Talk:Prijedor ethnic cleansing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pounje

Pounje has nothing to do with Prijedor. Is completely different region. --79.143.166.227 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User PRODUCER, you can't reverse this article without the references. First reference you need is that Prijedor belongs to region Pounje. The second one is that in Prijedor were killed 5200 people.--Peaceful80 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The reference clearly shows Prijedor listed under the Pounje region with a total of 5273 missing/killed people. PRODUCER (talk)

White armband day

Why no mention of White armband day? http://stopgenocidedenial.org/2012/05/15/remembering-prijedor-massacre --evrik ^(talk) 13:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Mladić, BOTH Actus reus AND Mens Rea satisfied?

 Well the Mladic judgement came in, essentially, acts of genocide were satisfied, specific genocidal intent was also satisfied, whether or not it’s technically large enough to make it the ONLY conclusion hasn’t....I think it is very safe to say this, events in the Prijedor (Krajina region), and Eastern Bosnia in 1992, and obviously Srebrenica in 95’ is Ethnic Cleansing that was genocidal in acts beyond reasonable doubt, intent, and preponderance of evidence regarding size. The prosecutor is seeking to clear the ruling up. However with that, many appeals satisfying the “act of” requirement and the US congress near Unanimous declaration of genocide and General Assembly declaration and German Courts upheld by the ECHR and numerous other academic and govt or organizational conclusions of genocide, it would be insane considering the Armenian Genocide though larger hasn’t achieved this much legal and govt recognition and is recognized as such. Doing so would just be ignoring this fact. I don’t know, why they worded it as such, I’m guessing so the appeals chamber confirms it, like the Karadžić 98BiS appeals ruling reinstating the charge of genocide very firmly. However, the statement that genocide isn’t the ONLY reasonable conclusion...isn’t very solid of a foundation for any organization like Wikipedia  to presume or not clearly include that description in its article. The courts now appear and others have certified it being, the most likely conclusion, but not only, which means, we should when addressing articles listed in the Count 1 indictment, as being, “Ethnic Cleansing/ Act of Genocide” as the court clearly ruled that to be the case and with now the intent satisfied it would be crazy to not do so, and amount to a bias, unless we’re willing to take all other events termed genocide with less evaluation as not being such an event. Most don’t have this much support, and it would be biased to say, “yeah, countless govts, Organizations, academics and the tribunal found it to be a genocidal Act, and intent...we would be factually biased and insulting to just throw out all of that and just say, “Ethnic Cleansing”, when...it’s been confirmed to be an ACT of genocide (potential now genocide, well, yes genocide but maybe not?) so, erasing this term would be vandalism of this article. Attempting to describe it as “a genocide”, or “genocide”, ALSO would be somewhat misleading. However the MOST reasonable conclusion for such an article is, “Ethnic Cleansing, “Genocidal Act”, or “Act of Genocide”. Possibly “physical destruction of (“Elimination and Persecution of”, (eliminationism has a academic root in Daniel Goldhagens “Worse then War”, so is an academic term, possibly applicable? I believe objectivity designates this as “Ethnic Cleansing”, “Act of Genocide”, “Eliminationism”. 

-Ac220404 Ac220404 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)