THE OFFICIAL DUTCH REPORT THAT WAS BURIED BY THE MEDIA
March 5, 2010
We have noted the comment made by Peter Makara re the Serb report on the Muslim massacre of Serbs in Srebrenica and that this report was buried by the Media.
Also buried by the Media was the official Dutch report into the so called massacre of 1995 and in August 3, 2008 we on 4international did some work on this Dutch report
[Start 4international work on the Dutch report here]
They claimed 8000 men and boys murdered by the Serbs in Srebrenica. Sometimes 7000 but not quite so often. It was usually 8000.
In reviewing the Irish newspaper of record, The Irish Times, they have written from 1995 to the present in major articles referring to this Srebrenica Massacre where the Serbs murdered 8000 men and boys, going now up to 500 times since 1995, indeed using my limited maths I make that perhaps a major article every 10 days or so.
Are there 2000 such papers and magazines etc in the world doing this? I think so and much more but if so that makes it a million such vital articles broadcast into humanity. All saying the same thing, the endless repetition, that the Serbs murdered 8000 Muslims in Srebrenica.
But there is also The Dutch Report which these media outlets seem to have stuffed deep into the unknown recesses of their filing cabinets. Thanks to Mick Tanzer a regular reader for sending details of this report to 4international.
“Then there is this astonishing and explosive material from the Dutch “Netherlands Institute for War Documentation” Report [from 2002]This blows the lid off of how Clinton, Albright, the Western media and NATO created the Srebrenica Big Lie:
This report by obviously staid conservative type people has been an absolute eye-opener. This is material that the liars on Harry’s Place will never ever go near.
It is written in a certain way but if time is spent on it there is all the evidence therein that the Media, Dutch and British politicians or one can say almost the whole EU political class, created this Srebrenica Hoax story between them.
I placed my comments in brackets. This is really an analysis of some parts of the report where I draw out some things that seemed to me specially significant. It is not so easy to follow and place all the pieces together. To help I have started by naming some of the main characters which I have simply culled from the story.
First… 2 organizations that the report tends to lump together…UNHCR and the International Red Cross
From Zagreb, a combined team of the Human Rights Office of Civil Affairs and the UN Centre for Human Rights
The ‘Bosnian State Commission for the collection of information on war crimes’
A number of smaller NGOs.
(The Dutch Report adds the following little comment about these groups and note we have a NEW group presented to us…how many were there operating like scavengers in that Tuzla. Tuzla was under the control of the US Imperialists, by the way…Some of these were eager to publicize their findings as soon as possible. As early as 31 July, for instance, the US Committee on Refugees published an extensive report on the ‘death march’ from Srebrenica based on interviews conducted by its staff member Bill Frelick in Tuzla and the surroundings)
UNHCR Protection Officer Manca de Nissa
Christoph Girod of the International Red Cross
Again and for my emphasis…a mixed team from Civil Affairs/Human Rights Office (HRO) and UNCHR mostly from Zagreb
And from there…
Ken Bizer from Civil Affairs
HRO staff member Peggy Hicks. (Please note this name very carefully. When the evidence was showing no killings at all by the Serbs, and she admitted this, she began to claim the very opposite in her reports)
Swiss investigator R. Salvisberg, UNCHR Bosnia coordinator based in Sarajevo
T. Mazowiecki, the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights who arrived in Tuzla on 22 July, and was required to facilitate a visit to Izetbegovic’s military men, that is military men from the “safe area” which was Srebrenica.
We said in the article that the Dutch report was written in “careful” language. These are no revolutionaries who write this report but I am reminded of something that Leon Trotsky stated about the Social Democrats (Labourites) in Norway where he sought refuge for over a year in the 1930s. Trotsky was of the opinion that the older more traditional conservative had more principles than the new whipper snappers (Blair’s New Labour comes to mind also). This is how I feel about this report also. They are no revolutionaries but they do have certain principles and a tendency towards truth which appeals to us. Consequently they the writers of the report use a reserved style. Nevertheless what they are saying, and sometimes it needs a little reading between the lines, is of great importance for our argument that the whole Srebrenica Massacre claim is a total hoax. If they sometimes lose their nerve at the enormity of what they are saying and who they are challenging then we will be ready to step in and take up the slack.
Without going over the whole report word for word I will take the first two paragraphs of the section dealing with the refugees in Tuzla. You will notice the reserved, almost understated, style that is used, but I hope to show that despite this their meaning is crystal clear if the reader only takes the time to ponder on the thought therein.
[begin quote here]
Investigations among Displaced Persons
These methodological problems, as well as the hindrances created by the Bosnian authorities, also confronted the interviewers who approached the Displaced Persons for information on behalf of various organizations.
(Methodological problems indeed! And the report writers get straight to the point, and the jugular, of the Islamist Bosnian leaders. If they were claiming a massacre then why on earth if there was a massacre would the Islamist leaders be placing “hindrances” in front of the investigators. By all the laws of common sense that does not make sense of any kind. Except it was phoney and they were “constructing” a massacre, a fake massacre. Think about it!)
Important roles were assigned to UNHCR and the International Red Cross, but they were joined from Zagreb by a combined team of the Human Rights Office of Civil Affairs and the UN Centre for Human Rights. Furthermore various other bodies were active, such as the ‘Bosnian State Commission for the collection of information on war crimes’, as well as the Tribunal, Amnesty International and a number of smaller NGOs.
(The vital two words in the above are “but” and “Furthermore”. It is the grammar which conveys the message. The first two organizations mentioned had “important roles” which “were assigned” to them and then there is the “but” and the “furthermore”. There is no doubt that the report is extremely annoyed with the plethora of groups all with their own agenda who descended upon Tuzla. This will become very clear as we go further.)
Some of these were eager to publicize their findings as soon as possible. As early as 31 July, for instance, the US Committee on Refugees published an extensive report on the ‘death march’ from Srebrenica based on interviews conducted by its staff member Bill Frelick in Tuzla and the surroundings.
(And publishing as soon as possible in the eyes of the report means publishing on the basis of biassed evidence, because the rule of the game is that they were only talking to biased Muslims. The seriousness of this becomes clear later)
Due to the nature of their work most of the organizations were cautious about publicizing politically sensitive information. UNHCR was less reserved in this respect and several times its spokespersons released details from the ‘unconfirmed reports’ by Displaced Persons.
(Look at what has happened! The report began with 2 main investigating organizations, plus a lot more that they definitely are in conflict with. But within the space of a few sentences one of these two is failing miserably their test of intellectual rigour. That is the UNHCR. In the eyes of this report that leaves just the one, the Red Cross. But later it too seems suspect on some issues so that leaves…well precisely none!)
This included the suspicion that the VRS had used Dutchbat uniforms to mislead refugees. Serious research, however, was commenced only on 21 July after Protection Officer Manca de Nissa had arrived in Tuzla. He submitted his report a week later, based on 70 interviews with both normal Displaced Persons and survivors of the march. Manca de Nissa did not however draw any conclusions about possible large-scale murders.
(And there you have it. The only “serious research” strictly opposes any idea of “massacre”)
(It is all very understated, very reserved, but I tell you these people behind this report are creating the best defence that Radovan Karadzic could ever find)
[end quote here]
Yet, as you might expect, the report does have weakness and contradiction.
Take this which follows immediately on from the above paragraph There are many things here, most good, not all.
[start quote here]
It was much more difficult for an organization such as the International Red Cross to publicize findings. The strictly observed neutrality ruled out any statements that could be given a political slant. (Which raises the question what other way is there to carry out investigations. That they mention like this shows how they disapprove of what was taking place under the name of journalism) Another factor in this case was that the delegates were too familiar with the Bosnian propaganda (this is the Islamist leadership of Izetbegovic who dates back to Himmler and El Husseini in the Holocaust) and thus usually regarded the rumours issuing from Tuzla with great suspicion. (They are not beating around the bush here. The report is saying that the Red Cross is aware of the dishonesty of the Islamists)In a communiqué on 14 July, three days after the fall of the enclave, nothing was said about missing persons or possible summary executions. Nevertheless, staff of the International Red Cross had already gathered much information by this time. Although the International Red Cross had no official access to the men who arrived in Tuzla from 16 July onwards, staff had in fact spoken to several of them. A communiqué of 19 July however mentioned only that the International Red Cross demanded of the Bosnian Serbs that it be given access to prisoners. Still no mention was made of deaths. (So after much investigation by 19 July not a word about deaths. Why not? Because there was no unbiassed evidence that there were deaths, meaning massacres)But according to Christoph Girod of the International Red Cross the pressure was increasing. Consequently, at a press conference on 31 July, Girod referred to the fact that there were 5000 to 6000 missing persons with the statement: ‘We have no indications of this whatsoever’. (They are flagging the pressure from the lies of the Media. They make a mistake in the above, surely they mean “allegation” not “fact”. Otherwise it doesnot make sense)It was only on 14 August that the International Red Cross first dared to publicly mention the possibility of executions. (Note the “possibility” of executions. Who is arguing! But possibility is very far from fact! Surely!
[end quote here]
Then the conflict between the Red Cross and the UN groups from Croatia. The real reason is not given here.
There is the mention that Tizer was refused permision to visit Srebrenica. That is Tizer from the Croatian base. Why did the Serbs do this? Real reason is that Tizer and this whole mob from Croatia’s Zagreb were CIA. In investigating Roy Gutman, the journalist who wrote those false stories for the New York Times, the same issue came up. These are also the days when the US cum CIA are beginning (or more accurately finessing) their cooperation with the Fascist ethnic cleansing of the Krajina, the biggest single such act since the last world war!
But this report in very short measure lays bare the whole truthful mechanism of where this Srebrenica Hoax stary was constructed step by step. Armed as we are with that evidence that Clinton and Izetbegovic hatched the idea of a Massacre of 5000 Muslims by the Serbs in taking Srebrenica long before…we can see this being put in place in these two devastating paragraphs. Sure there are plenty more details to come but essentially it is all here.
[begin report here]
Salvisberg’s team initially took a random approach, with evaluations taking place each day, after which the work became more systematic. The investigators chose a gentle, passive approach. They asked who wanted to talk to them, and then interviewed these people. According to Salvisberg they were not after ‘sexy stories like the ones in the press’. A total of five women came forward who said they had been raped. In general the stories of those who had been transported away in buses were relatively ‘uneventful’. They had experienced few incidents. A picture gradually emerged, but the main question was whether the reported executions were isolated incidents or indications of a widespread phenomenon. It was also very difficult to gain a picture of the number who had been executed, but things certainly gave cause for concern, according to the investigator Peggy Hicks of the Human Rights Office of Civil Affairs in Zagreb.
After about a week the investigators of the two UN organizations noticed that their respondents had been told what to say; they suspected that these instructions came from the Bosnian authorities. The gist of these prompted stories was that the Serbs and the UN (not specifically the Dutch) had been the bad guys, who had ‘sold out’ the people of the enclave. At this time Salvisberg had not yet heard any criticism of the actions of the people’s own Muslim soldiers. It was to be some days before the first stories emerged which also assigned blame to the Bosnian government.
[end quote here]
Do I have to comment on that? I hardly think so!
THE VISIT TO THE MUSLIM SOLDIERS WHO HAD ESCAPED FROM SREBRENICA
After a few days the team of investigators started looking for men who had entered the Safe Areas following the march. They visited a camp full of soldiers outside Tuzla. This proved a difficult affair: the authority of T. Mazowiecki, the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights who arrived in Tuzla on 22 July, was required to facilitate this visit. This solved only part of the problem: the interviewers were not permitted to approach people themselves but were ‘accompanied’ by the Muslim authorities. ‘They were presented to us’, reported the investigator Hicks. This was supposedly to save the investigators’ time. ‘It made me feel very uneasy’, said Hicks later
Other investigators shared her experience. According to R. (Roman) Wieruszewski of the UNCHR office in Sarajevo, one of the consequences of this ‘accompaniment’ was that everyone with whom he and his colleagues spoke claimed that he had been unarmed. In later interviews conducted independently of the authorities the interviewees generally declared that of course they had carried weapons, otherwise they would not have survived the march. Sometimes it was women who said that of course the soldiers had been armed. Salvisberg recounted: ‘They even laughed at us when we asked about this.’ He and the other researchers calculated that of the Muslim men, about one-third had been armed and about two-thirds had been unarmed. They gained the impression that there had been an element of organization in the distribution of the available weapons: ‘You get one, you don’t’, which according to them led to conflicts. Other Displaced Persons reported fights between the Muslim soldiers. There were also reports that Bosnian Muslims had executed Serbs.
The impression gained by the research team was that the soldiers had several prepared standard stories, such as a mass murder of 25 people conducted by the Bosnian Serbs, in which the respondent kept under cover or pretended to be dead. ‘We heard this story ten times or so’, said Salvisberg. Although the reconstruction of the march presented problems, the biggest problem proved to be establishing what had happened to the group in Srebrenica and Potocari.
In the first report send by Hicks on 21 July, she nonetheless concluded that there was sufficient basis ‘to believe that significant human rights violations occurred both before and during the transport from Srebrenica’. Much remained unclear, however. In the final report finished by Hicks on 31 July, the issue of numbers remained open. She could do nothing else than to conclude that further investigations were required. It was only in October 1995, following new revelations in the press, that even she realized what the probable scale of the murder had been.
[end quote here]
Let us look at a few interesting things in the above
- The Muslims of Izetbegovic were promoting the Massacre story following the blueprint laid down by Clinton and Izetbegovic that the Serbs must do a massacre of at least 5000 in order to sway American opinion for the US to bomb the Bosnian Serbs
- In that case would you not expect free access
- So why were the Islamist watchers always watching over what the soldiers said
- The thought that they were doing this to help the investigators, make thing flow more smoothly, is a good example of Takkiya (Islamist lies or Islamic deception permitted in the cause)
Let us look at the evidence coming out about a massacre and executions and how Ms Hicks reacted rather strangely
1. ‘They were presented to us’, reported the investigator Hicks. This was supposedly to save the investigators’ time. ‘It made me feel very uneasy’, said Hicks later. SAYS THE BOULD HICKS!
2. Anything else making her uneasy? Well, just this little detail: “The impression gained by the research team was that the soldiers had several prepared standard stories, such as a mass murder of 25 people conducted by the Bosnian Serbs, in which the respondent kept under cover or pretended to be dead. ‘We heard this story ten times or so’, said Salvisberg”.
3. Meaning according to them at least on 10 different times, maybe more, 10 different Muslim soldiers reported that a batch of 25 were shot, and each time the character crawled out when the coast was clear and made his way to Tuzla to tell his story, and his, and his, and his etc etc. The response ov any sane investigator to this might be “What a f…ing concoction”
4. Yet Hicks does not write up anu of this when she comes to report but she joins in the Islamist lie machine “In the first report send by Hicks on 21 July, she nonetheless concluded that there was sufficient basis ‘to believe that significant human rights violations occurred both before and during the transport from Srebrenica’.”
THE SPECIAL REPORTEUR FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
This fairly caught my eye but like much else in this Dutch report it is mentioned in passing and no examination of the implications.
So consider the following:
“After a few days the team of investigators started looking for men who had entered the Safe Areas following the march. They visited a camp full of soldiers outside Tuzla. This proved a difficult affair: the authority of T. Mazowiecki, the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights who arrived in Tuzla on 22 July, was required to facilitate this visit.”
I remember a pop song of about 20 years ago. It was about a guy who was “living next door to Alice” for about 20 years and all about his angst. Anyway it was recut and interposed at regular intervals was the almost scream “Who the F…k is Alice!”
And here I felt like screaming “Who the f..k is T. Mazowieki”.
This Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, who was this guy, as the only one who could get the investigators in to talk to the Muslim soldiers from Srebrenica. The report tells us nothing. Does not even raise an eyebrow at this but it cries out for an explanation. They are a strange lot, these investigators!
I would want to know everything about this Human Rights guy, and as somebody with obvious sway with the Izetbegovic, what on earth was he doing investigating the Serbs committing war crimes!
THE STRANGE COLLISION OF VIEWS BETWEEN PERUVIAN UN TOP GUY AND MAZOWIECKI
So it appears that Mazowiecki had something that no other investigator had. He had the ability to enter the investigating group into the Muslim soldiers camp. There the investigators could talk to the soldiers if the soldiers had somebody from the Muslim side Islamist leadership watching.
After that then why am I not so very surprised at all that this then happened
[begin quote here]
Remind you again about this Human Rights character
After a few days the team of investigators started looking for men who had entered the Safe Areas following the march. They visited a camp full of soldiers outside Tuzla. This proved a difficult affair: the authority of T. Mazowiecki, the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights who arrived in Tuzla on 22 July, was required to facilitate this visit.
And the conflicting reports:
Typical of the problems in defining the events shortly after the fall were the statements made by two high-ranking UN officials in Tuzla. The Peruvian diplomat H. Wieland, the highest official of the UN Centre for Human Rights in the region, said on 23 July that ‘we have not found anyone who saw with their own eyes an atrocity taking place’. On the same day, however, the Special Rapporteur for human rights, Tadeus Mazowiecki, also declared in Tuzla that ‘barbaric’ acts had taken place
[end quote here]
Either one of these two is lying. Which do you believe? Do you believe the UN guy from Peru? Or do you believe the Human Rights guy who has a special relationship with Islamofascist Izetbegovic?
No. don’t answer! I am just teasing! Even to a 9 year old it is a no brainer! The “Special Reporteur of Human Rights, Tadeus Mazowiecki, smelled to high heaven and was obviously a piece of human garbage which Soros had picked up somewhere!
And there you have the quandary that the Serbs side were in. No matter the evidence, or total lack of evidence, the Hicks and Mazowieckis of this world were going to knife the Serbs.