposed as the perpetrators.
The only people who will suffer from historical revisionism are the "official" historians.

Historical enquiry is always concentrated into the hands of officials loyal to ideology or doctrine before all else, Vere Childe, Manning Clark, Raul Hilberg....the list is not huge but you get the point.
Another example, Raul Hilberg deems David Irving's research into the alleged Holocaust "impeccable" but he questions his motivation, believing Irving to be a "Neo Nazi".
So Irving is not wrong in the eyes of the world's pre eminent pro Holocaust scholar, he's only politically incorrect, Hilberg is happy to cite the new information Irving has brought to light but rejects him as a peer solely because of his (alleged) Neo Nazism.

@Jay, if you are going to question the official story, then you need to question the unofficial story too. And the point of questioning is to find answers, to discover the truth. (Yes, I'm one of those old-fashioned people who believes in objective truth!) If you find answers to your questions, genuine answers, but continue to "question", then you end up going in the opposite direction of truth and you are waylaid by subjective interpretations which only contain part of the true story. A little information is a dangerous thing.

What I find odd is that this article does question the official story, it does question the very people you say you don't trust, but instead of thanking me for exposing their hypocrisy and a miscarriage of justice, you prefer to take their side on this particular issue. From that I conclude that you are less interested in truth and more interested in pushing Serb propaganda.

@Savvas, I would have thought the point I was making was obvious, but I will spell it out for you. If the best criticism you can come up with is that I use the word "contemptible" and am a freelance writer who has written one book review for a conservative publication, then you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.