Don’t know whether or not you’ve had the chance to look over Edward Herman’s “سریبرینیکا قتل عام کی سیاست,” first posted to ZNet last Thursday, and then circulated around who-knows-how-many other websites since. It is a powerful analysis of the nexus that (let us say) for the past 15 years has existed between (a) the U.S.-dominated NATO-bloc, particularly following its liberation from containment by the old Soviet bloc after the collapse of the Soviet bloc (late 1989) and, indeed, the collapse of the Soviet Union itself (late 1991), on the one hand, and on the other (b) the surviving NATO-bloc’s material and propagandistic exploitation of the wars over the breakup of Yugoslavia, culminating in their propagandistic uses of the fall-evacuation of the Srebrenica enclave ten years ago. But especially the phony moralistic exploitation of these wars by Western propagandists, perhaps the purest expression of which was Christopher Hitchens’ late 1995 assertion that these were wars "between all those who favor ethnic and religious partition and all those who oppose it"—so that if one wanted to be morally hip, and to have one’s work count, one knew which side to take, and how to frame the conflicts. To excerpt the several paragraphs that comprise Herman’s "نتیجہ" (minus the footnotes):
The “Srebrenica massacre” is the greatest triumph of propaganda to emerge from the Balkan wars. Other claims and outright lies have played their role in the Balkan conflicts, but while some have retained a modest place in the propaganda repertoire despite challenge (Racak, the Markale massacre, the Serb refusal to negotiate at Rambouillet, 250,000 Bosnian dead, the aim of a Greater Serbia as the driving force in the Balkan wars), the Srebrenica massacre reigns supreme for symbolic power. It is the symbol of Serb evil and Bosnian Muslim victimhood, and the justice of the Western dismantling of Yugoslavia and intervention there at many levels, including a bombing war and colonial occupations of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. But the link of this propaganda triumph to truth and justice is non-existent. The disconnection with truth is epitomized by the fact that the original estimate of 8,000, including 5,000 “missing”–who had left Srebrenica for Bosnian Muslim lines—was maintained even after it had been quickly established that several thousand had reached those lines and that several thousand more had perished in battle. This nice round number lives on today in the face of a failure to find the executed bodies and despite the absence of a single satellite photo showing executions, bodies, digging, or trucks transporting bodies for reburial. The media have carefully refrained from asking questions on this point, despite Albright’s August 1995 promise that “We will be watching.” That Albright statement, and the photos she did display at the time, helped divert attention from the ongoing “Krajina massacre” of Serbs in Croatian Krajina, an ethnic cleansing process of great brutality and wider scope than that at Srebrenica, in which there was less real fighting than at Srebrenica, mainly attacks on and the killing and removal of defenseless civilians. At Srebrenica the Bosnian Serbs moved women and children to safety, and there is no evidence of any of them being murdered; whereas in Krajina there was no such separation and an estimated 368 women and children were killed, along with many too old and infirm to flee. One measure of the propaganda success of the “Srebrenica massacre” is that the possibility that the intense focus on the Srebrenica massacre was serving as a cover for the immediately following “Krajina massacre,” supported by the United States, was outside the orbit of thought of the media. For the media, Srebrenica helped bring about Krajina, and the Serbs had it coming. The media have played an important role in making the Srebrenica massacre a propaganda triumph. As noted earlier, the media had become a co-belligerent by 1991, and all standards of objectivity disappeared in their subservience to the pro-Bosnian Muslim and anti-Serb agenda. Describing the reporting of Christine Amanpour and others on a battle around Goradze, U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel John Sray wrote back in October 1995 that these news reports “were devoid of any semblance of truth,” that Americans were suffering from “a cornucopia of disinformation,” that “America has not been so pathetically deceived” since the Vietnam War, and that popular perceptions of Bosnia “have been forged by a prolific propaganda machine..[that has] managed to manipulate illusions to further Muslim goals.” That propaganda machine also conquered the liberals and much of the left in the United States, who swallowed the dominant narrative of the evil Serbs seeking hegemony, employing uniquely brutal and genocidal strategies, and upsetting a previous multi-cultural haven in Bosnia—run by Osama bin Laden’s friend and ally Alija Izetbegovic, and with rectification brought belatedly by Clinton, Holbrooke and Albright working closely with Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia! The liberal/left war coalition needed to find the Serbs demons in order to justify imperial warfare, and they did so by accepting and internalizing a set of lies and myths that make up the dominant narrative. This liberal/”cruise missile left” combo was important in helping develop the “humanitarian intervention” rationale for attacking Serbia on behalf of the Kosovo Liberation Army, and in fact preparing the ground for Bush’s eventual basing of his own wars on the quest for “liberation.” The Srebrenica massacre helped make the liberals and CML true believers in the crusade in the Balkans and gave moral backup to their servicing the expanding imperial role of their country and its allies. Former UN official Cedric Thornberry, writing in 1996, noted that “prominently in parts of the international liberal media” the position is “that the Serbs were the only villains,” and back at UN headquarters in the spring of 1993 he was warned: “Take cover—the fix is on.” The fix was on, even if only tacit and built-in to the government-media-Tribunal relationship. It helped make the Srebrenica massacre the symbol of evil and, with the help of Tribunal “justice,” and support of liberals and [cruise-missile leftists], provided a cover for the U.S.-NATO attack on and dismantling of Yugoslavia, colonial occupations in Bosnia and Kosovo, and justification for “humanitarian intervention” more broadly.
۔ درست indeed. And years before the head of the British MI6 told his colleagues about the "intelligence and facts…being fixed around the policy" for very much the same kind of imperial war—contrasting rhetorics aside, of course, the one to be justified by the conjunction of genocide and humanitarian intervention, the other by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. As Cees Wiebes writes in his superb Intelligence and the War in Bosnia 1992-1995 ("4. The Perception and information position of the Western intelligence services," Lit Verlag, 2002-2003, pp. 66-67):
The American services originally adopted a wait-and-see attitude to the conflict in Bosnia. They did not work with black-and-white views on the roles and operating methods of the warring factions; according to the services, the Muslims were also guilty of misdeeds. It was concluded that the Bosnian Muslims were often guilty of frustrating agreements and peace arrangements in the political and military spheres, and that they bore a large responsibility for the poor humanitarian situation in Sarajevo and other areas. At the end of 1994, the CIA in particular performed an about-turn, and the service started to adhere to the Clinton administration’s course more closely. According to a senior US intelligence official, Woolsey resigned from the CIA because he had no working relationship with the President. He had only two semi-private meetings with the President in two years and thus no real direct access to Clinton who was more involved with domestic priorities. Apart from that, Woolsey was not an intimate of the Clinton team. Despite the fact that vice-president Al Gore in November 1994 asked him to stay, Woolsey decided to resign. There is no doubt that the departure of Woolsey, in early 1995 somewhat contributed to the fact of the CIA becoming more political and more hawkish. Later, the CIA was even accused of releasing ‘blatantly distorting’ intelligence products to support the Muslims’ case. However, Woolsey doubts that the CIA was distorting intelligence on this subject but admitted that he had no first-hand knowledge either way.
"کے بارے میں باری" about which Wiebes writes very well may have occurred within the centers of the American "intelligence" community as late as Wiebes reports, but around the Clinton White House, and above all around the American intelligentsia and journalistic communities, it preceded late 1994 by a considerable margin—perhaps by as much as two-and-a-half years. If not longer. The content of this "about-turn," however, couldn’t have been clearer: In the official narrative about the breakup of Yugoslavia, one of the warring factions wore black hats, and the others white hats. With the Great Cowboy in the West wearing the biggest and the whitest hat of all. About which, nothing more needs to be added here. For the rest, read Herman’s analysis. But this is, and has always been, the real سیاست behind the "Srebrenica Massacre." No matter how simplistic. How comic-strip-like. How false. Still. I’ve always been intrigued by what it must be like to live beneath the boot of the kind of Western moral imperialism that we see reaching its climax this month at the Memorial Center Potocari, in the vicinity of Srebrenica, way off in the easternmost tip of the Republika Srpska, where it borders Serbia. Also of great interest to me has been what kind of psycho-historical Groupthink must be at work behind the legions of politicos and intellectuals and moralists and, ultimately, body-counters who, over the past ten years, have impelled the Bosnian Muslims to keep digging up bodies, and the Bosnian Serbs (or Serbs as an entire ethnic group) to keep telling the world that they are truly sorry, and to confess to their criminality. Imagine having this, as a way of public life, shoved down one’s throat for all of these years, culminating with the current spectacles of grieving and commemoration! Cynical, you think? Then you tell me whom it is that keeps the noses of these peoples plowing the dirt of the former Yugoslavia, inhaling the stench of the graves. On this Sunday and Monday in July, 2005, one can’t pick up a newspaper and escape the phenomenon—and this despite the interruption caused by the London bombings last Tuesday. Doubtless a successful example of what one veteran of the wars over Yugoslavia, Rudner Finn, likes to call "گھیر آواز" programming: The development of "messages that will best resonate with critical stakeholders on multiple levels to influence their perceptions about the company and its performance in key markets," as this Washington-based P.R. firm explains the approach it has been using for years. Except that here, the so-called critical stakeholders have always been the Western politicos and moralists—the ones whom, more than anyone else, have a critical stake in the white-hat, black-hat narrative of the breakup of Yugoslavia, and will go to their graves clinging to it. Just as the so-called کمپنی کے is precisely this narrative, precisely this reigning version of the wars there: The version expressed in the quote from Hitchens (above), wherein American-led NATO-bloc arms intervened to make things right—though much too late, in most sub-versions. Henceforth just as they have marched, they will continue to march, good little soldiers all, each in lockstep with the others: The آسٹریلیا. بوسٹن گلوب. کرسچین سائنس مانیٹر. لاس اینجلس ٹائمز. نیو یارک ٹائمز. امریکہ آج. واشنگٹن پوسٹ. بین الاقوامی ہیروالڈ ٹربیون. ٹورنٹو سٹار. فنانشل ٹائمز. گارڈین. آزاد. سنڈے ٹائمز. And so on. Hell. Even the typically reliable نیا سیاستدان has fallen for the white-hat, black-hat script. It seems they simply cannot help themselves. All victims of Groupmorality. All the way around. "Up to 50,000 mourners were expected at the memorial for Europe’s worst massacre since World War Two," رائٹرز is reporting, "among them former U.S. Balkans envoy Richard Holbrooke who brokered the Dayton Accords to bring Bosnia an uneasy peace." (رچرڈ ہالبروک: Now there is a critical stakeholder in the reigning narrative if ever there were one.) "A new mass grave thought to contain the bodies of people killed in the Srebrenica massacre has been found, the Bosnian government has said," the بی بی سی نیوز ورلڈ ایڈیشن reports, by way of adding an exclamation point to Monday’s memorials. The European Parliament, Green Party, and Berlin’s Heinrich Boell Foundation held a conference in Sarajevo on Sunday. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum will devote Monday to a program on the Srebrenica massacre. A document titled "Remembering Srebrenica" has been posted to the website of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Even Amnesty International USA has been sponsoring a paid "Srebrenica Ten Years Later" weblink for the sake of the search engines. These are but a trickle of what’s happening right now. None of them holds a candle to the events scheduled Monday in and around Srebrenica. Not that I believe for one moment that the motive behind any of these memorials, commemorations, and 10th anniversary web-endeavors has had more than two- to three- to maybe five-percent’s worth of the spirit of truth and reconciliation behind them. (Or "transitional justice," to use the even sexier phrase.) Instead, what I think they betray is the depth of the commitment to the reigning narrative—to the black-hats and the white-hats and the avenging powers on high. This—and to Western moral imperialism. Traffic in which still flourishes. Even today. پوسٹ سکرپٹ: The Starboard at Portside Don’t know whether or not you’ve noticed Edward Herman’s letter to Portside, which was placed into circulation some time on Saturday: "2) Re: Kandic and the Serb Video" (July 9). But I for one find it more than a little interesting that Portside has chosen to publish (i.e., to circulate among its listserve, with the Internet’s sky’s the limit beyond this) an intelligent and critical set of comments on Natasa Kandic, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the "Srebrenica Massacre," and the Left’s (for which Portside can serve us as a proxy) decade-and-a-half-long collapse on any and all topics that have touched on the former Yugoslavia, as nothing more important than one of its daily "Tidbits" (or letters to Portside), rather than as one of the daily Portside entries in its own right—in point of fact, how Portside had treated Daniel Williams’ gravely compromised original drawn, of all places, from that leftist bastion the واشنگٹن پوسٹ ("Srebrenica Video Vindicates Long Pursuit by Serb Activist," June 26, 2005). (For the واشنگٹن پوسٹ‘s June 25 original, see "Srebrenica Video Vindicates Long Pursuit by Serb Activist.") And on top of this, within its "Tidbits" for July 9, Portside gave priority to no less than two short and inoffensive letters lamenting the predominance of sports fare within the establishment media, rather than to a critique of power and ideology and the service of "portsiders" to a narrative of the breakup of Yugoslavia wherein emotionalism has been not only allowed, but been لازمی اور اکثر حوصلہ افزا, and typified by the Left’s "taking sides." As if they were watching the New York Yankees play the New York Mets in American Baseball’s World Series. As if the internal wars and grudges then rending the former Yugoslavia were but spectacles staged on behalf of these phony moralists and "internationalists" of the Left, and they, in their great wisdom, rooting for one side in the gladiatorial display, and giving the thumbs-down to the other. So (a) the uncritical, unleftist, and no-better-than reigning-narrative-regurgitating واشنگٹن پوسٹ original receives prominent treatment at Portside, but the highly critical, leftist response-to-the-contrary is given the "Tidbit" treatment; and (b) in a venue wherein lamentations are circulated about the predominance of sports fare and celebrity gossip in the establishment media, yet more lamentations about sports fare are given greater prominence than incisive criticism of perhaps the single most egregiously misrepresented event of the decade of the 1990s. Is Portside حقیقی کے لئے؟
سریبرینیکا اور جنگی جرائم کی سیاست, Srebrenica Research Group, July, 2005 “سریبرینیکا قتل عام کی سیاست,” Edward S. Herman, ZNet, July 7, 2005 "Debating Srebrenica," Edward S. Herman ET اللہ تعالی., ZNet, July7 on "The real story behind Srebrenica," Lewis MacKenzie, ٹورنٹو گلوب اینڈ میل, July 14, 2005 (as posted to the Centre for Peace in the Balkans ویب سائٹ)"Srebrenica, Mon Amour: An Ostracized Narrative," Gilles d’Aymery, ہنس۔, July 18, 2005 "Srebrenica: Prolonging the Wounds of War," David Chandler, Spiked آن لائن, July 20, 2005 "A chronicle of deaths foretold – The Srebrenica massacre," اکانومسٹ, July 7, 2005 "10 Years After Massacre, 2 Top Bosnian Serbs Still Hunted," Nicholas Wood and David Rohde, نیو یارک ٹائمز, July 8, 2005 "Massacre memorial clouded by desire for bloody revenge," Anthony Loyd, ٹائمز, July 8, 2005 "Ten years on, survivors of Srebrenica march again on road to the killing fields," Peter Popham, آزاد, July 9, 2005 "Srebrenica: Lessons of a terrible blunder," Alexander Ivanko, بین الاقوامی ہیروالڈ ٹربیون, July 9, 2005 "Srebrenica: Anniversary of a genocide," Janine Di Giovanni, بین الاقوامی ہیروالڈ ٹربیون, July 9, 2005 "Time is running out for the bad guys," Rosa Brooks, لاس اینجلس ٹائمز, July 10, 2005 "10 Years Later, Tormenting Memories of Srebrenica," David Rohde and Nicholas Wood, نیو یارک ٹائمز, July 10, 2005 "‘Damned’ of Srebrenica bury their dead," Jon Swain, سنڈے ٹائمز, July 10, 2005 "Bystanders To a Massacre; How the U.N. Failed Srebrenica," Edward P. Joseph, واشنگٹن پوسٹ, July 10, 2005 "Unfinished Balkan Business," R. Nicholas Burns, واشنگٹن پوسٹ, July 10, 2005 "10 years on, bungles haunt UN," David Nason, آسٹریلیا, July 11, 2005 "The Three Lessons of Srebrenica," Swanee Hunt, بوسٹن گلوب, July 11, 2005 "Srebrenica, 10 years on – the ‘what ifs’," David Scheffer, کرسچین سائنس مانیٹر, July 11, 2005 "Bosnia is shackled as long as war criminals are free," Javier Solana, فنانشل ٹائمز, July 11 2005 "Srebrenica: The scar of Europe" اداریہ، گارڈین, July 11, 2005 "Lessons from Bosnia in Dealing with an Atrocity" اداریہ، آزاد, July 11, 2005 [$$$$$] "Srebrenica’s Scars May Never Fade," Alissa J. Rubin, لاس اینجلس ٹائمز, July 11, 2005 "Bombshell in the Balkans," Tim Judah, نیا سیاستدان, July 11, 2005 "Bosnian Muslims Retrace Steps of Those Killed in 1995," David Rohde, نیو یارک ٹائمز, July 11, 2005 "The Wages of Denial," Courtney Angela Brkic, نیو یارک ٹائمز, July 11, 2005 "Haunted by 8,000 ghosts," Sandro Contenta, ٹورنٹو سٹار, July 11, 2005 "Though Bosnia’s war is long over, battle lines remain clearly drawn," Beth Kampschror, امریکہ آججولائی 11، 2005 بلقان گواہ، زیڈ نیٹ، 24 مئی 2004 Counting Bodies at the World Trade Center، جون 14، 2004 بوسنیا ہرزیگوینا اور نوآبادیاتی برادری، جون 30، 2004 سریبرینیکا اور نوآبادیاتی برادری، زیڈ نیٹ، 17 اکتوبر 2004 Not-So-Strange Bedfellows، زیڈ نیٹ، 3 جولائی 2005 سریبرینیکا قتل عامجولائی 10، 2005
پوسٹ سکرپٹ (February 15, 2006): For those among you who have never come across it before, there is a relatively new weblog titled:
یقین کرو یا نہ کرو.
ویب سائٹ پر موجود معلومات کے مطابق، یہ بلاگ دسمبر 2005 کے اوائل میں شروع کیا گیا تھا—لہذا یہ صرف دو ماہ سے کچھ زیادہ پرانا ہے۔
پھر بھی۔ وقت پر غور کریں: 31 اکتوبر 2005 کے آغاز کے فوراً بعد گارڈین - چومسکی چیز. (لامتناہی نکات اور جوابی نکات اور الزامات۔) رسمی حل کرنا بوسنیا اور ہرزیگووینا کے خلاف 1992 - 1995 کی جنگوں کے دوران تقریباً 100,000 ہلاکتوں کا تخمینہ لگایا گیا تھا۔ لیکن اب، اہم طور پر، کے لئے کام کرنے والے محققین کی طرف سے ڈیموگرافک یونٹ ICTY میں پراسیکیوٹر کے دفتر کا۔ اسی طرح کا کام سراجیوو میں مقیم ہے۔ تحقیق اور دستاویزی مرکز. اس کے ساتھ ساتھ جسم کی گنتی کے سوالات پر پیدا ہونے والے دوسرے مقابلے۔ اسباب اور نیت۔ تاریخی ریکارڈ۔ (آخرکار اسے کس کو رکھنا ہے؟ اور کون نہیں؟) اور مضحکہ خیز اور سیاسی طور پر حوصلہ افزائی الزامات کا پورا سلسلہ یہ اوورلیپنگ موضوع کے علاقوں پچھلے آٹھ ماہ یا اس سے زیادہ پیدا ہوئے ہیں۔ لیکن ان سب سے بڑھ کر ان سب کے سب سے زیادہ مضحکہ خیز الزامات سے جڑے ہوئے ہیں: یہ کہ واقعی ایک واقعہ بوسنیائی نسل کشی کے طور پر سب سے بہتر تھا۔ (جس کے ذریعے بوسنیائی نسل کشی کے اثبات کرنے والے اور بوسنیائی نسل کشی کے فروغ دینے والوں کا مطلب ہے بوسنیا اور ہرزیگوینا میں جنگوں کے دوران نسلی سربوں کی طرف سے شروع کیا گیا ایک منصوبہ، نہ صرف جنگ میں اپنے دشمنوں کو مارنے اور ان کے دشمنوں کے علاقوں پر قبضہ کرنے اور قبضہ کرنے کے لیے، بلکہ [خالی جگہ پر کریںجیسا کہ تصدیق کرنے والوں اور پروموٹرز کے کیمپ میں کوئی بھی نہیں کر سکا ہے]۔ یا 250,000 لوگ تمام فریقین جنگوں کے دوران مارے گئے، یہ بہت اچھی طرح سے قائم ہے، اتنی اہم ہے، اور اتنی غلط بات ہے، کوئی بھی وہاں ہونے والے واقعات کے حوالے سے 'نسل کشی' کی اصطلاح کے استعمال پر اختلاف نہیں کر سکتا، بغیر کسی دانشور اور اخلاقی جرائم جو ناموں سے چلتے ہیں۔ انکار اور نظرثانی. (تاریخی ریکارڈ کے لیے اس سیاسی نقطہ نظر کی ایک مثالی مثال کے لیے، اور ان لوگوں کو چیلنج کرنے والوں کو ڈرانے کی مہم جو ریکارڈ کو اپنے پاس رکھنا چاہتے ہیں، دیکھیں "دی گارڈین، نوم چومسکی، اور ملوسیوک لابیمارکو اٹیلا ہورے، ہنری جیکسن سوسائٹی، فروری 4، 2006۔ اگرچہ اس قسم کا کام تنہا نہیں ہے۔)
۔ سریبرینیکا نسل کشی بلاگ سے اٹھائے گئے مواد کی دوبارہ پوسٹنگ شامل ہیں۔ سابق یوگوسلاویہ کے لیے بین الاقوامی فوجداری ٹریبونل. نیز دیگر الیکٹرانک ذرائع۔ جیسا کہ مذکورہ بالا مارکو اٹیلا ہورے ("بائیں بازو کے ترمیم پسند، ""چومسکی کی نسل کشی سے انکار، ""دی گارڈین، نوم چومسکی اور ملوسیوک لابی")، بل وینبرگ کا عالمی جنگ 4 رپورٹ ("Z میگزین نسل کشی کی حمایت کیوں کرتا ہے؟")، اور دیگر خوبصورتی ("سریبرینیکا - سچائی کا دفاع، ""ایڈورڈ ہرمن سریبرینیکا میں لاپتہ افراد کی فہرست میں," اور ایک پوسٹ جو جملے کی وضاحت کرنے کا ارادہ رکھتی ہے 'Srebrenica Genocide انکار اور نظر ثانی'، دوسروں کے درمیان). (نیچے دیکھیں، جہاں میں مینو پر اس آخری آئٹم کی ایک کاپی پوسٹ کروں گا۔)
۔ سریبرینیکا نسل کشی بلاگ سات دیگر ویب سائٹس کے لنکس فراہم کرتا ہے (یعنی تجویز کرتا ہے)، بشمول بوسنیائی انسٹی ٹیوٹ, بلقان گواہ، اور ہنری جیکسن سوسائٹی.
آخری ، سریبرینیکا نسل کشی بلاگ کینیڈا میں ڈینیل نامی ایک ساتھی چلاتا ہے (ای میل: [ای میل محفوظ] )۔ اگرچہ اس شریف آدمی پر کوئی اور چیز دستیاب نہیں ہے جسے میں تلاش کرنے میں کامیاب رہا ہوں۔
"بوسنیا اور ہرزیگوینا میں 1992-1995 کے مسلح تنازعات میں جنگ سے متعلق اموات: پچھلے تخمینوں اور حالیہ نتائج کی تنقید"ایوا تبیو اور جیکب بیجک، یورپی جرنل آف پاپولیشن، جلد 21، جون، 2005، صفحہ 187-215
بوسنیا اور ہرزیگوینا میں آبادی کے نقصانات 92-95 پروجیکٹ, تحقیق اور دستاویزی مرکز, سرائیوو
"نسل کشی تعداد کا معاملہ نہیں ہے۔" امیر سلجاگک نے سراجیوو میں مقیم ریسرچ اینڈ ڈاکومینٹیشن سنٹر، بوسنیائی انسٹی ٹیوٹ نیوز اینڈ اینالیسس، 19 جنوری 2006 کے مرساد ٹوکاکا کا انٹرویو کیاسریبرینیکا اور جنگی جرائم کی سیاست (ہوم پیج)، سریبرینیکا ریسرچ گروپ
"بوسنیائی نسل کشی کو فروغ دینے والےZNet، 15 فروری 2006
ایف وائی اے ("آپ کے آرکائیوز کے لیے"): ایک آئٹم سے اٹھایا گیا۔ سریبرینیکا نسل کشی بلاگ. "مطلوبہ الفاظ" کی فہرست جو بالکل نچلے حصے میں دوبارہ تیار کی گئی ہے وہ ستم ظریفی سے بالاتر ہے۔ ان کو آپ کے لیے یہاں دہرانے کے لیے: "Srebrenica Genocide, Srebrenica Massacre, Srebrenica Genocide Denial, Srebrenica Massacre Denial, Srebrenica Genocide Revisionism, Srebrenica Massacre Revisionism, Srebrenica Genocide Deniers, Srebrenica Massacre Deniers, Bosniacs, Bosniaks, Muslim Muslim, Bosniaks مسلمان، بوسنیائی، مسلمان۔" کسی نہ کسی طرح، مصنف نے شیطان کا ذکر کرنے میں کوتاہی کی۔—براہ کرم اس بات کا خیال رکھیں کہ یہ غلطی دوبارہ نہ ہو۔
* http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2006/02/srebrenica-genocide-denial-revisionism.html#links
09 فروری، 2006
سریبرینیکا نسل کشی سے انکار اور نظر ثانی: مختصر تعریف
Srebrenica Genocide انکار، جسے Srebrenica Genocide revisionism بھی کہا جاتا ہے، یہ عقیدہ ہے کہ Srebrenica نسل کشی واقع نہیں ہوئی، یا خاص طور پر: کہ ارد گرد سے کہیں کم 8,100 Srebrenica Bosniaks کو بوسنیائی سرب آرمی نے ہلاک کیا (5,000 سے کم تعداد، اکثر 2,000 کے قریب عام طور پر حوالہ دیا جاتا ہے)؛ کہ بوسنیائی سرب فوج کی جانب سے سربرینیکا کے بوسنیاکس کو ختم کرنے کی مرکزی طور پر منصوبہ بندی کی گئی کوشش کبھی نہیں ہوئی تھی۔ اور/یا یہ کہ قتل و غارت گری کے مقامات پر کوئی اجتماعی قتل نہیں ہوا تھا۔
جو لوگ اس عہدے پر فائز ہیں وہ اکثر مزید دعویٰ کرتے ہیں کہ بوسنیاکس اور/یا مغربی میڈیا جانتے ہیں کہ سریبرینیکا کی نسل کشی کبھی نہیں ہوئی، اس کے باوجود وہ اپنے سیاسی ایجنڈے کو آگے بڑھانے کے لیے سریبرینیکا کی نسل کشی کا بھرم برقرار رکھنے کے لیے ایک بڑی سازش میں مصروف ہیں۔ ان خیالات کو معروضی مورخین قابل اعتبار نہیں مانتے۔
Srebrenica نسل کشی کے منکر تقریباً ہمیشہ Srebrenica Genocide revisionists کہلانے کو ترجیح دیتے ہیں۔ زیادہ تر علماء کا کہنا ہے کہ آخری اصطلاح گمراہ کن ہے۔ تاریخی ترمیم پسندی تاریخ کے مطالعہ کا ایک قابل قبول حصہ ہے۔ یہ تاریخی حقائق کا دوبارہ جائزہ ہے، جس میں نئی دریافت شدہ، زیادہ درست، یا کم متعصب معلومات کے ساتھ تاریخ کو اپ ڈیٹ کرنے کی طرف توجہ دی جاتی ہے۔ اس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ تاریخ جیسا کہ اسے روایتی طور پر بتایا گیا ہے شاید پوری طرح درست نہ ہو۔ تاریخی تجدید پسندی کی اصطلاح کا دوسرا مطلب ہے، سیاسی مقاصد کے لیے تاریخ کا ناجائز استعمال۔ مثال کے طور پر، Srebrenica Genocide سے انکار کرنے والے (یا Srebrenica Genocide revisionists جیسا کہ وہ بلایا جانا پسند کرتے ہیں) اپنے نتائج کو ثابت کرنے کی کوشش کرنے کے لیے عام طور پر تاریخی ریکارڈوں کا غلط استعمال یا نظر انداز کرتے ہیں۔
اگرچہ تاریخی نظر ثانی قبول شدہ تاریخ کا از سر نو جائزہ ہے، اسے نئی دریافت شدہ، زیادہ درست، اور کم متعصب معلومات کے ساتھ اپ ڈیٹ کرنے کی طرف نظر رکھتے ہوئے، سریبرینیکا نسل کشی کے منکر/نظرثانی کرنے والے اسے اپنے پہلے سے تصور شدہ نظریہ کی حمایت میں ثبوت تلاش کرنے کے لیے استعمال کرتے رہے ہیں۔ , ٹھوس حقائق کو چھوڑنا.
Srebrenica Genocide کے اکثر انکار کرنے والے Genocide کی اصطلاح کو مسترد کرتے ہیں اور اس بات پر اصرار کرتے ہیں کہ وہ Srebrenica Massacre سے انکار نہیں کرتے، اور "نظرثانی پسند" کہلانے کو ترجیح دیتے ہیں۔ اس کے باوجود ان پر عام طور پر Srebrenica Genocide کے منکر کے طور پر لیبل لگایا جاتا ہے تاکہ انہیں تاریخی نظر ثانی کرنے والوں سے الگ کیا جا سکے اور کیونکہ ان کا مقصد تاریخی شواہد اور طریقہ کار کو ایمانداری کے ساتھ استعمال کرنے کے بجائے، ٹھوس حقائق کو چھوڑ کر، Srebrenica Genocide کے وجود سے انکار کرنا ہے۔
۔ لیمز ، بوسنیاک ، مسلمان ]
ZNetwork کو مکمل طور پر اس کے قارئین کی سخاوت کے ذریعے مالی اعانت فراہم کی جاتی ہے۔
عطیہ کیجیئے