Rapist sentenced to 20 years

Here in the United States, we have a serious problem with light sentencing for rapists and child molestors. Personally, I feel as though rape is just as bad as murder. These people are extremely sick, and rehabilitation is extremely ineffective. Twenty years is not a just punishment for the lives that he has ruined. Rapists and child molestors are the most dispicable products of human society and deserve absolutely no sympathy. They could all receive life in prison or execution, makes no difference to me. Life in prison might be worse than death, as rapists and/or child predators do not rank very well on the prison hierarchy. They usually get what they deserve either way, and for very good reason.

Edited by BMC21113

My mom was in Velika Kladusa two years ago she says changed a lot but still same crappy tensions.  I havent been since like 97/98. so close to 8 years.

I just find that point of view so strange. Even if we spoke exactly the same language and were all the same faith, our histories are more different than most European neighbors. The Roman, Ottoman, and Byzantine Empires were more different than France and Germany ever were.

We have only nominally more in common with each other than we do with all Slavs everywhere.

Croatians and Slovenians are more like Germans than they are like Bosnians. Bosnians are more like Greeks and Turks than like Serbs. Serbs are more like Russians than they are like Macedonians.

It's just something people from outside put on us. We're more than different enough to be considered separate nations.

Likewise, we have enough in common that we should be the closest of national friends.

The short answer is most of them are neither Croats nor Serbs, but that doesn't hold up today. If they want to be, they are - no one can deny another people's right to national self-determination.

The differences between Bosnian Croats and Croatians has lessened since the war because of introduced changes in linguistics, cultural practices, and so on. Stereotypically speaking, Bosnian Croats would be like Mexicans in the United States - twice as Croatian simply to maintain their culture in a different nation. They're thought to be more provincial, more rural in lifestyle, less educated, less refined, and so on. These stereotypes were even stronger before Bosnian Croats started enforcing the Croatian accent. If Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian were variations of English - Serbian would be Australian, Croatian would be proper British, and Bosnian would be African-American slang.

The differences between Bosnian Serbs and Serbs are largely the same. Catholics and Orthodox Christians in Bosnia and Herzegovina were overwhelmingly rural, while Bosniaks were well more than half urban. You have "hick" stereotypes then against Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs that have nothing to do with nationality but more to do with lifestyle. Those 30-something per cent of Bosniaks who lived in villages are viewed in the same ways as well. Again, since the war changes have been made to introduce proper Serbian - which is a more drastic change than Croatian because Bosnian Serbs spoke with the western dialect, as opposed to the eastern on dominant in Serbia and Montenegro.

The Gypsies are Roma settlers who have been here for centuries. They are predominantly Muslim - but like Bosniak highlanders, there is so much influence from other belief systems than even Bosniaks in Sarajevo would say it's too deviated to be considered Islam.

The Bosniak, Bosnian Croat, and Bosnian Serb refugees who have fled to Sarajevo (and this is very important, each city attracted different sorts of refugees for different reasons) are an interesting mix. Bosniak refugees from across the country came simply because Sarajevo is the capital and a safe place for Bosniaks to seek refuge. Bosnian Croats who came to Sarajevo largely came from the surrounding villages in the immediate vicinity. We also have many from Banja Luka. Most of these Bosnian Croat refugees seem to consider Sarajevo a temporary stop on their way to Banja Luka, Prijedor, or other cities where Bosnian Croats were driven away. Bosnian Serbs who chose Sarajevo are largely Yugoslavia-minded, left-wing idealists who never supported the war and are horrified at the possibility of living anywhere near the Republika Srpska. They have a Civic Union here which caters to the community, and they're constantly in conflict with Serbia proper. For example, the Serbian Orthodox Church has announced plans to close all churches outside the Republika Srpska because Serbs in Sarajevo banned political sermons.

Kosovo Albanians fled Kosovo and poured into every country around the border. Many thousands crossed through the Sandzak and into Bosnia and Herzegovina.

For example, here is what the main street facing the airport in Dobrinja (Little Hiroshima) looks like:



Here is what a grouping in the center of the district where Bosniaks have returned to Sarajevo and rebuilt their homes looks like:





And here is what the areas where refugees live looks like:

The punishment for those individuals will never compensate their deeds. If it were about me, only a forced labour camp (for life!) would be a  proper punishment. Keep them working till death. Something like communist labour camps we had here in Romania or Stalin in USSR. It might look  unhuman but I think that such individuals are not to be considered human. No need for torture, just let them face a life of hard work (10-12h/day) with no chance of getting out of it. They might even be brought to work for the people who they hate most.

Mila said something about a half of Sarajevo being still in ruins (I don't exectly remember the topic). Bring the criminals back to rebulid it, or at least a part of it!

Originally posted by Mila Well there are loads hiding, but they've already lowered the scale. The Bosniaks who were indicted were indicted for charges far less significant in SCALE - not in brutality, in SCALE - than their Serb counterparts. Serbs who did what these Bosniaks are charged with won't even be arrested, it was so common. So they basically went after the top rungs of criminals from each group. If they had said, for example, we're only going to convict those who committed genocide - there wouldn't be a single Croat or Bosniak up there.

Yeah that is the thing.  They needed to garner up some Bosnians and Croats in order to balance out the war crimes tribunal due to the fact that if they were going by henious crimes alone they'd have like five on one side and countless on the other, while if they degraded the standard into lower crimes for both you'd have like fifty on one and ten thousand on the other.  The funny thing is that when you say that people say you're being biased, how am  I being biased when I know that the scale would be like that because I lived through that war.

I meant to say "almost exclusively" as I saw the names the first time around.

History many times over  takes the side of those who seem like the weak and helpless nation in conflict without first looking for the real causes of the conflict. In other words we hope to prevent things by  picking up obvious short-term cause and effect rather than to look back in time and see the situation as a whole.

Im not saying that Bosnians, or Kosovars or Croats were the ones who were the real guilty people of starting this war.But if you just look a while back at WW2 the Serbs were the victims of the atrocious Croatian Ustace movement which eliminated between 300000-600000 Serbs. In Kosovo, Nazis set up special SS forces (SS scanderbeg) of Albanians to clear out Serbs and I suppose something similar must have also happened in Bosnia.

Could it be possible that there is a lot more Bosniaks(muslims) who are hiding or are free because Bosnia was considered the victim nation?


Edited by vulkan02

The thing is that we did not have the ability to actually strike back if we wanted.  In 92 the weapons were moved out by the "jugoslav army." Out of croatia and bosnia before the wars even started the ethnic make up of the army by that time was overwhelmingly serb as was the cabinet and all chief government offices.  We did not start regaining lost territory untill 94 and then at Dayton we were made to give up all we gained pretty much and agree to that bs 49 51 division of the country.  And anyone that still considers this a civil war ask yourself why milosevic and tudjman were present at the dayton peace accords.  

Originally posted by vulkan02 Its funny how they exclusively mention either Croatians, Albanians and Serbs (Bosnians or not) uhuhuh very believeable . I find it hard to believe that Bosnians were the angels in this conflict, after all like the Kosovo Albanians they must have been involved as well in this same killing and slaughetring as the others did.

They mention our war criminals specifically as well. They just use the term "Bosnian Muslim" instead of "Bosniak", read the list again - they're there.

We may not have been the angels - but we were certainly the least armed. We also had all groups represented in our "army" - which was, more or less, an organization of civilians. For example, our general was a Bosnian Serb.

We didn't attack Serbia or Croatia, the same can't be said for them. We did not conspire with either of them to split the other in half, the same can't be said for them. We didn't kill roughly 10 per cent of their people and force more than half the population from their homes. We didn't adopt ethnic cleansing as an official policy, as something celebrated in the media with large public support.

Did we kill innocent Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats - of course. "Only" 80 per cent of war's victims were Bosniaks. That leaves 20 per cent who were Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats. Subtract those they killed themselves by bombing multiethnic cities like Sarajevo, and by Serb-led 'Croat cleansing' in places like Banja Luka, and by Croat-led 'Serb cleansing' in places like Novi Travnik - and that number will show you how many we killed.

Now does that make the individuals who committed these crimes as bad as any Croat or Serb war criminal, of course.

Does it suddenly make us equal partners in a war where we were clearly the target of genocide, as has already been shown by the ICTY? That's up to you. I could never think that way.

To me it is like using the Warsaw uprising to justify the holocaust. Using the massacres of German civilians to justify Stalingrad - which, by the way, is no longer the longest siege in modern, military history. Sarajevo has that title now.


Edited by Mila