Borrowed from Srebrenica Genocide Blog.


The former Operations Officer for the Belgrade-based Hague Tribunal’s Liaison Office — and the former ‘human rights investigator’ who is on record for denying the Srebrenica genocide — is back to his old tricks again. We find James Luko on NolanChart’s web site in a self-described profile titled “Confessions of an Ethnic Cleanser.” (1)

To quote from his own words, “Actually I’ve been quite quiet these years about all these issues of the OTP, ICTY [the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia], Srebrenica, UN and ICTY corruption.” In his comments, he denied that genocide took place in Srebrenica and he announced that he would testify in Radovan Karadzic’s case. Here is what he said:

“The crimes of Srebrenica indeed included-extra-judicial killings and ethnic cleansing by Serb forces. I agree with those charges and they were in my reports and for which I will later testify at Karadzic’s hearing. However, I do not agree… that Genocide was intended or committed.” (2)

Imagine this discredited genocide denier, James Luko, testifying at the trial of Radovan Karadzic and pretending to be fair and balanced? Based on his history of distortions, he is a perfect fit for the Karadzic defense. We hope Prosecutors first Google his name before they cross-examine him. According to his web site, he is writing a book regarding his ‘experiences’ with the UN and the Tribunal titled “Inside the Hague Tribunal” – yet another genocide denial garbage, certainly not an academic resource.


This morbidly pro-Serb activist, the former “human rights investigator” was so biased that he even filed false reports back to the U.N. trying to deny that genocide ever took place in Srebrenica. James Luko is also a man who attempted to equalize Bosniak suffering in the besieged Sarajevo with that of the Serbs who kept the city under the siege and killed 10,000 – 15,000 of its residents, 1500 of them children (photo of dead children in Sarajevo morgue, killed by Serbs during the siege of Sarajevo).

It is important to note that James Luko does not posses academic skills, experience and credentials that would enable him to judge/interpret what does and what doesn’t constitute a case of genocide; he certainly never worked as an international judge. In this regard, he is incompetent. Consider the following two statement by James Luko:

“In my first report to Geneva, to the UN Centre for Human Rights, that Srebrenica, specifically was NOT Genocide for the fact that the Serb military collected and sent most women and children to Bosniak controlled territory. By no defination can this be labelled Genocide.” (3)

In support of his genocide denial diatribe, he used one of the weakest arguments available:

“The genocide will be interpreted ‘BROADLY’ to encompass ethnic cleansing elements to make the charge stick as I fully agree that by sparing most women and children- Srebrenica simply does not qualify for the generic idea and concept of what genocide is.” (4)

Let’s review some facts. First of all, the ICTY’s definition of what constitutes genocide is not “BROAD” but “very narrow.” For example, the Court still has not ruled that genocide occured in municipalities other than Srebrenica. Second of all, women and children were not spared during the Srebrenica massacre, as James Luko would want us to believe. Women and children were forcibly expelled from the enclave, many of women were mistreated and raped. Many boys were killed, many traumatized. (see the account of a survivor of the massacre – “a very young boy emerged from the heap of bodies, covered in blood and mangled flesh“). Also see the account published by Serbian journalist Snezana Vukic at the time of the Srebrenica genocide, on July 18, 1995:

“Zarfa Turkovic says she watched through half-closed eyes, pretending to sleep, hoping she would not be next, as four Bosnian Serb men raped a 28-year old Muslim woman… ‘Two took her legs and raised them up in the air, while the third began raping her. People were silent, no one moved. She was screaming and yelling and begging them to stop. They put her a rag into her mouth, and then we were just hearing silent sobs coming from her closed lips. When they finished, the woman was left there.'” (5)

Furthermore, in the Krstic Appeal ruling, the Hague Tribunal revealed why Serbs massacred only men and boys:

31. As the Trial Chamber explained, forcible transfer could be an additional means by which to ensure the physical destruction of the Bosnian Muslim community in Srebrenica. The transfer completed the removal of all Bosnian Muslims from Srebrenica, thereby eliminating even the residual possibility that the Muslim community in the area could reconstitute itself. The decision not to kill the women or children may be explained by the Bosnian Serbs’ sensitivity to public opinion. In contrast to the killing of the captured military men, such an action could not easily be kept secret, or disguised as a military operation, and so carried an increased risk of attracting international censure. (6)

(For more facts about the rapes of women during the Srebrenica massacre, see our article, titled: “Were men and boys the only victims of the Srebrenica genocide?“)

Blinded by his conviction that genocide never took place in Srebrenica, James Luko continues to use cheap and already highly discredited arguments in which he attempts to dispute the numbers of the killed in Srebrenica. Here is what he said:

“The scale of killings in Srebrenica, well, yes, the 8,000 figure is of course just an exaggerated number from incomplete and duplicate lists, which was VERY common and not entirely the fault of agencies like UNHCR and ICRC. How many bodies does ICTY have ? Well in reality, perhaps 1,500-2,000 separate bodies identified- and of those, approximately 400-500 show evidence of execution… massive crimes took place- but 8,000 ? Can’t be proven and highly unlikely. But, as you know, when dealing with this issue- the victors need to work with large numbers.” (7)

James Luko apparently does not know (or doesn’t want to know) that all duplicate victim’s names had already been removed from the list of missing, according to the highly respected Hague Tribunal’s expert Ewa Tabeau. (8) Furthermore, the DNA results of the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) support an estimate of 8,100 Srebrenica genocide victims. So far, the identities of 6,186 genocide victims have been revealed by the DNA analysis. The DNA was extracted from these bone and blood samples. Additionally, approximately 4,000 DNA-identified bodies have so far been laid to rest at the Srebrenica Genocide Memorial in Potocari.

Consider this distorted statement by James Luko:

“I can also confirm that our UN Office in Bosnia was regularly reporting the direct reports of Bosniak attacks on Serb villages around Srebrenica, but we were repeatedly ignored.” (9)

As a matter of the fact, between 1992 and 1995, militarized Serb villages around Srebrenica had been used to attack and destroy nearby Bosniak villages around Srebrenica, as well as to launch brutal attacks on Srebrenica. (10) Serb village of Kravica had a large cache of weapons and was used to stage attacks on Srebrenica and nearby Bosniak villages. Furthermore, Serbs used their villages around Srebrenica to block humanitarian aid coming into the Bosniak enclave, which caused Bosniaks to start dying from starvation and engage in counter-attacks for the purpose of obtaining food and demilitarizing heavily armed Serbs around Srebrenica. According to the U.N. Report (1999) about the Fall of Srebrenica:

“A third accusation leveled at the Bosniak defenders of Srebrenica is that they provoked the Serb offensive by attacking out of that safe area. Even though this accusation is often repeated by international sources, there is no credible evidence to support it. Dutchbat personnel on the ground at the time assessed that the few “raids” the Bosniaks mounted out of Srebrenica were of little or no military significance. These raids were often organized in order to gather food, as the Serbs had refused access for humanitarian convoys into the enclave. Even Serb sources approached in the context of this report acknowledged that the Bosniak forces in Srebrenica posed no significant military threat to them. The biggest attack the Bosniaks launched out of Srebrenica during the more than two years which is was designated a safe area appears to have been the raid on the village of Visnjica, on 26 June 1995, in which several houses were burned, up to four Serbs were killed and approximately 100 sheep were stolen. In contrast, the Serbs overran the enclave two weeks later, driving tens of thousands from their homes, and summarily executing thousands of men and boys. The Serbs repeatedly exaggerated the extent of the raids out of Srebrenica as a pretext for the prosecution of a central war aim: to create geographically contiguous and ethnically pure territory along the Drina, while freeing their troops to fight in other parts of the country. The extent to which this pretext was accepted at face value by international actors and observers reflected the prism of ‘moral equivalency’ through which the conflict in Bosnia was viewed by too many for too long.” (11)

After being confronted with the above facts, James Luko responded the following:

“In this case, I think the details of the village attacks, back and forth, Bosniak vs. Serb- is now irrelevant, it was a dirty war. UN Operation Posts cleary recorded attacks by both sides.” (12)

Additionally, James Luko’s distortions have already been rebuted by the Trial Judgment in the Naser Oric case. The Oric judgment makes it clear that Serb villages around Srebrenica were heavily militarized bases from which Serbs launched brutal attacks on Bosnian Muslim villages, as well as on the town of Srebrenica itself. As stated in the Judgment, quote:

“Between April 1992 and March 1993, Srebrenica town and the villages in the area held by Bosnian Muslims were constantly subjected to Serb military assaults, including artillery attacks, sniper fire, as well as occasional bombing from aircrafts. Each onslaught followed a similar pattern. Serb soldiers and paramilitaries surrounded a Bosnian Muslim village or hamlet, called upon the population to surrender their weapons, and then began with indiscriminate shelling and shooting. In most cases, they then entered the village or hamlet, expelled or killed the population, who offered no significant resistance, and destroyed their homes. During this period, Srebrenica was subjected to indiscriminate shelling from all directions on a daily basis. Potočari in particular was a daily target for Serb artillery and infantry because it was a sensitive point in the defence line around Srebrenica. Other Bosnian Muslim settlements were routinely attacked as well. All this resulted in a great number of refugees and casualties.” (13)

According to the Judgment, the Bosnian Muslim villages around Srebrenica were totally unprepared for war:

“In comparison, it appears that the Bosnian Muslim side did not adequately prepare for the looming armed conflict. There were not even firearms to be found in the BosnianMuslim villages, apart from some privately owned pistols and hunting rifles; a few light weaponswere kept at the Srebrenica police station.” (14)

The Judgment makes it clear that Serb village of Kravica was a military base from which Serbs launched deadly attacks on neighbouring Bosnian Muslim villages and town of Srebrenica itself. The Bosniak counter-attack on Kravica on the 7 January 1993 followed as a result of Serb blockade of humanitarian aid and constant attacks on nearby Bosnian Muslim villages. According to the Judgment:

The fighting intensified in December 1992 and the beginning of January 1993, when Bosnian Muslims were attacked by Bosnian Serbs primarily from the direction of Kravica and Ježestica. In the early morning of the 7 January 1993, Orthodox Christmas day, Bosnian Muslims attacked Kravica, Ježestica and Šiljkovići. Convincing evidence suggests that the village guards were backed by the VRS [Bosnian Serb Army], and following the fighting in the summer of 1992, they received military support, including weapons and training. A considerable amount of weapons and ammunition was kept in Kravica and Šiljkovići. Moreover, there is evidence that besides the village guards, there was Serb and Bosnian Serb military presence in the area. The Trial Chamber is not satisfied that it can be attributed solely to Bosnian Muslims. The evidence is unclear as to the number of houses destroyed by Bosnian Muslims as opposed to those destroyed by Bosnian Serbs. In light of this uncertainty, the Trial Chamber concludes that the destruction of property in Kravica between 7 and 8 December 1992 does not fulfil the elements of wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages not justified by military necessity.” (15)

The Judgment also confirms that Bosniak refugees in the besieged enclave started dying from starvation caused by the Serb blockade of humanitarian aid. As a result, Bosniaks had to counter-attack Serb military bases around Srebrenica to obtain much needed food and other necessities for the survival:

“Between June 1992 and March 1993, Bosnian Muslims raided a number of villages and hamlets inhabited by Bosnian Serbs, or from which Bosnian Muslims had formerly been expelled. One of the purposes of these actions was to acquire food, weapons, ammunition and military equipment. Bosnian Serb forces controlling the access roads were not allowing international humanitarian aid – most importantly, food and medicine – to reach Srebrenica. As a consequence, there was a constant and serious shortage of food causing starvation to peak in the winter of 1992/1993. Numerous people died or were in an extremely emaciated state due to malnutrition.” (16)

We could go on and on rebutting outright lies promoted by James Luko, but he doesn’t deserve more of our time since all of his genocide denial arguments have already been discredited not just by us, but also by the Hague Tribunal, independent human rights organizations, and survivors of the massacre.

James Luko is simply a man who has reduced his life for the purpose of genocide denial. Currently, he makes living by selling wine over the internet and doing some consulting work in Beijing China. (17)

References / Footnotes:

(1) http://www.nolanchart.com/author1111.html

(2) http://www.nolanchart.com/article7012.html

(3) Ibid.

(4) Ibid.

(5) http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2009/08/serbs-raped-bosniak-women-in-potocari.html

(6) http://www.icty.org/x/cases/krstic/acjug/en/krs-aj040419e.pdf

(7) See footnote #2

(8) Conflict in Numbers, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia,

(9) See James Luko’s comment (#6) agreeing with the genocide denial article written by Ari Rusila, http://arirusila.cafebabel.com/en/post/2009/07/19/Srebrenica-again-Hoax-or-Massacre

(10) http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2009/07/serb-villages-around-srebrenica.html

(11) Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly resolution 53/35, The Fall of Srebrenica, section: B. Role of Bosniak forces on the ground, see excerpts here:

(12) See footnte #2

(13) Naser Oric judgment, http://www.icty.org/case/oric/4

(14) Ibid.

(15) Ibid.

(16) Ibid.

(17) “Luko Wines” by James Luko http://www.lukowines.com/



INTRO: Genocide denier and radical Serbian ultranationalist, Nebojsa Malic, now claims that “the very attempt to call what happened in Srebrenica ‘genocide’ ought to be an insult to the… victims of the Holocaust.” In fact, his statement is an insult to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum that recognizes Srebrenica Genocide. It is also an insult to the Jewish Holocaust survivors, like ELLIE WIESEL and SAMUEL R. HARRIS, who also recognize Srebrenica genocide and condemn war criminals like Radovan Karadzic. No wonder a long time Jewish friend of ours described Nebojsa Malic as “insensitive pig.”


Nebojsa Malic - Genocide Denier and Radical Serbian UltranationalistDiscredited genocide denier and an amateur ‘historian,’ Nebojsa Malic (photo), is back to his old tricks again. As a long-time apologist for Serb(ian) war crimes, Malic acts as a parrot for shameless Belgrade propaganda.

Malic does not have any PhD qualification in history, He has never held an academic post, published his work in an academic journal, or even visited an archive. For the purpose of self-promotion, he alleges that he “had exposure to diplomatic and media affairs in Sarajevo,” but our sources in Sarajevo could not confirm his so called “exposure” to anything except numerous racist web sites that enjoy republishing his propaganda.

Since 2000, unqualified Nebojsa Malic has been tirelessly writing for Antiwar.com – a website where conspiracy theorists and Srebrenica genocide deniers come together to rewrite the history, and condemn the “West” for being “Anti-Serb.” In his mind, Serbs and Serbia are so “important” that the “West” had to conspire against them.

In his latest genocide denial article, titled “Matter of Opinion,” Malic claims that the Srebrenica genocide case rests on only one witness, namely Drazen Erdemovic. To be exact, “the ICTY’s entire case on Srebrenica rests on the testimony of one man,” clueless Malic alleges in his article.

But, the facts tell a different story. In a landmark genocide case involving Radislav Krstic, more than 100 Srebrenica genocide witnesses were called to testify (see
Case Information Sheet). Since then, at least seven (7) other Serbs were convicted on genocide charges by the Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina with international judges presiding.

To prove his “one witness” argument, Malic provided a link to John Laughland’s article in which Laughland reviewed a book of an obscure Bulgarian author Germinal Civikov. In his book review, Laughland cited Jonathan Rooper as an authority on Srebrenica. What a joke. One can notice a circle of genocide deniers quoting each other as sources – how convenient. Both Laughland and Rooper are well known supporters of Milosevic-Karadzic apologist camp. Furthermore, they are shameless Srebrenica genocide deniers. Like Malic, they have no credibility and no academic journal would even take their opinions into consideration.

John Laughland is a member of the so called “British Helsinki Human Rights Group,” which is not a genuine human rights organization. Despite its name, the organization is not affiliated to the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights. Laughland’s organization appears to have fallen on hard times recently, with its funding falling by nearly 99% after 2001. A possible reason is suggested by The Economist, which reports that “the group lost almost all its supporters when it threw its weight behind people like Mr Milosevic.”

Malic’s weak arguments are followed by a string of half-truths and distortions. He blames Bosniak victims – who found themselves trapped in the Srebrenica ghetto – for using the enclave to attack “surrounding Serb villages constantly” and for not demilitarizing. However, according to the United Nations’ findings, the Serbs were asked to withdraw their heavy weapons before the Bosniaks gave up their weapons. Serbs never demilitarized around Srebrenica. Heavily militarized Serb villages around Srebrenica were used as bases for attacks on Srebrenica. In order to prolong the suffering of innocent victims, Serbs around Srebrenica would barricade Bosnian Muslim women, children, and elderly men in abandoned houses and then set them on fire alive – see photo gallery of burned Bosnian Muslim civilians in 1992 (3 years before Serbs committed the genocide!).

Recently, Srebrenica survivors commemorated 17th anniversary of the Bosnian Serb attacks on Srebrenica. Serbs started massacring Bosnian Muslim civilians in May 1992. This was more more than three years before the 1995 Srebrenica genocide, read here.

Malic is troubled because Srebrenica Genocide Blog – at the request of our Jewish readers – published historical facts about Serbia’s Nazi past and Serbian involvement in both the Holocaust of Jews (read here) and the genocide of Bosnian Muslims in World War II (read here). To this day, Serbian Nazi Chetnik supporters, like Nebojsa Malic, refuse to acknowledge the Serbian involvement in the holocaust of Jews in Serbia, as well as Serbian involvement in World War II genocide of Bosnian Muslims (see 1943 genocide of Bosniaks in and around Srebrenica).

Nebojsa Malic is so blinded by a radical Serbian ultra-nationalism that he declares Srebrenica genocide mass graves “nonexistent.” Furthermore, Malic claims that “the very attempt to call what happened in Srebrenica ‘genocide’ ought to be an insult to the documented, systematically exterminated victims of the Holocaust.” In fact, his statement is an insult to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum that recognizes Srebrenica Genocide. It is also an insult to the Jewish Holocaust survivors, like Ellie Wiesel and Samuel R. Harris, who also recognize Srebrenica genocide and condemn war criminals like Radovan Karadzic.

As a sideline, it is important to note that the ICTY found the acts of genocide were perpetrated not only in Srebrenica, but also elsewhere in Bosnia (example: Krajisnik case). However, in Krajisnik’s case, the intent – notoriously difficult to prove – had not been established. With respect to 100,000 dead figure, it only includes known direct deaths. It is not a final number of dead in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The ICTY-backed Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo is preparing a new research that would take into account indirect deaths and population losses, which could amount to another 100,000 victims (or over 200,000 total).

Little does Nebojsa Malic know. On 26 September 1997 Germany handed down the first Bosnian Genocide conviction. Nikola Jorgic was found guilty by the Düsseldorf, Germany, Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) on 11 counts of genocide. His appeal was rejected by the German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court) on 30 April 1999. He was sentenced to four terms of life imprisonment for his involvement in the Bosnian Genocide. Jorgic challenged the verdict at the European Court of Human Rights, arguing the German court did not have jurisdiction over the case. On July 12th 2007 – responding to Jorgic’s appeal – European Court of Human Rights upheld Bosnia Genocide judgment and a life term for a Nicola Jorgic for committing acts of genocide in Bosnia during the ethnic cleansing in 1992.

In his “Matter of Opinion” article, unqualified Malic attacks the reality of Bosnian concentration camps by repeating old denial arguments produced by an obscure communist magazine known as the “Living Marxism.” The magazine’s self-proclaimed “investigative journalist” Thomas Deichmann (who had no training in journalism whatsoever) served as an apologist for the Serbian war crimes in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The same defunct pro-Milosevic magazine claimed that the pictures of emaciated Bosniaks and Croats in concentration camps were fake. The magazine failed to prove “nonexistence” of concentration camps in Bosnia and the ITN lawsuit forced them into bankruptcy.

The existence of the Serb-run concentration camps – in which Bosniaks and Croats were tortured and killed – was confirmed by numerous witnesses and survivors at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Furthermore, the authenticity of concentration camp photographs was also confirmed by the UN-backed ICTY forensic experts. See our photo gallery: Remembering Concentration Camps in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Also see, Jerusalem Post remembers Bosniaks and Croats in Serb-operated Concentration Camps in Bosnia.

Considering that Nebojsa Malic refers to the U.N.-backed ICTY as the “Hague Inquisition” and “the illegitimate ICTY,” we wonder what else can be said about Nebojsa Malic’s credibility? What else can be said about a genocide denier; a man without credibility; a man blinded by a radical Serbian ultranationalism; a man without appreciation for historical facts; a man disconnected with reality. No wonder a long time Jewish friend of ours described Nebojsa Malic as “insensitive pig.”

Opinions are cheap. Everybody has them, yet they are not worth much. On the other hand, Srebrenica genocide is not a matter of anybody’s opinion; it’s a judicial fact recognized first by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and subsequently by the International Court of Justice. End of story.

About Bosnian Genocide deniers in Congressional hearing Friday, Apr 10 2009 

Hearing :: The Western Balkans: Challenges for U.S. and European Engagement












Congressman Chris Smith who pointed out to the important issue of Bosnian Genocide Deniers.

Congressman Chris Smith

REP. SMITH: But the concern that I have now is that there is a – almost similar to what we see with Holocaust deniers, there is a Srebrenica denial movement. I recently went online and read for hours some of the garbage that is being promoted by some – it’s hard to say who they are – that Srebrenica never occurred. I was with Ray Sirich (ph) two years ago when a re-internment occurred for those who were brutally butchered in Srebrenica, a so-called U.N. safe haven – and was again greatly impressed by his restraint, by his sense of inclusion. You know, the form of Islam that he believes so passionately in embraces others, does not exclude others, and I do happen to believe that he is a model, frankly, that needs to be emulated because he has done such a wonderful job. In looking through some of the garbage on the Internet dealing with Srebrenica, there was a picture, Mr. Chairman, when President Clinton – so former president at the time in 2003 – was in Srebrenica, and right below the picture it says, this never happened, and there’s Ray Sirich standing with President Clinton, as I did two years later with him at a re-internment ceremony. So I’m very concerned that that myth-maker, which has real consequences in the real world, might negatively impact and lead to – and I was glad to hear you say you don’t think it will go back to fighting, but it could go back to some very nasty things. And if you would speak to that, your view on Ray Sirich, if you wouldn’t mind giving that, and secondly on constitutional reform. Like, I think, members of this commission, I believe passionately that, you know, we’re looking at a Bosnia that’s in a Dayton limbo. They simply – you know, the legislators have power but it has been so carefully circumscribed by the rules that they can’t write laws, and we need constitutional reform. We need – you know, for that democracy to break out of the blocks and really come into its own, they have to be able to write laws. And small minorities can object and thereby kill any reforms that that wonderful country needs. And so if you could speak to the constitutional reform issue but also Ray Sirich, the work that he’s done, perhaps, and this whole issue of denial of the horrific events that occurred in Srebrenica.

Peddy Ashdown

LORD ASHDOWN: Thank you, Congressman. You raise two very important points. First of all, I mean, it is a regrettable fact that you will always find denialists, but they tend to be a minority. However, I have to say that you are absolutely right in identifying the baleful effect of this on those who suffered. Now, let’s be very clear: All three ethnicities suffered during the war. There were black deeds done by all sides, but none to the extent of Srebrenica, and indeed of the other killings perpetrated on the Muslim community, largely but not exclusively by the Serbs. It’s not to say the Muslims in Bosnia necessarily had cleaner hands. They were done on the other side as well. But I think my old friend Cliff Bond, who I see sitting behind you, used to always tell me that about 80 percent of those crimes were committed by Serbs. Now, that’s not a reason to condemn the whole nation there of Serbs. They’re a very great nation indeed, and in many ways people regard them as being the fulcrum of the Balkans. But it is the past and we need to recognize the past. So I agree with you about your concern about that.


Taken with permission from Srebrenica Genocide Blog.


Response to discredited genocide denier Stephen Karganovic, aka: Stefan Karganovic – founder of the so called “Srebrenica Historical Project”

PHOTO: The 1995 Srebrenica genocide resulted in a mass scale ethnic cleansing and forcible deportations of 25,000-30,000 people, as well as summary executions of at least 8372 men, boys, and elderly.

Reading time: ~15 minutes (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)
Stephen Karganovic (aka: Stefan Karganovic), founder of the so called “Srebrenica Historical Project”, is one of the most manipulative genocide deniers we’ve seen so far. As a man with questionable credibility, he praises anti-semitic extremists as credible sources to “prove” that genocide in Srebrenica had not happened. He served as a defence team’s interpreter for a convicted war criminal Momcilo Krajisnik. Last year, Karganovic was the organizer of a genocide denial conference in Banja Luka that was attended by Rajko Kuzmanovic (President of Bosnian Serb entity known as Republika Srpska) and Milorad Dodik (Premier). Both of them offered their full political and financial support for Karganovic’s “Srebrenica Historical Project” farce. Now, Karganovic’s “Srebrenica Historical Project” is responsible for the propaganda stunt of filing a civil action with the court in an attempt to portray Serbs as the equal to the genocidal suffering of Bosniak population at Srebrenica under siege (1992-1995).


On his web site, Stephen Karganovic accuses this blog of being “Moslem-sponsored Srebrenica Genocide Blog.” The founder of this blog is not a Muslim – as Karganovic claims, nor is this blog sponsored by anyone. The nationality of the blog’s editor is none of Karganovic’s business, especially because Karganovic associates himself with people who hate Jews.

Karganovic tries to discredit one of our articles titled “We Will Never Forget and We Will Never Forgive.” The question is: Why should we forget the Srebrenica genocide? Why should we offer our forgiveness to the genocidal criminals like Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic who murdered at least 8,372 Bosniaks and forcibly expelled 25,000-30,000 people from the U.N. “protected enclave in a mass scale ethnic cleansing? Jewish people would certainly not “forgive-and-forget” the Holocaust, so why should Bosniaks forgive and forget the Srebrenica genocide?

Is there a point in arguing with Karadzic’s sympathizers, followers, and apologists? According to the Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel: “No point in arguing – the pigheaded Karadzic denied it all.” Srebrenica genocide deniers are no different than their”role model,” Radovan Karadzic, who is currently on trial for genocide at the Hague.


Stefan Karganovic’s lack of respect for DNA science is appaling. On his genocide denial web site, conveniently titled “Srebrenica Historical Project,” he alleges the following:

Out of the 8000 victims who were allegedly shot by the army of the Republic of Srpska, there is no relevant expert evidence for even 10% to prove that. The material cited by the Moslem side as evidence would not pass muster with any professionally responsible crime lab, let alone a serious forensic examination in a court of law in the civilized world.”

Karganovic’s allegations are rather laughable. The forensic examinations and DNA identifications of Srebrenica genocide victims have been performed by the ICMP’s most advanced DNA system in the world (see press release). The world renowned International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) is a scientific organization of the highest repute in its field. Currently, it has three forensic facilities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, two of which focus on human remains related to the fall of Srebrenica (Podrinje Identification Project and Lukavac Reassociation Centre). It employs a staff of 170 scientists, forensic anthropologists, and researchers. The forensic examination data and DNA results from the ICMP have been extensively used as evidence at the UN-based International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) [aka: the World Court]. The ICMP is also on record for assisting in the identification of September 11th terrorist attack victims in New York, Hurricane Katrina victims in Louisiana, Typhoon Frank victims in Philippines (on Interpol’s request) and many other high profile cases.

Karganovic goes on to claim that “Serbian civilian victims… have been processed according to the highest internationally recognized standards,” while forensic examinations of Bosniak victims “would not pass muster with any professionally responsible crime lab.” Of course, his self-serving allegations are nonsense. Each exhumed victim of the Srebrenica genocide has gone through extensive forensic and DNA analysis by the world renowned ICMP labs with the most advanced DNA system in the World. On the other side, war-time Serb casualties from Bosnia and Croatia had been ‘processed’ and ‘investigated’ mostly by radical Serbian ultra-nationalists in Belgrade. For example, military pathologist Zoran Stankovic – a well known Serbian ultra-nationalist and a personal friend of indicted Serb war criminal Ratko Mladic. Stankovic’s ultanationalist forensics were gratefully accepted by media outlets like Glas Javnosti and Politika – owned and operated by the members of a right-wing ultra-nationalist Serbian Radical Party. In 2007, Glas Javnosti misused photos of Srebrenica genocide mass graves and portrayed them as graveyards Serbs who died as a result of the so called “Muslim-Croat terror.”

Unqualified Karganovic distorts the facts behind forensic evidence, without providing any sources or evidence for his dubious claims. Here is what he said:

“If a public hearing on the merits of the resolution had been held, the parliamentary committee would undoubtedly have been informed that 8000 Muslims were not lined up and shot and that the utmost number of victims of the Srebrenica massacre in July of 1995 is around 3400, assuming that each forensic report is taken at its face value as proof of execution, something that is not even theoretically possible. That is because slightly over 50% of those post-mortem reports refer to body fragments, such as a jaw or a femur, which zealous ICTY forensic experts elevated to the status of ‘cases’ but from which no credible conclusions about the cause and manner of death can be drawn. In fact, in about 50% of the cases, ICTY forensic specialists themselves stated in their reports that they are unable to determine the cause and manner of death, notwithstanding their obvious motivation to present satisfactory results to the institution which hired them.”

Karganovic’s arguments are classic examples of genocide denial that can be applied to all genocides that occured in the history of human kind, including the Holocaust. According to Kathryne Bomberger, the director general of the International Commission on Missing Persons, DNA samples support the number of at least 8,000 Srebrenica genocide victims. “We can tell this based on the rate of blood-sample collection. You have to collect at least three different family members’ blood samples for every missing person…. In 1999 we had hit a brick wall in making identifications—if there was no body there was no crime. After [former U.S. secretary of State] Madeleine Albright said [the United States] had satellite photos showing mass graves, the perpetrators went out and dug the bodies and moved them. We found one body in four different locations 50km [30 miles] apart,” she said. What kind of qualification does Karganovic have to challenge the science of DNA forensics? None.

On his web site, Karganovic refers to “several thousands” Serb victims in villages around Srebrenica – a number that had been grossly inflated and found to be inaccurate by the UN-endorsed Research and Documentation Center, ICTY’s Office of the Prosecutor, and Human Rights Watch. In reality, between 1992-1995, Serbs suffered 151 civilian casualties around Srebrenica (not “several thousands” as claimed by Karganovic) . During the same period, Bosniaks (Muslims) suffered approximately 1,000 victims as a result of the Bosnian Serb terror from militarized villages around Srebrenica – (no need to remind our readers that this mass scale murder of Muslim civilians in and around Srebrenica occurred well before the July 1995 genocide).


On his “Srebrenica Historical Project” web site, Stefan Karganovic devoted a lengthy page to his activist-friend – Dmitar Stoyanov, Bulgarian EU parliament deputy – praising him of saving “the honor of the European Parliament” for his opposition to the Srebrenica Genocide Resolution. Stoyanov is better known as hater of Jewish people or anti-semite. According to IsralNetDaily, Stoyanov said that “Jews have too much media influence and exploit economic crises in poor countries.”

Karganovic’s associate, Dmitar Stoyanov, told Britain’s Daily Telegraph that, “There are a lot of powerful Jews, with a lot of money, who are paying the media to form the social awareness of the people. They are also playing with economic crises in countries like Bulgaria and getting rich. These are the concrete realities.” Stoyanov and his anti-semitic Attack Party are also known for their hatred of Bulgaria’s Roma, or Gypsy population, which they label as criminal and lazy. The Attack Party’s leader, Volen Siderov, who has made numerous anti-Jewish statements, finished second in the first round of Bulgarian presidential elections last October with 21.5 percent of the vote.

Karganovic is a man of many talents, a habitual liar of the highest caliber, and a man without credibility. For example, he praises Jewish people when he sees fit to exploit their suffering for his own political gain. He accuses those who stand up against genocide denial of performing, what he calls, “a pathetic attempt to hitch a ride on the coattails of Shoah.” At the same time, he honors and associates himself with one of the worst anti-semites, like Dmitar Stoyanov. What a hypocrite!
The Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL), describes Stoyanov as “the youngest member of the European Parliament – [who] used the occasion of ITS’s foundation to launch a bitter attack on what he called the ‘Jewish establishment.‘” ADL reported on its web site that “Stoyanov has also refused to retract comments in which he railed against ‘powerful Jews.'”


In his carefully crafted argument, he presents sugar-coated version of the Srebrenica genocide denial by evoking emotions of Serb casualties to introduce – what he calls – the ‘positive aspect’ of his motivations:

“What we wish to achieve – and now we pass on to the positive aspect of our answer – is to ensure that victims from around Srebrenica during the three year period, 1992-1995, receive the same notice and the same recognition as Moslem victims from Srebrenica during the three day period in July of 1995. Period. That is all. Has anyone anything to say against this?”

First of all, Karganovic’s attempt to label 151 civilian Serb casualties in villages around Srebrenica as victims of genocide is unacceptable and factually wrong. Karganovic’s case for giving them the “same recognition” is based on deliberate and motivated misrepresentations promoted by his own genocide denial “Srebrenica Historical Project” farce. Second of all, there can never be any equivalence or comparison between the individual war crimes and the monstrous crime of genocide. The extreme gravity of genocide makes it the crime of all crimes. Third of all, isn’t it time for Karganovic to recognize genocide at Srebrenica and stop lecturing us what we should and should not do? If Karganovic wants to be taken more seriously (which is impossible considering his public denials of Srebrenica genocide), then why doesn’t he acknowledge that Serbs around Srebrenica slaughtered approximately 1,000 Bosniaks between 1992 and 1995? And we are talking about events before the 1995 Srebrenica genocide.

People like Karganovic are more than willing to accept the version of history that suites their pre-conceived conclusions. This version of ‘history’ is excessively promoted by the Serbian Radical Party establishment. According to Human Rights Watch findings published on July 11, 2006:

“The ultra-nationalist Serbian Radical Party launched an aggressive campaign to prove that Muslims had committed crimes against thousands of Serbs in the area. The campaign was intended to diminish the significance of the July 1995 crime, and many in Serbia were willing to accept that version of history.

But as the Oric judgment makes clear, the facts do not support the equivalence thesis. Take the events in the village of Kravica, on the Serb Orthodox Christmas on January 7, 1993, for example. The alleged killing of scores of Serbs and destruction of their houses in the village is frequently cited in Serbia as the key example of the heinous crimes committed by the Muslim forces around Srebrenica. In fact, the Oric judgment confirms that there were Bosnian Serb military forces present in the village at the time of attack.”

Commenting on the allegations of Serb victims around Srebrenica, the Office of the Prosecutor within the U.N.-based International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia cautioned that Serb casualties around Srebrenica cannot be counted as victims in the same way as victims of the Srebrenica genocide:

“Military or Police casualties from combat should not be considered victims in a criminal investigation context, in the same way people are victims from war crimes, such as summary executions. Before speaking about the whole area of Podrinja, including at least the municipalities of Srebrenica, Bratunac, Vlasenica and Skelani, I would comment on the various figures circulating around the Kravica attack of January 1993. The figures circulating of hundreds of victims or claiming that all 353 inhabitants were ‘virtually completely destroyed do not reflect the reality.”


Stefan Karganovic’s logic is based on a false assumption that Srebrenica massacre was a result of the so called Serb ‘retaliation’ for “earlier crimes” that Bosniaks allegedly committed against the ‘demilitarized’ Serbs around Srebrenica. At least, that’s how Karganovic sees his own version of history, based on his own opinion – not facts. But, the reality is different.

What Karganovic refuses to mention is the fact that Serbs stationed in villages around Srebrenica never demilitarized, even though they were required to demilitarize as per the demilitarization agreement. Militarized Serb-held villages around Srebrenica served as the bases from which Serbs launched military attacks on the Enclave – killing Bosnian Muslim civilians at will. For example, in 1993, Serbs from militarized villages around Srebrenica massacred 62 Bosniak children in Srebrenica, and wounded 152 (video link). In a period between 1992 and 1995 (and these events preceded genocide), Serbs in villages around Srebrenica killed approximately 1,000 Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) civilians, torched all Muslim villages in the area, and committed mass scale ethnic cleansing, rapes and murders in the Podrinje region.

In response to Karganovic’s allegation, here is a short excerpt from United Nations’ General Assembly Resolution 53/35, quote:

“A third accusation leveled at the Bosniak defenders of Srebrenica is that they provoked the Serb offensive by attacking out of that safe area. Even though this accusation is often repeated by international sources, there is no credible evidence to support it. Dutchbat personnel on the ground at the time assessed that the few ‘raids’ the Bosniaks mounted out of Srebrenica were of little or no military significance. These raids were often organized in order to gather food, as the Serbs had refused access for humanitarian convoys into the enclave. Even Serb sources approached in the context of this report acknowledged that the Bosniak forces in Srebrenica posed no significant military threat to them. The biggest attack the Bosniaks launched out of Srebrenica during the more than two years which is was designated a safe area appears to have been the raid on the village of Visnjica, on 26 June 1995, in which several houses were burned, up to four Serbs were killed and approximately 100 sheep were stolen. In contrast, the Serbs overran the enclave two weeks later, driving tens of thousands from their homes, and summarily executing thousands of men and boys. The Serbs repeatedly exaggerated the extent of the raids out of Srebrenica as a pretext for the prosecution of a central war aim: to create geographically contiguous and ethnically pure territory along the Drina, while freeing their troops to fight in other parts of the country. The extent to which this pretext was accepted at face value by international actors and observers reflected the prism of “moral equivalency” through which the conflict in Bosnia was viewed by too many for too long.”


Throughout his genocide denial web site, Karganovic re-publishes outdated and already discredited diatribes written by science-fiction experts advocating Srebrenica genocide denial. No new names here. It’s an old circle of deniers that quote themselves. To name a few: Christopher James – Slobodan Milosevic apologist; Tara McCormack – writer for SPIKED, the successors of Revolutionary Communist Party’s LM/Living Marxism that participated in denial of existence of Serb-operated Concentration Camps in Bosnia (see photos of Bosniak and Croat civilians in Concentration Camps); Lewis MacKenzie – alleged concentration camp rapist who was never at Srebrenica and therefore not someone who argues on the basis of an adequately informed position (MacKenzie’s Srebrenica genocide denial debate is based on a wilful disregard of ICTY deliberations). On Karganovic’s web site, we also find a group of other heavily unreliable sources, like George Bogdanich, Diana Johnstone, Phillip Corwin, Carl Savich, Michael Parenti, Edward Herman, Jonathan Rooper, and other revisionists and apologists for war crimes and genocide.

Karganovic refers to Srebrenica genocide as “the phony Srebrenica narrative,”and labels Serbian human rights activists as “Self-Hating Serbs.” The target of Karganovic’s rage is projected toward respected Serbian human rights activists with an international repute, namely Natasa Kandic, Biljana Kovacevic-Vuco, and Sonja Biserko. He also targets other respected Serb journalists, like Svetlana Lukic and Svetlana Vukovic. Vojvodina political activist Nenad Canak, who argued in support of a change in Serbia’s criminal code to make genocide denial a criminal offense, can also find himself on Karganovic’s “Self-Hating Serbs” list.

Furthermore, Karganovic goes on to condemn legal findings of the Srebrenica genocide handed down by the two highest World Courts (ICJ and ICTY), arguing in his own stupidity that “the truth needs no laws to support it.” His version of the “truth” is, of course, manufactured and promoted by the Serbian ultra-nationalist circles. Karganovic’s “truth” is based on unsubstianted personal opinions, a cricle of sources with no credibility (we already mentioned some of them above), manipulations, fallacies, and distortions used in Srebrenica genocide denial purposes. In other words, his version of the “truth” is a bold faced lie.


Stefan Karganovic published a gallery of Serb gravestones he claims to be located in Srebrenica. He labeled all photos with one word: Srebrenica. In fact, these gravestones are located at a Serb Military Cemetery in a nearby ethnically cleansed town of Bratunac (bordering Srebrenica municipality). The cemetery contains gravestones of Serb soldiers (Chetniks), most of whom died attacking “safe haven” area of Sarajevo. They died under the leadership of two Bosnian Serb terrorists, namely Gen. Stanislav Galic and Gen. Dragoljub Milosevic.

The Bosnian Serb Gen. Stanislav Galic had been convicted on terrorist charges for his involvement in terrorizing citizens of Sarajevo during the longest siege in the modern European history. Galic was sentenced to life imprisonment by the U.N. based court at the Hague. Another Serb General, Dragoljub Milosevic, had also been convicted on terror charges and sentenced to 33 years in jail for his involvement in Sarajevo terror campaign.

According to the Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo (research data certified by the experts from the U.N.-based International Criminal Tribunal):

“Under the Dayton Peace Accords, the suburbs of Sarajevo held by the VRS [Bosnian Serb Army] were to be re-integrated into the city of Sarajevo . The then leadership of the RS called on the local Serb population to leave Sarajevo and even take the graves of their loved ones with them. In fact, such a large majority followed the instructions that parts of the city of Sarajevo remained deserted for months. The remnants of their loved ones have been buried in Bratunac after the war, but their deaths are presented as the result of actions taken by the Bosnian Army units from Srebrenica.”


Karganovic’s goal is to make grossly inflated numbers of Serb casualties around Srebrenica “the subject of an official finding by a foreign court,” namely a local Dutch civil court which is unqualified to pass judgments of international importance, especially judgments that concern grave violations of war crimes in another country. Only the UN-sponsored International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia can deliberate serious issues of war crimes in the Former Yugoslavia and make factual verdicts based on the international law. The local Dutch court that Karganovic filed his lawsuit with is the same local court that dismissed the case filed by Mothers of Srebrenica Association against the Netherlands for the failure to prevent Srebrenica genocide in 1995. Karganovic’s case will also likely be dissmissed – and he knows it – but he will use bits and pieces of information from the trial transcripts to support his discredited claims and continue misinforming the public.


To prove his point about the Serbian ‘victimhood’ in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Stephen Karganovic uses the so called “UN Document” titled “Memorandum on War Crimes and Crimes of Genocide in Eastern Bosnia (communes of Bratunac, Skelani and Srebrenica) committed against the Serbian population from April 1992 to April 1993.” This document, filed under “A/46/171 and S/25635“, does NOT contain any official U.N. conclusions. The copy of this document is used on many Srebrenica genocide denial web sites, one of them being “Emperor’s Clothes” (web site run by Jared Israel, long-time Milosevic’s apologist and disgraced Srebrenica Genocide denier). The document had been carefully drafted by Slobodan Milosevic’s “Yugoslav State Commission for War Crimes and Genocide” and submitted to the U.N. on June 2 1993 by Serbian ambassador Dragomir Djokic. At the time, Djokic had worked in concert with then-Bosnian Serb “Iron Lady” Biljana Plavsic, professor of biology whose ‘scientific research’ included such genetic discoveries as her theory that “Muslims are genetically deformed”.

Atrocity, memory, photography: imaging the concentration camps of Bosnia – the case of ITN versus Living Marxism Tuesday, Mar 24 2009 

READ more on the first and most famous Bosnian Genocide Denial case:  Living Marxism/Thomas Deichmann :

Taken from   http://www.david-campbell.org

Atrocity, memory, photography: imaging the concentration camps of Bosnia – the case of ITN versus Living Marxism

Among the many images of atrocity that emerged from the Bosnian War, the picture of Fikret Alic and others imprisoned at the Trnopolje camp in the Prijedor region stands out. Taken from a 1992 British television report that detailed the role of camps such as Omarska and Trnopolje in the ethnic cleansing strategy of the Bosnian Serb authorities, the image of Alic became the focal point of a controversy about how the Bosnian camps were represented, and the political impact and purpose of those representations. Resulting in a legal clash between Independent Television News (ITN) and Living Marxism (LM) magazine, this controversy is the subject of a two-part article, the full text of which can be seen here.

In Atrocity, Memory, Photography — part 1, the allegations concerning the filming of the Trnopolje inmates are considered in detail. In Atrocity, Memory, Photography — part 2 the argument moves beyond the specifics of the case and the camp to an exploration of the historical, political and visual context in which those specificities are located. This involves understanding the significance of the camps in terms of the Bosnian War and the history of the concentration camps, as well as discussing the issue of photography and the Holocaust to question how particular atrocities are represented. The articles conclude with the issue of intellectual responsibility and the politics of critique in cases such as these.

This is a theme taken up by David Walls’ important article on Project Censored’s claims about these images, which can be read here. Walls’ article drew responses from some of the revisionists we criticise, and he has posted this debate on his site.

The 1992 ITN news reports that are discussed in my articles can be seen on the Atrocity and Memory — Video page on this site. The images from the articles can be seen in the gallery below. These come mostly from the ITN news reports, but the work of other photographers — such as Ron Haviv — shows similar pictures from Trnopolje.

For updates on what happened to Fikret Alic, see the 4 August 2002 and 27 July 2008 articles in The Observer for details.


We use this opportunity to thank David Campbell for his research.

BGDW Editorial Team


What do the so called “anti-terror experts” like Darko Trifunovic, Dzevad Galijasevic, and Domagoj Margetic have in common?
Report by E. Huremovic in the Sedmica supplement: “Experts in Demonizing Bosniaks.” Originally published in the Bosnian-language daily Dnevni avaz, Sarajevo, 7 Feb 2009.

For a long time now, the fictitious “Southeast Europe Expert Team for Fight against Terrorism” has been intentionally spreading incredible lies about Bosnia-Hercegovina and the Bosniaks through public advertising and organizing various kinds of “expert” gatherings. The Bosniaks have been continuously and systematically associated with terrorism, whereas Bosnia-Herzegovina is frequently referred to as an Al-Qa’idah terrorist base and a country that supports terrorist activities worldwide.

Bosnian Genocide Denier: Darko Trifunovic

Indeed, they are not just ordinary anti-terrorism experts, although all three of them have for years been falsely presenting themselves as such. At the mention of their names, people usually make a brush-off gesture, inadvertently calling them absolute idiots. Although this remark is not far from the truth, it appears that what the three men are doing is, after all, being taken rather lightly.

Besides the fact that their announcements and statements are being readily accepted by the Serb media, they often find their way to the world’s most respectable media outlets. Thus, the Australian press has recently published a statement by Dzevad Galijasevic that Bosniaks tied to Al-Qa’idah are fighting alongside Hamas in Gaza.

Editors of Australian newspapers, of course, have no clue who Dzevad Galijasevic is. His statement appears authentic to an average reader because it was made by a Bosniak. One should also bear in mind that last year, the team’s mastermind, Darko Trifunovic, was prevented at the last moment from delivering a lecture at a conference on security attended by the interior ministers of EU member countries.

Iranian Interests

Their action strategy is rather simple and well proven. They employ the standard Goebbels method that a lie repeated a hundred times becomes a truth in order to demonize Bosniaks. The compiling of a list of all the lies they have uttered would require at least three editions of this newspaper. However, in order to get a picture of the manner in which this “expert team” operates, some of them will need to be mentioned.

Thus, for example, it has been constantly repeated that the recruitment of terrorists takes place in mosques, and that mostly young people and shahids’ [martyrs] children are being recruited. Further, [they claim] Bosnia-Herzegovina is part of the network of organized international terrorism; the September 11 attacks on the New York Towers were masterminded in Bosnia-Herzegovina; top Bosniak politicians knew of the attacks but failed to notify the United States. It is also claimed that “about 12,000 terrorists possess B-H documents.”

For that reason, Trifunovic, Margetic, and Galijasevic have lately been focusing intensively on the case of Vjekoslav Vukovic, the arrested B&H assistant security minister. In this they have surpassed even themselves by accusing Croatia, besides B&H, of supporting terrorism. They claim that Vukovic is the victim of trumped-up charges, because “his investigations had uncovered the logistics channels and political hierarchy of the B-H terrorist structure. Those channels lead straight to Zagreb and Sarajevo politicians and their ties during the war of the 1990s’.” These “experts” further claim that Tarik Sadovic [B&H security minister] and Tomislav Karamarko [Croatian interior minister] had set Vukovic up. Karamarko is, careful now, an Iranian spy, and his father-in-law Osman Muftic, former Croatian ambassador in Tehran, acts as his liaison.

The trio has devoted part of its activities to the “Iranian threat in the Balkans.” In addition, engaged in promoting Iranian interests, among others, is none other than Croatian President Stjepan Mesic.

Why are Trifunovic, Galijasevic, and Margetic doing so, for whom, for what purpose, and who is funding their “expert team?”

Private Lawsuit

Their goal is clear – to try to vindicate the crimes committed against Bosniaks through demonizing them and constantly emphasizing their “terrorist inclinations.” Thus, the genocide, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing become “legitimate,” as the fight against terrorists. Also, any action against Bosniaks – [whom they refer to as] Islamic terrorists – becomes justified, now and in the future.

Nobody in Bosnia-Herzegovina has thus far reacted to the constantly spread lies. In Croatia it was done immediately, as reported by local media, by Minister Karamarko, who, in pursuance of his duty, filed a lawsuit for spreading fabrications and upsetting propaganda, and announced a private lawsuit for libel.

When the content of what the “experts” are publishing is analysed, it becomes clear that their mentors should be sought among the Serb intelligence and security structures, to which Trifunovic is directly linked. Their work is probably funded from this source. Another source of funding, at least an indirect one, could be the RS [Serb Republic] government, whose Prime Minister Milorad Dodik is advised by Dzevad Galijasevic.

Karadzic’s Defender, Dodik’s Adviser, and Tudjman’s Youth on the Same Mission

Darko Trifunovic is a self-styled expert on Islamic terrorism. After obtaining a fake identity card in Brcko, he worked for the B-H Mission to the United Nations. He is the author of the RS government’s disgraceful report which impudently denied the Srebrenica genocide, claiming that only 110 soldiers were killed in this town.

He also distinguished himself in defending war criminal Radovan Karadzic, and even offered to present the journalists with “documents proving that he is innocent.” Besides denying the Srebrenica genocide, his favourite topic is the “white Al-Qa’idah.”

Dzevad Galijasevic became known across the former Yugoslavia after the notorious “Mosevac” scandal, after which the UDB [State Security Administration] got a faithful servant. After the war, as a member of the Party for B-H, he became mayor of Maglaj, and in Bocinja he “acquired experiences with the mujahidin.” He is an adviser to the RS prime minister, and presents himself as an expert, political scientist, sociologist… He no longer even tries to conceal that he works for the Serb intelligence agencies.

Domagoj Margetic, chairman of the Croatian Youth at the time of Franjo Tudjman, is a person with a pathological urge to expose himself in the media. Neither the Croatian newspapers, nor any of the respectable media outlets publish his articles. Therefore he is forced to post his pieces on the Internet. The Hague tribunal sentenced him for disclosing sealed transcripts of Croatian President Stjepan Mesic’s testimony. He was also sentenced for business fraud.

SOURCE: Report by E. Huremovic in the Sedmica supplement: “Experts in Demonizing Bosniaks.” Originally published in the Bosnian-language daily Dnevni avaz, Sarajevo, 7 Feb 2009.

Bosnian Genocide Denier: Noam Chomsky Saturday, Mar 7 2009 

Chomsky’s Genocidal Denial

By Marko Attila Hoare
November 23, 2005

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2

In the realm of politics, there are those of us who wear our hearts on our sleeves: proud of what we stand for, we are not afraid to state our positions as clearly as possible, so there is no danger of misunderstanding; we call a spade a spade, and are ready to face the music. On the other hand, there are those who are embarrassed by their own position: they dissemble; muddying the waters so that what they really think is vague and hidden; when confronted by those who recognise them for what they are, they lash out in fear and shame, denying what everyone knows to be the truth.

Two very interesting parallel cases were highlighted in the Guardian newspaper on 17 November. It was reported that David Irving was arrested in Austria for the crime of Holocaust denial. Irving is well known as a Holocaust denier and Hitler apologist, yet when accused of this by the historian Deborah Lipstadt, he attempted to sue her for libel, resulting in his crushing courtroom defeat. Yet he apparently remains ashamed to accept the label that he has inevitably earned. According to the Guardian: ‘Mr Irving has said he does not deny Jews were killed by the Nazis, but challenges the number and manner of Jewish concentration camp deaths. He has questioned the use of large-scale gas chambers to exterminate the Jews, and has claimed that the numbers of those who perished are far lower than those generally accepted. He also contends that most Jews who died at Auschwitz did so from diseases such as typhus, not gas poisoning.’ In other words, lacking the moral courage to say proudly ‘Yes, I deny the Holocaust !’, Irving seeks refuge in the claim that he is merely concerned with the accuracy of details and interpretation. Thus, the Holocaust denier does not merely deny the Holocaust; he denies his own denial. Of course, no rational person would accept such a plea at face value.

On the same day (17 November), a new twist emerged in another saga of genocide-denial: the Guardian printed a grovelling apology to Noam Chomsky for a none-too-flattering interview with him carried out by the award-winning journalist Emma Brockes, published by the Guardian on 31 October, in which Brockes cites Chomsky as having said that the Srebrenica massacre of 1995 was ‘probably overstated’ and was not even an actual massacre. Chomsky prides himself on being a resolute champion of freedom of speech; on this ground, he has defended the right of Holocaust-deniers to publish what they want; and condemned Britain’s libel laws. Yet faced with Brockes’s exposure of his position, he and his circle of fans retreated from their pro-free-speech position, and organised a campaign of denunciation of Brockes, bombarding the Guardian with letters of complaint, and eventually bullying this spineless newspaper into issuing an unequivocal apology and retraction.

In his letter of complaint to the Guardian, published on 2 November, Chomsky writes: ‘As for her [Brockes’s] personal opinions, interpretations and distortions, she is of course free to publish them, and I would, of course, support her right to do so, on grounds that she makes clear she does not understand.’ Yet as a result of the Chomskyite campaign against Brockes, the Guardian readers’ editor reported on 17 November: ‘The Guardian has now withdrawn the interview from the website.’ Just fancy that ! More shamefully still, the Guardian also apologised for having published a letter by Kemal Pervanic, a survivor of the Serb concentration-camp Omarska, alongside Chomsky’s on 2 November. Pervanic said he was ‘shocked by some of the views of Noam Chomsky in the article by Emma Brockes’s.’ Yet in the words of the Guardian readers’ editor’s grovelling piece of self-criticism: ‘While he has every sympathy with the writer [Pervanic], Prof Chomsky believes that its publication was designed to undermine his position, and addressed a part of the interview which was false… With hindsight it is acknowledged that the juxtaposition has exacerbated Prof Chomsky’s complaint, and that is regretted.’ So much for respecting the right of a concentration-camp survivor to state his opinion.

The irony is all the greater, as the Brockes interview revolved around Chomsky’s defence of the writer Diana Johnstone, allegedly on the grounds of supporting freedom of speech. In 2003, the left-wing Swedish magazine Ordfront published an interview with Johnstone, which repeated her revisionist, genocide-denying views of the Bosnian war. This provoked massive outrage on the part of members of Ordfront’s editorial board and readers, leading to resignation of the editor and a public apology by the magazine for the pain it had caused to Bosnian genocide survivors. Johnstone’s Swedish publisher apparently withdrew its agreement to publish her book. This, in the eyes of Chomsky, consisted of a violation of Johnstone’s ‘freedom of speech’, though nobody had prevented her from disseminating her views through other magazines or publishers; indeed, her book has been published in the UK by Pluto Press, and her articles are available all over the internet, should anyone wish to read them. Nor, it should be said, was Johnstone murdered, tortured or driven out of her home, like hundreds of thousands of Bosnian citizens in the 1990s, whose rights Chomsky has never got round to championing. But assuming the right of a Western author not to have her writings rejected by publishers on political grounds is a more worthy cause than the right of Balkan untermenschen to life and limb, it remains to be seen whether Chomsky’s fellow left-wing libertarians will engage themselves in defence of Brockes as forthrightly as they did in defence of Johnstone.

What was it about Brockes’s interview that so rattled Chomsky ? Chomskyite ire focussed on the question-and-answer headline that introduced the interview:

Q. [Brockes]: Do you regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated ?

A. [Chomsky]: My only regret is that I didn’t do it strongly enough.

This was a paraphrase, rather than a literal quotation, and one that was written by the newspaper rather than by Brockes herself, and for which she therefore cannot be held responsible. Nevertheless, it accurately summed up the essence of the matter: Chomsky had supported Johnstone, who claimed that the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated. In his open letter to the Guardian of 13 November, Chomsky claimed it was simply a matter of defending freedom of speech: ‘The truthful part is that I said, and explained at length, that I regret not having strongly enough opposed the Swedish publisher’s decision to withdraw a book by Diana (not ‘Diane,’ as the Guardian would have it) Johnstone after it was bitterly attacked in the Swedish press… In the interview, whatever Johnstone may have said about Srebrenica never came up, and is entirely irrelevant in any event, at least to anyone with a minimal appreciation of freedom of speech.’

Chomsky therefore claimed his defence of Johnstone’s freedom of speech had been misrepresented as denial of the Srebrenica massacre. Indeed, Brockes’s portrayal of Chomsky’s alleged denial of Srebrenica was at the heart of Chomsky’s complaint. According to Brockes, Chomsky claimed ‘that during the Bosnian war the ‘massacre’ at Srebrenica was probably overstated.’ Brockes elaborated thus on Chomsky’s style: ‘Chomsky uses quotations marks to undermine things that he disagrees with and, in print at least, it can come across less as academic than as witheringly teenage; like, Srebrenica was so not a massacre.’ Chomsky’s outraged response was that ‘with five minutes research on the internet, any journalist could find many places where I described the massacre as a massacre, never with quotes. That alone ends the story.’ The Guardian readers’ editor accepted the validity of Chomsky’s complaint, and threw in an apology to Johnstone for good measure: ‘Ms Brockes’s misrepresentation of Prof Chomsky’s views on Srebrenica stemmed from her misunderstanding of his support for Ms Johnstone. Neither Prof Chomsky nor Ms Johnstone have [sic] ever denied the fact of the massacre.’

The big question is, of course, does Chomsky really deny the Srebrenica massacre ? Or, if he does not deny it outright, does he put such a spin on it that he denies it to all intents and purposes ?

Johnstone, for her part, denies it to all intents and purposes. Her book, Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions (London: Pluto Press, 2002) puts the words ‘Srebrenica massacre’ in quotes (p. 106). She then goes on to argue: ‘In trying to understand what happened at Srebrenica, a number of factors should be taken into account.’ These are, she argues, that Srebrenica and other ‘safe areas’ had ‘served as Muslim military bases under UN protection’; that the ‘Muslim military force stationed in Srebrenica – some 5,000 men under the command of Naser Oric, had carried out murderous raids against nearby Serb villages’; that ‘[Bosnian President] Izetbegovic pulled Naser Oric out of Srebrenica prior to the anticipated Serb offensive, deliberately leaving the enclave undefended’; and that ‘Insofar as Muslims were actually executed following the fall of Srebrenica, such crimes bear all the signs of spontaneous acts of revenge rather than a project of ‘genocide’’. Furthermore: ‘Six years after the summer of 1995, ICTY forensic teams had exhumed 2,631 bodies in the region, and identified fewer than 50. In an area where fighting had raged for years, some of the bodies were certainly of Serbs as well as of Muslims. Of these bodies, 199 were found to have been bound or blindfolded, and must reasonably be presumed on the basis of the material evidence to have been executed.’ She concludes: ‘War crimes ? The Serbs themselves do not deny that crimes were committed. Part of a plan of genocide ? For this there is no evidence whatsoever.’ (pp. 109-118).

To sum up Johnstone’s position on Srebrenica: she blames everything that happened there on the Muslims; claims they provoked the Serb offensive in the first place; then deliberately engineered their own killing; and then exaggerated their own death-toll. She denies that thousands of Muslims were massacred; suggesting there is no evidence for a number higher than 199 – less than 2.5% of the accepted figure of eight thousand. And she eschews the word ‘massacre’ in favour of ‘execution’ – as if it were a question of criminals on Death Row, not of innocent civilians. It is as if she were to claim that less than 150,000 Jews, rather than six million, had died in the Holocaust; that the Jews had provoked and engineered the Nazi killings; that these killings had been ‘executions’; and that the Jews had then exaggerated their death toll. She is ready to excuse the Srebrenica killings as retaliation for Oric’s earlier killings of Serb civilians – but does not mention that Oric’s crimes took place long after the war had already begun and Serb forces had begun slaughtering Muslims all over Bosnia. She does not mention how Srebrenica became an ‘enclave’ in the first place: through Serb aggression against, and conquest of, East Bosnia in 1992, and the killing and expulsion of the Muslim population that this involved – against which the Srebrenica Muslims were temporarily able to hold out as an ‘enclave’. All in all, this can reasonably be called denial; insofar as it is not complete denial – she recognises less than 2.5% of the massacre – it is an apologia for the Serb forces. The Guardian readers’ editor’s claim that ‘Neither Prof Chomsky nor Ms Johnstone have [sic] ever denied the fact of the massacre’ is, therefore, at least half untrue.

But what about the other half, i.e. Chomsky ? An open letter to Ordfront, signed by Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Arundhati Roy and others, stated: ‘We regard Johnstone’s Fools’ Crusade as an outstanding work, dissenting from the mainstream view but doing so by an appeal to fact and reason, in a great tradition.’ In his personal letter to Ordfront in defence of Johnstone, Chomsky wrote: ‘I have known her for many years, have read the book, and feel that it is quite serious and important.’ Chomsky makes no criticism here of Johnstone’s massacre denial, or indeed anywhere else – except in the Brockes interview, which he has repudiated. Indeed, he endorses her revisionism: in response to Mikael van Reis’s claim that ‘She [Johnstone] insists that Serb atrocities – ethnic cleansing, torture camps, mass executions – are western propaganda’, Chomsky replies that ‘Johnstone argues – and, in fact, clearly demonstrates – that a good deal of what has been charged has no basis in fact, and much of it is pure fabrication.’

In the same letter, Chomsky makes much of an allegedly positive review of Johnstone’s book in a British foreign-affairs journal: ‘I also know that it has been very favourably reviewed, e.g., by the British scholarly journal International Affairs, journal of the Royal Academy.’ He then continues, with his own idiosyncratic logic: ‘I don’t read Swedish journals of course, but it would be interesting to learn how the Swedish press explains the fact that their interpretation of Johnstone’s book differs so radically from that of Britain’s leading scholarly foreign affairs journal, International Affairs. I mentioned the very respectful review by Robert Caplan, of the University of Reading and Oxford [sic]. It is obligatory, surely, for those who condemn Johnstone’s book in the terms just reviewed to issue still harsher condemnation of International Affairs, as well as of the universities of Reading and Oxford, for allowing such a review to appear, and for allowing the author to escape censure.’ The essence of what Chomsky is saying, is that Johnstone received a positive review in a respectable scholarly journal, therefore her book must be good.

There are, first of all, a number of distortions in Chomsky’s claim: International Affairs is the journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, not of the ‘Royal Academy’; the RIIA is a para-governmental think tank, not a scholarly institution, therefore it makes no sense to describe International Affairs as ‘Britain’s leading scholarly foreign affairs journal’; the reviewer was Richard, not Robert Caplan; and his review of Johnstone’s book was far from being as positive as Chomsky suggests. Caplan wrote: ‘Diana Johnstone has written a revisionist and highly contentious account of Western policy and the dissolution of Yugoslavia… Yet for all of the book’s constructive correctives, it is often difficult to recognize the world that Johnstone describes…The book also contains numerous errors of fact, on which Johnstone however relies to strengthen her case… Johnstone herself is very selective.’

Indeed, Caplan was overly polite in his criticisms of what is, in reality, an extremely poor book, one that is little more than a polemic in defence of the Serb-nationalist record during the wars of the 1990s – and an ill-informed one at that. Johnstone is not an investigative journalist who spent time in the former Yugoslavia doing fieldwork on the front-lines, like Ed Vulliamy, David Rohde or Roy Gutman. Nor is she a qualified academic who has done extensive research with Serbo-Croat primary sources, like Noel Malcolm or Norman Cigar. Indeed, she appears not to read Serbo-Croat, and her sources are mostly English-language, with a smattering of French and German. In short, she is an armchair Balkan amateur-enthusiast, and her book is of the sort that could be written from any office in Western Europe with access to the internet.

The quality of Johnstone’s ‘scholarship’ may be gauged from some of the Serb-nationalist falsehoods she repeats uncritically, such as the claim that the Serb Nazi-collaborationist leader Draza Mihailovic formed ‘the first armed guerrilla resistance to Nazi occupation in all of Europe’ (p. 291) – a myth long since exploded by serious historians (see for example Jozo Tomasevich, War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: The Chetniks, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1975, pp. 124, 137). Or Johnstone’s claim that Croatia in 1990 ‘rapidly restored the symbols of the dread 1941 [Nazi-puppet] state – notably the red and white checkerboard flag, which to Serbs was the equivalent of the Nazi swastika’ (p. 23) – a falsehood that can be refuted by a glance at any complete version of the Yugoslav constitution, which clearly shows that the Croatian chequerboard – far from being a fascist symbol equivalent to the swastika – was an official symbol of state in Titoist Yugoslavia (see, for example the 1950 edition of the Yugoslav constitution, published by Sluzbeni list, Belgrade, which shows the Croatian chequerboard as a Yugoslav symbol of state on p. 115; or the 1974 edition published by Prosveta, Belgrade, which shows the Croatian chequerboard – in full colour – at the start of the text). It would require an entire article to list and refute all the numerous errors and falsehoods in Johnstone’s book; Chomsky praises it because he sympathises with her political views, not because it has any scholarly merit.

Perhaps it would be unfair to label Chomsky a Srebrenica massacre-denier simply because he praises uncritically Johnstone’s massacre-denying book and endorses its conclusions. A fuller picture of Chomsky’s views on Srebrenica, however, can be gleaned from his interview with M. Junaid Alam of Left Hook on 17 December 2004, where he states that ‘Srebrenica was an enclave, lightly protected by UN forces, which was being used as a base for attacking nearby Serb villages. It was known that there’s going to be retaliation. When there was a retaliation, it was vicious. They trucked out all the women and children, they kept the men inside, and apparently slaughtered them. The estimates are thousands of people slaughtered.’ The key words here are ‘retaliation’, ‘apparently’ and ‘estimates’; the slaughter ‘apparently’ took place; the thousands killed were mere ‘estimates’; they were, in any case, simply ‘retaliation’ for earlier Serb crimes. Note that while Chomsky raises doubts about the fact and scale of the killings, he is absolutely categorical that they were retribution for earlier Muslim crimes – the slaughter apparently took place, but if it did, then it was definitely retaliation. Read carefully, nothing that Chomsky says actually contradicts Johnstone’s massacre-denying claims cited above.

Chomsky then goes on to compare the Serb behaviour favourably with that of the Americans in Fallujah: ‘Well, with Fallujah, the US didn’t truck out the women and children, it bombed them out.’ Chomsky does not mention the thousands of Bosnian women and children raped and murdered by Serb forces in other parts of Bosnia; nor those blown to bits by the Serb shelling of Sarajevo and other Bosnian towns, choosing instead to focus on the sparing of the women and children of Srebrenica. Johnstone, too, makes much of this: ‘one thing should be obvious: one does not commit ‘genocide’ by sparing women and children’. In fact, the Nazis began the systematic extermination of Jewish adult males in the USSR in 1941 before they began the systematic extermination of Jewish women and children, and the Nazis, unlike the Serb forces a half century later, were not being restrained by the democratic Western media.

Chomsky again compared Serb behaviour at Srebrenica favourably with American behaviour at Fallujah in his article ‘Imperial Presidency’ (Canadian Dimension, January/February 2005, vol. 39, no. 1), where he wrote of ‘Srebrenica, almost universally described as ‘genocide’ in the West. In that case, as we know in detail from the Dutch government report and other sources, the Muslim enclave in Serb territory, inadequately protected, was used as a base for attacks against Serb villages, and when the anticipated reaction took place, it was horrendous. The Serbs drove out all but military age men, and then moved in to kill them. There are differences with Falluja. Women and children were not bombed out of Srebrenica, but trucked out, and there will be no extensive efforts to exhume the last corpse of the packrats in their warrens in Falluja. There are other differences, arguably unfair to the Serbs.’ Not quite massacre denial, it is true; more of a massacre minimisation – since Chomsky nowhere recognises the figure of eight-thousand Muslim dead, it is entirely possible that he reduces the massacre to the fraction suggested by Johnstone, and therefore denies it to all intents and purposes. And he is certainly at pains to contrast ‘the Serbs’ favourably with the Americans.

One might criticise Brockes for not giving a more nuanced portrayal of Chomsky’s vague yet complex view of the Srebrenica massacre – were it not for the fact that Chomsky is notorious for the deliberate use of obscure and confusing language, designed to muddy the waters as to his real views, and the use of verbal trickery aimed at confusing his opponents. Take his 2001 exchange with Christopher Hitchens over the question of whether the US bombing of Sudan’s pharmaceutical factory in 1998 was a crime equivalent to 11 September:

Chomsky stated: ‘That Hitchens cannot mean what he writes is clear, in the first place, from his reference to the bombing of Sudan. He must be unaware that he is expressing such racist contempt for African victims of a terrorist crime, and cannot intend what his words imply.’

Hitchens replied: ‘Since his [Chomsky’s] remarks are directed at me, I’ll instance a less-than-half-truth as he applies it to myself. I ‘must be unaware’, he writes, that I ‘express such racist contempt for African victims of a terrorist crime.’ With his pitying tone of condescension, and his insertion of a deniable but particularly objectionable innuendo, I regret to say that Chomsky displays what have lately become his hallmarks.’

Chomsky then pulled his sleight-of-hand: ‘Hitchens claims that I accused him of a ‘propensity for racist contempt.’ I explicitly and unambiguously said the opposite.’

Given such word games and obfuscation, Chomsky should hardly complain when an earnest interviewer fails to interpret his well-camouflaged position as he would have it. Had he so wished, he could have avoided the entire imbroglio with Brockes by telling her unambiguously: ‘I recognise that several thousand Muslim civilians were massacred by Serb forces at Srebrenica in 1995′. Yet one rather suspects he wanted to have his cake and eat it: to put forward a ‘position’ that was compatible with those of the outright deniers, like Johnstone, but that nevertheless allows him formally to deny being a denier himself.

Instead of taking responsibility for his own insincerity and double-talk, he chose to punish the messenger – Brockes. He has then failed on two occasions – his letter published in the Guardian on 2 November and his open letter to the Guardian of 13 November – to state categorically that the massacre occurred in the way that it is understood to have done: as a massacre of several thousand innocent Muslim civilians by Serb forces. Nor is it true what Chomsky claims, that ‘with five minutes research on the internet, any journalist could find many places where I described the massacre as a massacre, never with quotes.’ I have not yet discovered a single text on the internet in which Chomsky describes Srebrenica as a ‘massacre’; if such a text exists, it is not as easy to find as Chomsky claims. Chomsky’s actual position on Srebrenica must remain an open question until he can actually bring himself to speak and write in plain English – for which nobody should hold their breath. Under these circumstances, the Guardian readers’ editor had no need to issue its apology, and had no right to impugn the journalistic professionalism of Brockes. It is to Brockes, not to Chomsky, that the Guardian should be apologising.

The outrage of Chomsky and his fellow-travellers over his portrayal as a Srebrenica massacre-denier is particularly ironic, given that several of these fellow-travellers are themselves overt Srebrenica deniers. Chomsky is notorious for having gone on record in 1977, in an article co-written with a certain Ed Herman, as claiming that Khmer Rouge atrocities were being exaggerated by the Western media (‘Distortions at Fourth Hand’, The Nation, 25 June 1977). Recently, the same Ed Herman founded a ‘Srebrenica Research Group’ to propagate the view that the Srebrenica massacre never happened. In his essay ‘The Politics of the Srebrenica Massacre’, Herman writes that ‘the evidence for a massacre, certainly of one in which 8,000 men and boys were executed, has always been problematic, to say the least’. Herman concludes: ‘The ‘Srebrenica massacre’ [note the quote marks] is the greatest triumph of propaganda to emerge from the Balkan wars… But the link of this propaganda triumph to truth and justice is non-existent. The disconnection with truth is epitomised 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.’

In this way, Chomsky’s close collaborator Herman unashamedly holds a view that Chomsky is outraged to have attributed to himself. Both Chomsky and Herman are regular contributors to the website ‘ZNet’ – a haven for neo-Stalinist die-hards, several of whom are outright Srebrenica deniers. The publication of Herman’s above-cited article was greeted with uncritical approval by ZNet blogger David Petersen, who praised its ‘powerful analysis’. The same Petersen then reacted with outrage when Brockes attributed the same Srebrenica-denying view that he himself endorses to his comrade Chomsky, describing her interview as ‘lies, smears and more lies’. Just fancy that ! If to deny the Srebrenica massacre is shameful – which it is – why do Johnstone, Petersen and Herman do so ? But if they really think that the Srebrenica massacre did not happen, or was vastly smaller and more justifiable than is usually claimed, why should they be so outraged at Chomsky being described as a denier ? The answer brings us back to where we began: the Chomskyites and ZNet people are, at heart, embarrassed by their own position. In this, too, they resemble the controversial British historian recently arrested in Austria.

In this debate over whether or not Chomsky denied a massacre, it is important not to lose sight of something more damning and much less controversial: that Chomsky quite openly denies that genocide took place, either in Srebrenica or in Bosnia as a whole, and makes no bones about putting the word ‘genocide’ in quotes – this despite the fact that an international tribunal, established by the UN, has convicted a Bosnian Serb general of aiding and abetting genocide in Srebrenica. Indeed, the genocide-denial of Johnstone, Chomsky and their circle goes far beyond questioning the Srebrenica massacre. Chomsky was among those who supported the campaign in defence of Living Marxism (LM), the lunatic-fringe magazine that accused the news agency ITN of fabricating the existence of Serb concentration camps in Bosnia, on the basis of the writings of Thomas Deichmann, an amateur journalist and supporter of the Serb-nationalist cause. Deichmann claimed the camps in question were merely ‘detention centres’, and – although he had never visited them himself – presumed to know them well enough to claim that the pictures ITN had taken of them were deliberately intended to ‘mislead’ the Western public as to their true nature. ITN sued LM for libel, and the magazine was unable to produce a single witness who had actually seen the camps at first hand, whereas eye-witnesses such as Vulliamy testified as to their true, horrific character. LM‘s resounding defeat in the libel trial has not stopped Johnstone, in a recent commentary on the Chomsky-Brockes affair in the left-wing American magazine Counterpunch, from repeating LM‘s already discredited lies: “The issue raised by LM had to do with the way photographs taken at Trnopolje camp, by focusing on a thin man on the other side of a wire fence which in reality did not surround the Muslim inmates, but rather the ITN crew itself, was used to create the impression that what was happening in Bosnia was a repetition of a Nazi-style Holocaust.” The campaign against Brockes has therefore simultaneously become a campaign to rewrite the history of the Bosnian war to deny that genocide took place.

Chomsky’s denial that genocide took place in Bosnia, even after it has been established in international law that it did, and even after LM‘s lies about Serb camps were exposed as such in a British court, marks him down as a revisionist in the mould of Irving; the general thrust of Brockes’s exposure of him was therefore bang on target. In pandering to him, the Guardian has besmirched its own reputation and insulted the survivors of the genocide. Ironically, it was Guardian journalists such as Vulliamy and Maggie O’Kane who were in the forefront of bringing the genocide to light in 1992. That the Guardian – with this proud record – should have chosen to betray Brockes, its own journalist, by apologising on her behalf to an unabashed genocide-denier, means that this newspaper is now collaborating in the revisionist re-writing of the history of the Bosnian war.

Bosnian Genocide Denier: Edward S.Herman Thursday, Feb 26 2009 


Edward S. Herman is Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. On the tenth anniversary of the Srebrenica Genocide he wrote The Politics of the Srebrenica Massacre“.

*Read response from Balkan Witness Edward Herman on The Lists of Missing at Srebrenica.”

*Read Michael Karadjis response “Srebrenica: Response to left-wing apologists for genocide.”

*Read response by Bill Weinberg published on Z Mag:

Why Does Z Magazine Support Genocide?

With all of the current horrors in the headlines, the world has paid little note to the tenth anniversary of the July 1995 massacre of 8,000 at the eastern Bosnian town of Srebrenica after it was overrun by besieging Serb rebel forces. The town’s women, children and elderly were put on buses at gunpoint and expelled to Bosnian government-held territory. But the adult men were separated out and kept by the Serb forces for “interrogation.”

Their whereabouts became the subject of an international investigation which is now bearing grim fruit–thousands of corpses exhumed from mass graves, held in Bosnia’s morgues, where international teams are conducting the lugubrious work of DNA identification, matching genetic material from the bones with samples provided by relatives of the missing. Some 2,000 of the dead have now been thusly identified, the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) reports. The massacre is rightly called Europe’s worst since World War II.

The leadership of the Bosnian Serb Republic (which now has de facto independence under a peace deal brokered by the US shortly after the

massacre) has also formally investigated, confessed to and apologized for the crime. A total of 19 people have been charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) for the Srebrenica massacre, and 16 are currently being held at The Hague. Three Bosnian Serb soldiers have pleaded guilty to many of the charges against them.

But the supposedly “progressive” Z Magazine, and its online extension ZNet, mark the anniversary of Srebrenica by running a lengthy piece by Edward S.

Herman (one of the American left’s official darlings and a one-time Noam Chomsky co-author) arguing that the massacre never happened–or that it was exaggerated, or that the victims deserved it. Like most genocide-apologist propaganda, the piece never makes its arguments explicit: it just leaves the uninitiated reader with the vague but strong impression that anyone who believes that there was a massacre at Srebrenica is a dupe of imperialist propaganda.

The piece, entitled “The Politics of the Srebrenica Massacre,” spends its first half arguing that the affair must be placed in the “context” of the “convenience” of the massacre to the Bosnian Muslims, who sought Western military intervention against the Serb forces. Herman notes a string of “convenient” atrocities attributed to the Serbs, such as the deadly rocket raids on Sarajevo’s market, suggesting that they were “planned and executed by Bosnian Muslims.” Ironically, the suspicions (not facts) Herman cites in support of this speculation come entirely from US military and government sources. Herman does not point out the obvious “convenience” of such charges to a Pentagon that was reluctant to intercede as the Serb rebel army attempted to strangle in its birth Europe’s first Muslim-led nation.

One footnote for the claim that the Bosnian government bombed its own people in Sarajevo is an Internet link for a 1997 report from the US Senate Republican Policy Committee–so heartwarming to see leftists making common cause with their domestic enemies. This page, at least, cites some mostly European media accounts claiming secret UN studies had determined that the shells that hit Sarajevo’s market came from Bosnian government lines. But the studies themselves are not cited, and in any case these attacks account for but a handful of the 10,000 Sarajevo residents killed during the three-and-a-half-year siege of the city by the Serbs. Furthermore, even if these attacks were faked, it says nothing about about whether the far more massive Srebrenica massacre was faked–and not even Republicans have dared to assert that. Yet that is implicitly (not explicitly, which would require more courage) what Herman argues. This line of reasoning (if we may so flatter it) is akin to arguing that My Lai didn’t happen because it was “convenient” to the NLF.

Most bizarrely, this pseudo-thinking fails to consider that in the post-Srebrenica peace deal brokered by the Clinton White House, the Bosnian government was forced to cede effective control of the majority of its national territory to the Serb and Croat rebel zones, which then gained a cover of legitimacy. A more accurate reading of the situation would suggest the atrocities were far more “convenient” to the Serbs, helping to force the Bosnian government to accept these harsh terms. Crime, it seems, does pay.

When Herman finally turns to the actual mechanics of the massacre, the results are even worse. Herman’s principal argument seems to be that the supposedly UN-protected “safe areas” such as Srebrenica weren’t disarmed, so (again, implicitly) the Serbs were justified in overrunning them and slaughtering 8,000 mostly civilian war captives. (He expresses no outrage that the Dutch UN peacekeepers offered no resistance as the Serbs overran the city.) He claims that Srebrenica was being used as a staging ground for raids on Serb villages in which up to a thousand civilians were killed in the three years prior to the massacre–an assertion footnoted to a report from Yugoslavia’s UN ambassador, without the slightest suggestion that this might be a dubious touchstone for veracity. This is especially ironic given that all pronouncements from the Bosnian leadership are summarily dismissed as lies. Herman regales us with horror stories about atrocities committed by Nasir Oric, a Muslim commander at Srebrenica. These are footnoted to more credible sources, but Herman seems pretty oblivious to the overwhelmingly obvious “context” (to use his favorite word)–Serb rebel armies had overrun some 70% of Bosnia by that point, expelling the Muslim inhabitants, leaving Srebrenica and a few other towns besieged pockets.

This doesn’t let Oric off the hook, but it does point up Herman’s hideous double standards.

Herman’s secondary argument (more explicit if no more honest) is that the bodies said to be those of the Srebrenica victims have been unearthed from several mass graves around eastern Bosnia rather than “huge grave sites” at Srebrenica. A look at the ICMP website would tell Herman this was due to Serb commanders ordering bodies exhumed and reburied at scattered sites to hide evidence of the crime. This finding is backed up by the Serb Republic’s own investigation into the massacre–which, it emerges, actually took place at several different locations, with reburial in secondary graves intentionally adding to the confusion. Herman, who is now more intransigent on the question than the Bosnian Serb leadership, dismisses the reburial findings as “singularly unconvincing.”

Next Herman turns to the old genocide-apologist trick of fudging the numbers. He guides the reader through arithmetic somersaults to “prove”

that if 8,000 were executed Srebrenica’s population would have had to have exceeded its actual 37,000. Yet the ICMP has a database of 7,800 listed as missing from Srebrenica. Were these names simply invented? (Fans of such pseudo-demographic sophistry will have lots of fun at the Holocaust revisionist websites.)

Next he turns to another standard of the genocide-apologist set: arguing that the majority of the dead were not executed but killed in combat. This is contradicted by the testimony of the accused at the ICTY. Momir Nikolic, former chief of intelligence in the Bratunac Brigade, one of the Serb units at Srebrenica, has pleaded guilty to his role in the massacre, stating openly that “able-bodied Muslim men within the crowd of Muslim civilians would be separated…and killed shortly thereafter. I was told that it was my responsibility to help coordinate and organize this operation.”

Nikolic’s testimony is called into question by admissions that he perjured himself following his plea-bargain, the massacre-denial crowd is quick to point out–although why he would do so is still mysterious, and he did not contradict himself on what the basic orders were, only his own role in carrying them out. But there are numerous other examples untainted by any such contradictions. Nikolic’s co-defendant Dragan Obrenovic states that he received orders that prisoners were to be shot, and describes the slaughter in intimate detail in his official confession. He notes at one point that a commander “was angry as the last group of prisoners were not taken to the dam to be executed, but were executed right there at the school and that his men (the 6th Battalion Rear Services) had to clean up the mess at the school, including the removal of the bodies to the dam.” Bosnian Serb Army infantryman Drazen Erdemovic (who first volunteered his guilt to foreign journalists and pleaded for their help in fleeing Bosnia) tearfully told the court of his participation in the killing. “I had to do it. If I’d refused, I would have been killed together with the victims.”

These accounts are also backed up by forensic evidence: tribunal investigators exhumed hundreds of blindfolds and ligatures along with the bodies, and in many cases hands were still tied behind the back. Foresnic specialists also found evidence of reburial, such as parts of the same body in separate graves. This may not be conclusive proof that all 8,000 were killed in cold blood–but it is certainly suggestive of this, and it shows Herman’s bad faith that he doesn’t even mention it.

That Herman is getting his information overwhelmingly (and his analysis

exclusively) from the Serb extremists is evident from his terminology. He routinely uses the acronym BMA, for “Bosnian Muslim Army,” to refer to the Bosnian goverment’s military. The official name was the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH), and (in contrast to the self-declared “Bosnian Serb Army” of Bosnia’s “Serb Republic”) it was explicitly multi-ethnic, not “Muslim.” BMA is a propaganda term, and capitalizing it as if it were a proper noun is extremely misleading.

Finally, Herman makes much of what he calls Bosnian President Alija “Izetbegovic’s close alliance with Osama bin Laden,” how the Bosnian government provided “Al Qaeda a foothold in the Balkans.” Now isn’t this funny. The same ZNet which asks us to believe (in a Jan. 13 piece by Robert Scheer–whose name ZNet mis-spells) that “Al Qaeda [is] Just a Bush Boogeyman” prints shamelessly lurid propaganda about the Islamic menace in Bosnia. I guess al-Qaeda is just a “boogeyman” when it slams jets into New York skyscrapers or blows up trains in London and Madrid, but suddenly becomes real when it loans a few mujahedeen to protect the legitimate government of multi-ethnic Bosnia from a lawless fascist rebellion. Herman offers not a word about how Izetbegovic was driven to this alliance (if, in fact, it existed) by the West’s betrayal of Bosnia’s legal government into the hands of the Serb rebels who, with superior firepower thanks to their patrons in Belgrade, quickly subsumed the majority of Bosnia’s territory.

Herman dismisses this version of events as a mere “narrative”–a word which has been subject to such abuse at the hands of the “post-modernists” that it should now be purged from the English language. Herman, who is not bothered by the use of the Islamic terrorist image to justify this illegal usurpation of power, calls the “‘Srebrenica massacre'” (in quotes of

course) the “greatest triumph of propaganda” for the “colonial occupations in Bosnia and Kosovo” by NATO. One wonders if Herman is himself aware of the cognitive dissonance.

This is but the latest in a whole string of such articles Z has run by Herman and others in the decade since the climax of the Bosnian horror show, all minimizing Serb war crimes and essentially arguing (as Reagan said about the Guatemalan dictatorship) that the Serbs have been given a “bum rap.” And Z still seems to think it has any moral ground to stand on to oppose US-backed genocide in Guatemala, Colombia and so on. It is both demoralizing and terrifying that this is the level to which the supposed “left” press has sunk in this dumbed-down age.

Bill Weinberg is editor of the online magazine World War 4 Report

(http://ww4report.com) and author of Homage to Chiapas: The New Indigenous Struggles in Mexico (Verso, 2000). He is currently working on a book about Plan Colombia and indigenous resistance movements in the Andes.

Bosnian Genocide Denier: Peter Brock Thursday, Feb 26 2009 


Peter Brock is a journalist and author of  “Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting”.  During the Bosnian Genocide, he wrote articles dening the existence of concentration camps in Bosnia. Also he claimed that massacred Serbs were shown as Muslim victims. He article “Dateline Yugoslavia: the Partisan Press.” in Foreign Policy was critized by many(read Michael Sells’s letter)

*Read Charles Lane’s article “Brock Crock”, The New Republic, 5.9.1994:

In March 1993 Peter Brock drafted a plan to save the Serbs–from the media. The P.R. strategy was published seven months later in Unity Herald, the quarterly journal of the Serbian Unity Congress (SUC). Referring to America’s leading Serbian-American lobby group as “we” and “us,” Brock urged the organization to create “an informed, operational, fully funded, fully professional” “media institute” in Belgrade. This would counter a “fanatical” anti-Serb media and “reconstruct” Serbia’s image.

Yes, this is the same Peter Brock who presented himself as an arbiter of media bias in the pages of Foreign Policy not long ago. He attacked the press for “negligence” and “pack journalism” designed to demonize the Serbs and trigger Western military intervention against them. Journalists who had covered Bosnia (including me) cried foul (see “War Stories,” Washington Diarist, TNR, January 3). But thanks to Foreign Policy’s imprimatur, Brock’s charges were absorbed into the Bosnia literature. The Arizona Republic reprinted the article. Its appearance in Zurich’s Die Weltwoche touched off a controversy in Central Europe. It has been published again this summer in a book by a Berlin press. Alexander Cockburn cited Brock as an authority on anti-Serb media bias in a recent Nation column.

Neither critics nor supporters knew that the man identified as an editor of an El Paso, Texas, newspaper had been a P.R. adviser to a group that boasts of its close contacts with Bosnian Serb leaders and of its “research and financial support to authors, journalists and academics.” Not surprisingly, the source for much of the Foreign Policy article turns out to be the Serbian regime itself. Hence the article’s many false or distorted charges. It is, essentially, a hoax.

Brock himself tipped his hand about his reliance on the broadcasts of state-run Belgrade Television, the propaganda organ of Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic notorious for inventing reports of atrocities against Serbs. In the Foreign Policy piece, he claimed that an August 1992 Time magazine photo of a starving Muslim at the Serb-run Trnopolje concentration camp was “in fact” a Serb with tuberculosis who had been arrested for looting. In fact, the man is Fikret Alic, a Muslim.

Caught in this goof by Time reporter Jim Jackson, Brock changed his story: he meant to refer to a picture in the same week’s Newsweek. But in Foreign Policy, Brock had written of details that were only in Time, such as the caption and the fact that the purported Serb appeared “more emaciated than others who wore shirts in the picture.” No one whose arms and torso are visible in Newsweek is wearing a shirt. In this “correction,” published as a response to a letter from Jackson, Brock revealed he got the charge from Belgrade T.V. Two other Brock claims of misidentified Serb victims–in another Newsweek photo and on BBC television–also came from Belgrade T.V., according to Jonas Weiss, Foreign Policy’s fact-checker.

Such alleged cases of mistaken identity, so central to Serb propaganda, are also a leitmotif of the Foreign Policy article. Brock asserted that the Western media identified children aboard a Sarajevo bus hit by sniper fire in August 1992 as Muslim. The fact that there were Serbs on the bus went unreported, he claimed, until “much later.” Brock added that, at a funeral for the children, “television reporters” said one child was Muslim, despite “the unmistakable Serbian Orthodox funeral ritual.”

Almost every word of this allegation is false or grossly distorted. The Children’s Embassy organized a bus evacuation from Sarajevo to Germany for fifty orphans in August 1992. The bus was shot at by snipers; two children died. The bus eventually made it out–after Serb paramilitaries had seized nine child passengers, claiming they were Serbs and should live with their own kind.

Brock is dead wrong that the media asserted the children were all Muslim. The presence of Serbs was reported at the time of the incident by the Associated Press and by The Daily Telegraph and Independent of Great Britain. After all, a main part of the story was the kidnapping of Serb children. Press reports on the funeral did identify one murdered child, accurately, as Roki Sulejmanovic, age 1, a Muslim. The other child, Vedrana Glavas, age 2, was identified, also correctly, as a Serb. Jim Bitterman of ABC News centered his story on Vedrana, referring to her as a Serb.

On April 12, 1993, Serb artillery killed dozens of refugee civilians in the Bosnian enclave of Srebrenica. Brock charged the media with ignoring “allegations” (by whom he does not say) that Muslim troops provoked the fusillade by firing “tanks” at the Serbs first. Three U.N. workers who visited Srebrenica near the time of the massacre told me the Bosnian army only had one tank, which was in disrepair. Louis Gentile of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, who witnessed the April 12 shelling, said all had been quiet until the Serbian fire. U.N. military observers on the scene confirmed to him that the Serbs had shot first. But even if Brock’s version were true, how could fire from inside the enclave justify shelling civilians in retaliation?

Even when Brock attacked inflated statistics of rapes of Muslim women by Serb soldiers (a reasonable point), he lapsed into falsification. The article says that a 1993 report by U.N. human rights rapporteur Tadeusz Mazowiecki “mentioned a figure of 2,400 [rape] victims … based on 119 documented cases.” Actually, the report did not contain the number 2,400 anywhere. It cited 119 rape-induced pregnancies, speculating that some 12,000 total rapes could be derived from that number. Brock has declared that he is “not connected” to any “Yugoslav group.” He maintains that his work for the SUC is “no compromise” of ethics. He says the only money he got from the SUC was a reimbursement for travel and lodging to speak at its annual conventions at the Grand Hyatt in New York in 1993 and at the Town & Country Hotel in San Diego in 1992. The “we” and “us” in his Unity Herald article, he claims, were stuck in by the editors. He doesn’t mind, though, “because I sympathize generally with their plight.” Ljiljana Obradovich-Knezevich, the editor of Unity Herald, told me she “didn’t make any changes.” As for the evidence that his media critique is a compendium of inventions, Brock refused to comment.

How did he get published in Foreign Policy anyway? Rather easily. Charles William Maynes, the editor of the journal, was receptive. In his own writings, Maynes has argued that intensive coverage of horrors abroad–the so-called CNN Factor–threatens to push the United States into foreign quagmires. Maynes had heard and believed claims of media bias against the Serbs from U.N. diplomats and from David Binder, a veteran New York Times reporter who covers Europe from the paper’s Washington bureau. Binder suggested Maynes ask Brock to write the piece, and Maynes did so.

For his part, Maynes says Brock assured him he was not in the pay of any group. Maynes insists that U.N. officials he has talked to confirm a pro-Muslim press bias. Presented with evidence showing much of what he published is false, he stood by Foreign Policy’s fact-checking. Maynes argues that the Serbs have a case, and he simply gave it a forum. “The views and information [Brock presented] merited public consideration,” he replied to a critical letter from Newsday’s Roy Gutman. “I would publish it again,” he told me.

This concept of even-handedness is of questionable value in dealing with the starkest moral drama in Europe since 1945. On June 8 Foreign Policy sponsored a debate between Binder and Brock on one side and Edward Vulliamy of London’s Observer and me on the other. The most chilling moment came when Binder praised The New York Times’s use fifty years ago of a Nazi news dispatch about D-Day. This, he contended, was a model of balanced reporting. Where is the Serbian agency Tanjug quoted today? he demanded.

Now that Bosnian Serb leaders have rejected the five-nation Contact Group peace plan–an action even Milosevic blamed on their greed and fear of war crimes trials–the need for apologists and propagandists to make their “case” will no doubt grow. And now that Bosnian Muslim forces, radicalized by their country’s ordeal and fortified by new weapons, have gone on the offensive, the news will focus more and more on their abuses. The need to remember how this cycle began will increase, too. The Muslim “case” is that they were victims of aggression and ethnic cleansing by the Serbs. This “view” and that of the Serbs are indeed very different. But they aren’t equally true. The suggestion that Serb war crimes are just a figment of media bias is not a “view that merits public consideration.” It is a lie.

Bosnian Genocide Denier: Jürgen Elsässer Saturday, Feb 21 2009 

So-called investigative reporter,and author of “How the Jihad Came to Europe”, German Jurgen Elsasser claims that “Around 700 Bosnian Muslims were killed in Srebrenica”. He said this in an  interview given to Serb fascist Bosnian Genocide denial website called De-construct (formaly known as Byzantine Blog).

Quoted from the interview:

Virtual Srebrenica Created to Demonize and Destroy Serbia

Q: How many Muslims were killed in Srebrenica and what is Hague’s turning away from the Serbian victims saying about the nature of the Tribunal?

JE: Around 700 Bosnian Muslims were killed in Srebrenica, since they were found with their hands tied or with the covers on their eyes. The final number, if we would also include cases for which pathologists can’t state with certainty whether they were killed in combat or if they were executed, because they simply have insufficient evidence, would not go over three thousand. And that many Serbs were killed in and around Srebrenica, too. The only difference is that the West doesn’t want to talk about it.

Q: Why?

JE: The Hague has created a “Srebrenica case” in order to justify crimes against the Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia. That is why they need the story about Srebrenica as a “most horrific crime in Europe after the WWII”.

Q: So, it’s a classic manipulation?

JE: Of course! That is why there is a real Srebrenica, with persistently ignored demands by the Serbian side to finally unearth the whole truth about those events, on the one hand, and another, virtual Srebrenica, on the other. The latter one is being propagated precisely by the Hague, which is nothing but an instrument of the US politics for demonizing and destroying Serbia. This is why I can tell you many of those in Serbia who believe the West will stop satanizing the Serbs if the Serbian government fulfills just this one more, or the other condition, are rather naive.

The US Won’t Stop Issuing Demands

Q: What does the naivety consist of and what will be its price?

JE: The West cannot stop demonizing the Serbs, because if it were to do so, it would have to accuse itself. So, Milošević was the first, then Karadžić. Now, Mladić is on the wanted list. But that will not be the end of American demands. They will demand more. For example, for you to recognize Kosovo, to grant the widest autonomy to the Raška region, most probably to renounce the northern Bačka and on and on. Evidently, for the West, the only good Serbia is broken Serbia. “

Next Page »