Negiranje genocide-posljedna faza genocida

[IBM]

Negiranje genocida je posljednja faza genocida. Bosna i Hercegovina kao zemlja u kojoj je pocinjen genocid nad jednim narodom danas se suocava sa ovom posljednom fazom. Razlog zasto otvaram ovu temu jeste sto smatram da se ovoj temi danas, u nasoj zemlji, nedovoljno (mozda cak nikako) pridaje paznja. A negatora genocida itekako ima.

Za pocetak prenosim 12 nacina kako se genocid moze negirati, a vi sami ocjenite da li se danas suocavamo s tim:

Twelve Ways To Deny A Genocide

The Sudanese government’s response to accusations of genocide has, from the beginning, been a classic example of the strategy of denial that accompanies every genocide. The strategy employs predictable tactics designed to obscure clear perception of criminal conspiracy with an ink-cloud of denial. The objective of denial is to paralyze the political will of those who might take action to stop the genocide and punish the perpetrators. [2005: All of these denial tactics are still the official Sudanese government line.]

Israel Charny outlines the tactics of denial in “Templates for Gross Denial of a Known Genocide: A Manual,” in The Encyclopedia of Genocide, volume 1, page 168. All of them are being used by the Sudanese government.

1. Question and minimize the statistics. Sudan’s Foreign Minister Mustaf Osman Ismail said on 9 September 2004, that no more than 5,000 people have been killed in Darfur since February 2003. [2005: The Sudanese government has not raised its estimate of deaths since.] In contrast, 50,000 [2005: 160,000]deaths is considered a low estimate by the U.N., World Food Program, and the ICRC. The Sudanese Embassy in Washington said the interviews were all conducted with Darfur refugees in Chad, not in Sudan, so were invalid. But refugee accounts are among the most reliable indicators of crimes because witnesses testify freely, without fear. The interviews were conducted in Chad because the Sudanese Embassy refused to grant visas to the investigation team. The U.S. has proposed a Security Council resolution that would send investigators into Darfur to gather evidence of the crimes where they were committed, which Sudan rejects.

2. Attack the motivations of the truth-tellers. Dismiss U.S. charges as products of election-year politics in America, or of anti-Islamic imperialists who have demonstrated their hatred of Arabs in Iraq at Abu-Ghraib prison. This ad-hominem “moral disqualification” argument was the red-herring used by the Sudanese Ambassadors at both the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the U.N. Security Council. It is aimed to appeal to fellow Islamic countries like Algeria and Pakistan.

3. Claim that the deaths were inadvertent, as a result of famine, migration, or disease, not because of willful murder. This is the usual line given to relief officials to turn the blame back upon them for not supplying more assistance, hypocritically ignoring the systematic obstruction the Sudanese government has placed in the way of visas for humanitarian workers and delivery of food and medicine.

4. Emphasize the strangeness of the victims. Whether they be classified as infidels, primitive tribalists, or of another race and caste, they are unlike us. Thus, the highly influential Sudanese “Arab Gathering” considers black Africans to be “abd” (male slaves) and “kahdim” (female slaves.) and advocates their exclusion from Sudanese public life. For Americans or Europeans, such de-humanization is expressed as, “They’re Africans. They do these sorts of things to each other.”

5. Rationalize the deaths as the result of tribal conflict, coming to the victims out of the inevitability of their history of relationships. Thus, the Sudanese Ambassador to the U.N. in a BBC interview on 11 September 2004 claimed that the deaths were just the result of age-old tribal conflicts between cattle herders (Arabs) and farmers (Africans). In fact, there were no such genocidal raids in Darfur until the Sudanese government armed the Janjaweed in early 2003 and used the Sudanese air-force to support them.

6. Blame “out of control” forces for committing the killings, distancing responsibility from the Sudanese government. The success of this tactic was demonstrated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1556, which blames the killings on the Janjaweed militias and actually demands that the Sudanese government disarm the Janjaweed and bring their leaders to justice. In fact, it was the Sudanese government that armed the Janjaweed in the first place, and continues to protect them. Not one major Janjaweed leader has been arrested. Criminals already in jail for years have simply been renamed “Janjaweed,” and sentenced for crimes they did not commit, punished by amputations under Sharia law.

7. Avoid antagonizing the genocidists, who might walk out of “the peace process.” This real politik argument is used to frighten diplomats who fear “upsetting the peace process” in Naivasha for the south, or in Abuja for Darfur. In 2005 the argument has become: “don’t upset the fragile new order in Khartoum since signature on the agreements settling the civil war in the South. Let’s now concentrate on getting the Darfur ‘rebels’ to reach a similar agreement with Khartoum in Abuja, under the African Union.” Meanwhile the ethnic cleansing of Darfur is nearly complete, and genocidal massacres and rapes continue daily. This argument, which diplomats repeatedly and naively espouse, ignores the fact that genocidists are serial killers. Policies toward them based on fear lead only to appeasement and further genocide.

8. Justify denial in favor of current economic interests. This is a key reason why Russia opposes an arms embargo on the Sudanese government. It has just sold twelve MIG-29’s to Khartoum, and continues to be a major supplier of other arms. Besides being another arms supplier to Khartoum, China is a primary developer of southern Sudan’s oilfields and imports Sudanese oil. China has threatened to veto U.N. sanctions.

9. Claim that the victims are receiving good treatment, while baldly denying the charges of genocide outright. The Sudanese government claims that the internally displaced are receiving excellent treatment in IDP camps, and will be even better off when they are moved to “safe areas” under complete Sudanese government control. The Sudanese show visitors the same “model” IDP camp, just as the Nazis showed the ICRC Theresienstadt. When Kofi Annan tried to visit another site, the Sudanese quickly evacuated it, leaving him to ask, “Where are the people?” [2005: When Annan interviewed rape survivors in Darfur, the Sudanese responded by arresting his interpreter the next day. The government also arrested the director of Medècins sans Frontières, Sudan the same day for publishing a well-documented report exposing widespread rapes by Sudanese soldiers and Janjaweed in and around IDP camps.]

The Special Representative of the Secretary General, Jan Pronk, has recently signed a Sudanese government proposal to create “safe areas” for the black Africans of Darfur, who will be “guarded” by the Sudanese army. Never forget that the U.N. also agreed to a “safe area” plan in Bosnia. Srebenica was a “safe area” where 8000 men were murdered in 1995 while Dutch soldiers stood by. Pronk was the Dutch Development Cooperation Minister in 1995 and he resigned only after a government study of the disaster seven years later. Now Pronk has recommended the same “safe areas solution” for Darfur. What is wrong with this picture?

10. Claim that what is going on doesn’t fit the definition of genocide. “Definitionalist” denial is most common among lawyers and policy makers who want to avoid intervention beyond provision of humanitarian aid. It results in “analysis paralysis.” It is what the State Department investigation and report brilliantly overcame. At the time of writing (September 2004), the European Union, the Secretary General of the United Nations and even Amnesty International still avoid calling the crimes in Darfur by their proper name. It is a pity. There are three reasons for such reluctance:

A. Among journalists, the general public, diplomats, and lawyers who haven’t read the Genocide Convention, there is a common misconception that a finding of genocide would legally require action to suppress it. Under this misconception, having been informed that the U.S. would take no action in Rwanda in 1994, State Department lawyers ordered avoidance of the word. They made their legal conclusion fit the Procrustean bed of U.S. policy. They committed legal malpractice.

Unfortunately, the Genocide Convention carries no such legal compulsion to act. It legally requires only that states-parties pass national laws against genocide and then prosecute or extradite those who commit the crime. Article VIII of the Convention says they also “may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide.” But they aren’t legally required to do so. Article I of the Genocide Convention creates a moral obligation to prevent genocide, but it does not dictate military intervention or any other particular measures.

B. Another misconception is the “all or none” concept of genocide. The all-or-none school considers killings to be genocide only if their intent is to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group “in whole.” Their model is the Holocaust. They ignore the “in part” in the definition in the Genocide Convention, which they often haven’t read.

C. Since the 1990’s, a new obstacle to calling genocide by its proper name has been the distinction between genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” a term originally invented as a euphemism for genocide in the Balkans. Genocide and “ethnic cleansing” are sometimes portrayed as mutually exclusive crimes, but they are not. Prof. Schabas, for example, says that the intent of “ethnic cleansing” is expulsion of a group, whereas the intent of “genocide” is its destruction, in whole or in part. He illustrates with a simplistic distinction: in “ethnic cleansing,” borders are left open and a group is driven out; in “genocide,” borders are closed and a group is killed. The fallacy of the distinction is evident in Darfur, where the intent of the Sudanese government and their Janjaweed militias is to drive Fur, Massaleit, and Zaghawa black African farmers off of their ancestral lands (ethnic cleansing,) using terror caused by systematic acts of genocide, including mass murder, mass rape, mass starvation, and concentration camps run by Janjaweed and Sudanese army guards, where murder and rape are standing orders. Both ethnic cleansing and genocide are underway in Darfur.

D. Claim that the “intent” of the perpetrator is merely “ethnic cleansing” not “genocide,” which requires the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The U.N. Commission of Experts report of 2005 took this way out. It confused motive with intent. (Ironically, the U.N. Commission report even included a paragraph saying motive and intent should not be confused, an exhortation the Commission promptly violated, itself.) Even if the motive of a perpetrator is to drive a group off its land (“ethnic cleansing”), killing members of the group and other acts enumerated in the Genocide Convention may still have the specific intent to destroy the group, in whole or in part. That’s genocide.

11. Blame the victims. Claim that the Sudanese government is simply fighting an insurrection by a rebel movement comprised of bandits who themselves commit war crimes. By portraying the situation as civil war rather than genocide, the Sudanese appeal to the common misunderstanding that the two are mutually exclusive, when in fact, as Robert Melson, Barbara Harff, Helen Fein, and others have shown, civil war is very often a predictor and correlate of genocide. Genocide occurs especially during civil wars because war is legalized killing, when even women and children of an adversary group may be seen as enemies of the state.

12. Say that peace and reconciliation are more important that blaming people for genocide, especially if the genocide happened in the past. This is the justification for amnesties for mass murderers as part of peace agreements, and for opposition to post-conflict tribunals. But peace and reconciliation are not alternatives to justice. Lasting peace requires justice. Without prosecution of those who commit genocide, an expectation of impunity is created. As Fein and Harff have shown, one of the best predictors of future genocide is previous genocide that has gone unpunished. Without trials, denial becomes permanent.

A brutal civil war is underway in Darfur, and the ceasefire and settlement being negotiated in Abuja might save lives. But the talks could take years. Meanwhile there will be peace in Darfur only with a powerful African Union force, supported logistically and financially by the West, to enforce it, much as NATO has enforced the peace in Bosnia. If the African Union force cannot stop the genocide, the U.N., NATO, European Union, and their member nations should send in troops under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter.
http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenoc ... ocide.html

[muskox]

Negiranje genocida je posljednja faza genocida. Bosna i Hercegovina kao zemlja u kojoj je pocinjen genocid nad jednim narodom danas se suocava sa ovom posljednom fazom. Razlog zasto otvaram ovu temu jeste sto smatram da se ovoj temi danas, u nasoj zemlji, nedovoljno (mozda cak nikako) pridaje paznja. A negatora genocida itekako ima.

Za pocetak prenosim 12 nacina kako se genocid moze negirati, a vi sami ocjenite da li se danas suocavamo s tim:

Koliko sam ja primjetio svih 12 navedenih nacina negiranja genocida kod nas smo vec mogli vidjeti.

Svakako bi bilo zanimljivo uputiti zakon o zabrani poricanja genocida u parlamentarnu raspravu da se vidi koje partije su za a koje protiv i dali bi tako nesto proslo kroz sve procedure.

PS: Mozda bi kad si vec postavio ovaj tekst trebao prevesti bar bitnije stvari zbog onih koji ne razumiju engleski a volili bi znati sta u njemu pise.

[Maraschino]

Negiranje genocida je posljednja faza genocida. Bosna i Hercegovina kao zemlja u kojoj je pocinjen genocid nad jednim narodom danas se suocava sa ovom posljednom fazom. Razlog zasto otvaram ovu temu jeste sto smatram da se ovoj temi danas, u nasoj zemlji, nedovoljno (mozda cak nikako) pridaje paznja. A negatora genocida itekako ima.

Za pocetak prenosim 12 nacina kako se genocid moze negirati, a vi sami ocjenite da li se danas suocavamo s tim:

Koliko sam ja primjetio svih 12 navedenih nacina negiranja genocida kod nas smo vec mogli vidjeti.

Svakako bi bilo zanimljivo uputiti zakon o zabrani poricanja genocida u parlamentarnu raspravu da se vidi koje partije su za a koje protiv i dali bi tako nesto proslo kroz sve procedure.
PS: Mozda bi kad si vec postavio ovaj tekst trebao prevesti bar bitnije stvari zbog onih koji ne razumiju engleski a volili bi znati sta u njemu pise.

sta ako dodik kaze , ne

[IBM]

Sto se tice zakona o negiranju genocida, prosle godine, odmah nakon presude MSP u Hagu SDA je podnjela nacrt zakona( i to dobar).No, tada nije cak ni usao u razmatranje jer su ga HDZ 1990 tj. Martin Raguz odbacili jer "ne tretira zlocine koji je pocinio komunisticki rezim".
Ali ce se ovo pitanje opet pokrenuti.

@muskox: Poenta ovoga jeste da postoje ljudi i van BiH koji negiraju genocid u BiH. I da bi trebalo i njima stati u kraj. A ne da se oslanjamo samo na strance-prijatelje.

[ZZZlica]

The Special Representative of the Secretary General, Jan Pronk, has recently signed a Sudanese government proposal to create “safe areas” for the black Africans of Darfur, who will be “guarded” by the Sudanese army. Never forget that the U.N. also agreed to a “safe area” plan in Bosnia. Srebenica was a “safe area” where 8000 men were murdered in 1995 while Dutch soldiers stood by. Pronk was the Dutch Development Cooperation Minister in 1995 and he resigned only after a government study of the disaster seven years later. Now Pronk has recommended the same “safe areas solution” for Darfur. What is wrong with this picture?

@IBM: odličan tekst, hvala, naročito za ovu informaciju u vezi Jana Pronka... po mom mišljenju, njegove aktivnosti prevazilaze "nesnalaženje", bojim se da će ove "zaštićene zone" imati istu sudbinu kao Srebrenica, a Pronk to zna (nema amneziju)... trebalo bi ga staviti na svjetski stub srama radi nesprječavanja genocida... istorija se ponavlja a barem jedan akter je isti

[MoHiKaNaC]

svega pomalo od 12 nacina ima kod nas ali se ovaj 12. najvise istice....nazalost nismo u situaciji da kroz zakonodavstvo proturimo bilo sta sto bi sankcionisalo poricanje genocida....mada, to ne treba ni da cudi....ako ljudi koji su ucestvovali u istom mogu da zive kao da se nista nije desilo.....ako opstaju sve forme nastale iz genocida....ako medjunarodna javnost ne pravi razliku izmedju zrtve i agresora onda je poricanje genocida sasvim normalna stvar

francuzi su usvojili zakon kojim je kaznjivo poricanje genocida turaka nad ermenima pred I svjetski rat....cista politika....francuska koja nema dovoljno argumenata da potvrdi ili ospori taj genocid donosi zakon (cime ge na neki nacin potvrdjuje) kojim se taj genocid ne smije poricati....koliko je lobiranje bitno u ovakvim situacijama pokazuje i cinjenica da je ermenski lobi bio jako blizu da slicnu stvar odradi i u SAD-u, medjutim politika i raspolozenje republikanaca je ucinilo da se sve to zaustavi na rezoluciji

(sto se tice tog gonocida ne znam da li se stvarno desio....citava stvar je jako konfuzna....znam samo da ermenska strana konstantno odbija pozive tursve vlada i turskih historicara da se oformi medjunarodna komisija koja ce kroz arhivske materijale na osnovu objektivnih misljenja doci do istine)

no, sto se nas tice bitnije od sevga je svijest gradjana i momenat kada ce oni poceti da shvataju da negiranjem onoga sto se desilo samo se odgadjaju neminovni procesi u ovoj zemlji....stvari ce se kad tad postaviti na svoje mjesto samo je pitanje koliko ce se vremena izgubiti

[IBM]

Evo jedan tekst od Oliver Kamm-a, kolumnista The Times-a, ljevicar. Ovim tekstom reaguje na clanak negatora bosanskog genocida Ed Herman-a.


April 14, 2008
Methods of genocide denial

Srebrenica_memorial

Genocide denial is an ugly subject. I wrote a post about a recent variant a few months ago, relating to Ed Herman, one-time collaborator of Noam Chomsky. Herman has devoted himself in recent years to rubbishing the notion that 8,000 Bosniaks were massacred at Srebrenica. In an article last October entitled "Genocide Inflation is the Real Human Rights Threat: Yugoslavia and Rwanda", published in the far-left Z Magazine, he went one better, and insisted: "To an amazing degree, the Western media and NGOs swallowed the propaganda line and lies on Rwanda that turned things upside down."

I was reminded of this monstrous article and of Herman's fellow-travellers when reading this post on the Counterknowledge blog of Telegraph journalist Damian Thompson. It refers to one Robin Philpot, a Canadian journalist and a denier of the Rwandan genocide, whom I had mentioned as one of Herman's sources.

This is the first of two or three posts I shall write about recent instances of genocide denial. I do so to illustrate two points. First, the methods of genocide denial are consistent across time and place. The denial of the Srebrenica massacre really does employ the same methods as Holocaust denial. My second point is that genocide denial is politically heterogeneous. You find it on the Left as well as the far Right, though these tendencies have much in common with each other.

I first came across the phenomenon, in its most notorious and extreme form of Holocaust denial, in my teens. My languages teacher, who had been a child refugee from Nazism and whose parents had died in the camps, told me of an incident that happened when she had been introducing a travelling exhibition about Anne Frank. A prominent local member of the National Front (this was in Leicester, where the organisation received a substantial vote at that time) came up to her afterwards, introduced himself, and handed her a pamphlet. I can't remember it, but I'm certain this pamphlet would have been one called "Did Six Million Really Die?", under the pseudonymous authorship of a "Richard Harwood".

Harwood's real name was Richard Verrall. Verrall was editor of the National Front journal Spearhead. His was the first popular exposition published in English of the notion that the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by international Jewry. Over the years I've acquired Verrall's pamphlet and a small library of the main pseudo-scholarly works advocating this view (though if you visit my house, you will not find them on open shelves). These are all either in French or in English; for obvious reasons, this sort of material doesn't get disseminated in Germany.

I give no link, but Verrall's pamphlet is now also widely distributed on the Web on far-right and Islamist sites. Its concluding section begins:

"Without doubt the most important contribution to a truthful study of the extermination question has been the work of the French historian, Professor Paul Rassinier. The pre-eminent value of this work lies firstly in the fact that Rassinier actually experienced life in the German concentration camps, and also that, as a Socialist intellectual and anti-Nazi, nobody could be less inclined to defend Hitler and National Socialism. Yet, for the sake of justice and historical truth, Rassinier spent the remainder of his post-war years until his death in 1966 pursuing research which utterly refuted the Myth of the Six Million and the legend of Nazi diabolism."

Extraordinarily, in a polemic that sets a methodological standard for lying about history, this paragraph includes an important truth. It's not often realised that (as Paul Berman rightly notes in his Terror and Liberalism) Holocaust denial began on the French Left. The first person systematically to advance the proposition that the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by international Jewry was Paul Rassinier, a French Socialist and Resistance fighter who had indeed been imprisoned at Buchenwald. There is a fine biography of him by Nadine Fresco, Fabrication d'un antisémite, 1999. As the title implies, Rassinier became an embittered antisemitic crank. He died in 1967 (not 1966 as Verrall/Harwood claims), having acquired a handful of followers. Rassinier's principal disciple, Robert Faurisson, is very much with us.

Noam Chomsky famously provoked controversy by coming to Faurisson's defence in 1981 - ostensibly on grounds of free speech, but in fact with other remarks attached. During the controversy, Chomsky insisted to one critic (for sources, see here): "I see no hint of antisemitic implications in Faurisson's work." Chomsky is not a Holocaust denier, and no serious critic accuses him of being an antisemite. But Chomsky's defence of Faurisson is not the libertarian one, which I agree with, of the right to free speech for Holocaust deniers. He clearly defends the legitimacy of Faurisson's views though not their factual accuracy. If you doubt this, consider Chomsky's remark on the masthead of this site and similar sentiments about far greater men than I, such as Vaclav Havel and the late Abba Eban. In Chomsky's universe, "tacit acquiescence to horrendous crimes" is done by liberals and moderate left-wingers. Faurisson genuinely is a racist who does acquiesce in the greatest crime of our age, by denying it even took place. Yet you won't find Chomsky describing Faurisson in the terms he uses to describe, well, me.

The proponents of genocide denial are not a weighty force, and some of them are very trivial indeed. But there are reasons for refuting them.

First, while I don't wish to sound melodramatic, once you let go by default the arguments of Herman and others, you have in effect granted the legitimacy in debate of the equivalent methods of reasoning of Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial, pace Chomsky's frivolous and absurd remarks, necessarily has malevolent implications.

Secondly, it's surprising how some of the propositions of genocide deniers can insinuate themselves into respectable forums without their being recognised as such. I noted an example last year when the novelist Kurt Vonnegut died. In his best known work, Slaughterhouse-Five, Vonnegut directly relies on the discredited claims of my reader David Irving concerning the death toll at Dresden. Portraying the Allies as war criminals while downplaying the crimes of the Nazis is one the techniques of Holocaust deniers such as Irving.

Thirdly, there is matter of honour. It is plainly not logically impossible that fewer than 8,000 men and boys were murdered by Bosnian Serbs at Srebrenica; but the means by which Herman and his followers advance that conclusion are a violation of the methods of critical inquiry. That's what is wrong with genocide denial - not that it's an offence to our feelings, but that it's an offence against historical truth.

Fourthly, while the proponents of genocide denial are on the fringes of Western intellectual life, this is not necessarily true elsewhere. Holocaust denial has gained ground in the Muslim world. In particular, it's espoused by the puppet-president of a state that seeks a nuclear capability and anticipates the extinction of the Jewish state.

Izvor:http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2008 ... l#comments

[turban]

Nije mi cudo za one Tamo sto iz petinih zila negiraju genocid.Nije mi cudo ni to sto ovi nasi(bar bi trebali biti NASI)cim nesto zucnes u smislu Srbi mi ubili i zapalili 12 clanova famelije namah te proglase nacionalistom i fasistom.CUDIM SE SEBI I SVOJOJ TOLERANCIJI I POBJEDI MRZNJE???
Sad ce napad,sto posto...

p.s
Dok god mi budemo dopustali oni ce genocid negirati.

[polara]

Nije mi cudo za one Tamo sto iz petinih zila negiraju genocid.Nije mi cudo ni to sto ovi nasi(bar bi trebali biti NASI)cim nesto zucnes u smislu Srbi mi ubili i zapalili 12 clanova famelije namah te proglase nacionalistom i fasistom.CUDIM SE SEBI I SVOJOJ TOLERANCIJI I POBJEDI MRZNJE???
Sad ce napad,sto posto...

p.s
Dok god mi budemo dopustali oni ce genocid negirati.

Po mom skromnom mišljenju ja bih zabranila nedoraslim umovima bez savesti da uopšte komentarišu svako stradanje ljudi, jer mi se čini da na taj način omalovažavaju i nipodaštavaju nevine žrtve.

[laku noć]

Nije mi cudo za one Tamo sto iz petinih zila negiraju genocid.Nije mi cudo ni to sto ovi nasi(bar bi trebali biti NASI)cim nesto zucnes u smislu Srbi mi ubili i zapalili 12 clanova famelije namah te proglase nacionalistom i fasistom.CUDIM SE SEBI I SVOJOJ TOLERANCIJI I POBJEDI MRZNJE???
Sad ce napad,sto posto...

p.s
Dok god mi budemo dopustali oni ce genocid negirati.

A kako im misliš zabraniti?

[pesak]

ljudi, razni smo..treba biti tolerantan ako je neko dobronameran...i ako nije fasista.

[Maraschino]

Sve dok nema zakona o zabrani negiranja, minimaliziranja...genocida i zrtava genocida, dotle ce samo kreteni, maloumnici i ini sljam da se poigravaju sa najvecim zlocinom koji se desio.
Vrlo cesto i danas cujemo frazu tipa : ""Nakon tragicnih sukoba na ovom prostoru i zlocina koji su se desili..."" ali nikako da izuste pravu definiciju.

[Spliff.Master]

A la Ze Germanz!
Negiranje genocida = zatvor = minimalac 5 godina!
I zdravo!
Al' naravno, zato bi nam bila potrebna jedna funkcionalna drzava

[ld]

Nije mi cudo za one Tamo sto iz petinih zila negiraju genocid.Nije mi cudo ni to sto ovi nasi(bar bi trebali biti NASI)cim nesto zucnes u smislu Srbi mi ubili i zapalili 12 clanova famelije namah te proglase nacionalistom i fasistom.CUDIM SE SEBI I SVOJOJ TOLERANCIJI I POBJEDI MRZNJE???
Sad ce napad,sto posto...

p.s
Dok god mi budemo dopustali oni ce genocid negirati.

haveru,ko god pocne da mi palamudi da je rat zlo,da su svi isti,da moramo da oprostimo,zaboravimo i krenom dalje
mogu samo jedno da kazem,da mi je zao sto taj sto to zagovara nije se zadesio 1995 u julu u srebrenici,pa da iz ,,prve ruke,, se uvjeri u srpsku dobrotu i moralnost
bosnjaci su ,,zaboravili,, sta su im cetnici radili u 2 svj. ratu,pa su djeca i unuci tih cetnika utvrdili u zadnjem ratu
u bratuncu su stradali dvojica brace iz bosnjacke porodice,ubile su ih prve komsije,a tuga je veca sto je njihov otac stradao u 2 svj. ratu od cetnicke ruke
pa dokle bosnjace vise???

[turban]

Izraelske grupe organizovano idu na Wikipediju da promotiraju svoju verziju dogadjaja na bliskom istoku.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9474.shtml

Mogli bi smo i mi bosnjaci nesto slicno uraditi. Nebi bilo tesko napraviti email listu momaka i cura koji bi voljeli da pomognu u sirenju informacije o genocidu nad bosnjacima. Nebi to trebao neko veliki napor. Samo sahat dva sedmicno na Wikipediji.

Ko je zato?

JA

[laku noć]

Izraelske grupe organizovano idu na Wikipediju da promotiraju svoju verziju dogadjaja na bliskom istoku.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9474.shtml

Mogli bi smo i mi bosnjaci nesto slicno uraditi. Nebi bilo tesko napraviti email listu momaka i cura koji bi voljeli da pomognu u sirenju informacije o genocidu nad bosnjacima. Nebi to trebao neko veliki napor. Samo sahat dva sedmicno na Wikipediji.

Ko je zato?

JA

Boga ti spavaš li ti ikako?

[turban]

Jok vala Ja,nema ko da mi pozeli lahku noc...

[laku noć]

Jok vala Ja,nema ko da mi pozeli lahku noc...

[IBM]

da...da.... danas cesto cujemo to: ne gledajmo u proslost, gledajmo u buducnost. Jedan americki komicar ciji se show emituje na CNN i Comedy Central jednom rece: "Whoever says that we should look towards the future and not look back to our past, most probably fucked something up in the past"

[pesak]

Prolazak kroz traumu je bolji put

Janja Beč Neumann
22.04.2008
Žužana Serenčeš
U regionu bivše Jugoslavije i dalje dominira pokušaj potiskivanja ratne prošlosti i zločina počinjenih tokom devedesetih godina, a potiskivanje trauma ne može doneti ništa dobro regionu, već može dovesti samo do ponavljanja zločina - ocenjuje Janja Beč Nojman (Neumann), autorka u regionu jedinog postdiplomskog kursa “Ratni zločini, genocid i sećanje”. Rezultat tog kursa je i knjiga “Pomračenje u podne”, koja je predstavljena u Novom Sadu.

Duboko verujem da je prolazak kroz traumu, umesto poricanja i prećutkivanja mnogo bolji put. Teži put, ali mnogo bolji – kaže priznata članica svetske Asocijacije istraživača i profesora genocida Janja Beč Nojman (Neumann):



"Ovo nije samo postratni region, ovo je postgenocidni region prema važećim kriterijumima međunarodnog krivičnog prava, a ne prema mojoj volji, nečijem mitu ili nečijem snu. Postgenocidni regioni su najdublje traumatizirani regioni. Neprolazak kroz traumu, pojedinačno ili koletkivno, je apsolutno izvanredna, idealna, osnova da se tako nešto ponovi."



U Novom Sadu promovisala je svoju najnoviju knjigu na engleskom jeziku pod naslovom „Pomračenje u podne“, koja je nastala na osnovi jedinstvenog postdiplomskog kursa „Ratni zločini, genocid i sećanje“, kojeg je osnovala pre šest godina i kojeg, zahvaljujući međunarodnoj pomoći, vodi u okviru sarajevskog univerziteta. Simptomatično je da je to jedini kurs takve vrste u celom regionu zemalja bivše Jugoslavije, primećuje autorka i navodi „abecedu“ genocida, po kriterijumima u svetu:



"Prva rečenica je da je genocid zločin države i njenih institucija i struktura, od kada u modernim vremenima govorimo o tome, od jermenskog genocida, Sudana, Darfura pa do danas. Šta razlikuje ratni zločin od genocida? Dva kriterijuma, koja se uzimaju i u međunarodnom krivičnom pravu i u sociologiji. Prvi je da li je u postgenocidnom društvu živa ideologija koja ga je omogućila, da li je živa i posle toga, i drugi, da li se društva posle distanciraju od toga. Distanciranje može biti ne samo pravno, preko međunarodnog suda, već se ono može vršiti na različite načine, medijski, u umetnosti, u nauci, u obrazovanju, u politici itd. - u svetu se svuda isto predaje. Poricanje genocida je zapravo poslednja faza genocida."



Ovaj region, upozorava ona, vekovima nije prošao kroz svoje traume. U kulturi mitova, mitomanija, laganja. U kulturi da se – sve podrazumeva:



"Prvo da vidimo šta se desilo, kada se desilo, kome se desilo, koji su brojevi, koji su počinioci, ko su žrtve - za sve se može naći primer. Kontekst je istorijski, psihološki, sociološki, pravni itd. Treći nivo je žestoka emotivna reakcija, ko uspe da prođe prva dva, a posle toga ide ta žestoka reakcija sa druge strane jer uvek postoje najmanje dve strane. Peti, idealni, nivo bi bio prolazak kroz traumu i zaceljivanje te traume."

Janja Beč Nojman zagovornica je duše i savesti – kaže novosadski književnik Laslo Vegel, autor jednog od tekstova u njenoj knjizi i jedan od predavača na njenom kursu teškog suočavanja:



"Kada sevaju gromovi iz glave uvek se pojavi Janja Beč koja u rukama drži jednu sveću. Za mene ostaće zauvek tajna kako svetlost sveće može biti jača od bleska gromova."



Na nas u svetu gledaju kao na „majstore smrti“, ukazuje još Janja Beč Naojman, dok apeluje da se pokuša sa otvaranjem sličnih kurseva u čitavom regionu:



"Zato što to, sasvim sam sigurna, čak i ako ne uspe, reducira potencijal za nasilje, koji je ovde ogroman, i potencijal za surovost."

http://www.slobodnaevropa.org