On Template:May 27 selected anniversaries

This article is poorly written and painful to follow.

It is not true that Serbs wanted to join Serbia - their claim was that they want to remain part of Yugoslavia, and the question was whether nations or republics have a right to self-determination. This was an important issue, and presenting their view in this way is highly biased.

A chopped up Yugoslavia with Serbs as the supermajority, ruled by Serb nationalists the likes of Milosevic. Yeah, I really can't see how someone could so blatantly misinterpret that as "Serbia"! Pfft. --Shallot 17:58, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Also, when someone kills teenagers in a pub in Pec, that is terrorism, in my opinion. And Robert Gelbardt called these actions terrorism as well.

So, please stop reverting what to is not true.

rmhermen,

The Guys at Emperor's Clothes posted a financial reward for anyone that can get a Milosevic hate speach quote... so I guess that nobody has found one so far, otherwise, you should go for the reward, or put back the 'controversial' paragraph

Igor

Zocky, please try to work out NPOV issues about the article here on the talk pages, instead of just reverting the changes. Edit wars don't really help. I believe it's fair to present Serbian views in the article and I have no trouble believing that many Serbs actually do support Milosevic, although a survey or poll would be nice to go from the "hypothetical" to the "factual. --Eloquence

It's not a NPOV issue. It's an applicability issue. If anyone wants to discuss the trial of Slobodan Milosevic (and it's a controversial issue), they should create a separate article on it. This should, IMHO, contain primarily biographical information and provable facts. Zocky 00:29 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

Usually we try to avoid splitting stuff up too much until articles get too long. The trial of Slobo definitely deserves a separate article, but until someone is willing to write it, I think we should stick a summary into this one. --Eloquence

The trial of Slobodan Milosevic has very serious consequences in Serbian politics today - the views of serbs and consequences of it are PART of milosevic legacy - he is still active there by appearing in court. Many of the happenings in Serbia today (elections for instance) are very much influenced by this trial, so it is not irelevant

Tinulim

Clutch, please do not revert our carefully agreed on NPOV compromise without good reason. "Most observers agree that the trial is a travesty of justice" is certainly not true. Almost all media reports I've seen on the trial so far have rather accused Milosevic of being evil, misleading, using fake evidence etc. I'm not saying that this is true, just that we must attribute views properly. --Eloquence

Did you read BBC reports?

Milošević never said anything which could be classified as hate speech, and the fear of him in former Yugoslavia during the rise of Serbian nationalism was more a reaction to the actions of his followers than to any of his explicitly expressed views. He is not considered to a be nationalist himself, and had a bitter dispute with the Bosnian Serb government from 1993 to 1995— during this period the boundary on the Drina river, separating Bosnia from Serbia, was closed, and support for Bosnian Serbs was severely restricted.

I removed this as it is not true. Most people consider him a nationalist. Anyone have specific quotes from him? --rmhermen

First of all, Milošević is a first class demagogue. In the event that no one finds a shred of hate speech in what he publically said, that is simply the confirmation of the former statement. His rhetoric is almost flawless -- it takes such a man to persuade millions of Serbs to do what they have done in the 1990s. There are countless analyses of his rhetoric written in Serbian and Croatian media, it's a real pity that so little is translated to English.

Secondly, it is entirely possible that he is not a Serb nationalist, and that he did it all to make a profit and to secure his family's financial well being for the next several generations. For all we know, he may have done it all for kicks -- it is not inconceivable that a villain of this magnitude perpetrated the whole thing just to satisfy some perverted desire to commandeer the lives of millions. --Shallot 19:17, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A demagog who never said anything to persuade people of hisviews is an obvious contradiction in terms. Milosevic is the only leader who consistently supported peace & a man to whom any from of racism is "anathema" according to Lord Owen under oath at the trial. Owen is hardly acting from an anti-western viewpoint so unless Milosevic's demagogic powers include hyponotism anyone putting the Nazi view has to explain this testimony.

Secondly it is entirely possible that Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln, Florence Nightingale & Jesus were all in it for the money too but anybody reasonable would insist on a little evidence or at least to see some of the money. Despite all such lies by Clinton (who clearly is making money) & co not one cent of these billions alleged has ever been found.

Neil

S

Igor says "any evidence of implicit hate-speech?"

All of his "Niko ne sme da vas bije!" rhetoric ("No one is allowed to beat you!", for the non-native speakers -- his historic exclamation in a rally before Kosovo Serbs in late 1980s) is implicitely hateful towards Albanians, Croats, Bosnian Muslims and whatever other non-Serbs that got in his way.

***The statement above is an attempt to convey an outright lie!***

Comment on the above: The statement that "nobody should (or is allowed to) beat you" was made by Milosevic in response to Kosovo policemen beating Serbian petitioners who were trying to get Milosevic's ear when he went to Kosovo in 1987 to hear the grievances of Serbs who complained they were being terrorized by Albanian secessionists. Obviously such a remark - made to people who were in fact being beaten with billy clubs - could only be interpreted as hostile to Albanians, Croats or anybody else *if those others wished to physically beat Serbs.* That somebody could actually claim that the statement "nobody should be permitted to beat you" - meaning hit you with a club! - is ethnically hostile shows the extent of the demonization of Serbs. Obviously the liar who wrote the above was trying to fool ignorant readers by conveying the false impression Milosevic was saying "Nobody should be permitted to *do better* than you." In case anybody doubts my recounting of what happened that day, here is the relevant part of a dispatch from the Associated Press, 4/25/87:

"Police detained about 20 people in Kosovo in clashes involving up to 20,000 Serbs and Montenegrins protesting alleged harassment by the province's majority Albanian population, witnesses said Saturday.Authorities said seven policemen were slightly injured in the melees late Friday at a conference hall in Kosovo Polje, near Kosovo province's capital, Pristina, which is about 220 miles south of Belgrade....The 12-hour meeting [in Kosovo Polje] started at 6 p.m. Friday. Violence broke out a half-hour later as people seeking access to the hall were pushed away by police. Belgrade's daily newspaper Politika said Saturday up to 20,000 Serbs and Montenegrins assembled in front of the hall. On Friday night, Belgrade Television showed a hail of stones being hurled at police. At one point Milosevic emerged from the building to appease the crowd and criticized police for using truncheons."

That is what REALLY happened.

Jared Israel

It must be that you can't read, or that you're a simple troll, because you've conveniently ignored the meaning of the whole sentence, and those sentences that followed. I guess one can't expect much more from the editor of a site such as emperors-clothes.com... --Shallot 12:23, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here's a quote of his from his current ICTY trial([1]):

"Sa osloncem na unutrašnje saveznike, nacionalističko-separatistička jezgra uz dominantno prisustvo onih snaga koje su poražene u Drugom svetskom ratu. Taj rat je vođen svim sredstvima, medijskim, političkim, ekonomskim, vojnim. Taj rat je najpre vođen decenijskom medijskom kampanjom u kojoj je zloupotrebljen monopol na globalnim sredstvima informisanja, zatim spoljno-političkom intervencijom usmerenom na stvaranje nezavisnih država od jugoslovenskih republika, a zatim najsvirepijom višegodišnjom ekonomskom kampanjom i sankcijama protiv SR Jugoslavije, koje se jedino mogu kvalifikovati kao genocid i konačno vojnom agresijom."

Translation:

"Relying on the internal allies, nationalist-separatist core with the dominant presence of those forces that were defeated in the Second world war. This was was pursued with all means, media, political, economic, military. This war was first pursued with a decade of media campaign in which the monopoly over the global means of informing was abused, then a foreign-political intervention directed at the creation of independent states out of Yugoslav republics, and then the most cruel economic campaign lasting several years and sanctions against FR Yugoslavia, which can only be qualified as genocide and finally a military aggresion."

This litany is just one in a long line of "inspirational" speeches of his where he fabricated a worldwide conspiracy against his people that was designed to inspire all that hate necessary for Serbs to get out there and wage wars against almost every other nation of the foreign Yugoslavia. "THEY are ALL out to get US!" may not be explicit hate speech, but it sure sends out a very hateful message against "THEM".

--Shallot 15:34, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[What nonsense! 1) Milosevic is simply telling the truth about the forces which NATO mobilized against the Serbs - secessionists in Kosovo whose predecessors were sponsored by Mussolini and Hitler; Bosnian Islamists who supplied the manpower for the Bosnian Waffen SS; and Croatian fascists, whom Hitler called "Our Nazis." 2) As for Milosevic's claims about economic sanctions, media lies and interventions - he's just recounting what happened. ]

I have only the vaguest smattering of knowledge about this topic, but I'm pretty sure that "Bosnian civil war" is neutral, while "Serbian aggression on Bosnia" is not. Hence, I revert to original wording. Cyan 06:55, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The following seem like POV uses of language as well (feel free to add to justify changes):

• "in the wake...", Supporters section: the first section starts out with a statements that Milošević's 'actions' have been exaggerated 'in the wake' of Nato's bombing. This language sides with his supporters. Since it is not connected to the rest of the sentence, I removed it. Antonrojo 16:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "even more notedly", supporters section: Implies that both studies are 'noted' implying they are of special interest or great renown. See Wetman's discussion on 'twaddle'. Antonrojo 16:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "action": Supporters section referred to Milošević's 'actions' during the war, which is vauge if not supportive. Changed to 'alleged war crimes'. Antonrojo 16:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "this comment was ... distorted", Supporters section: language sides with Chomsky Antonrojo 16:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "alleged war crimes", Anywhere: I had added 'alleged war crimes' in the supporters section where the vauge term 'actions' was used instead. After thinking about it, I realized that I probably fell into the trap of [WP:NPOV#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 | Giving Equal Validity ] and changed the wording back. The difficulty is that since he died before the trial, he can only be convicted in the courts of public opinion. Personally, I would avoid calling them 'war crimes' leaving only vauge phrases like 'his actions during the war' or detailed accounts of what actually happened. Antonrojo 00:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about his training as a psychiatrist - can anyone add a few words on this?212.112.96.46 11:51, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wasn't it Radovan Karadic who was a psychiatrist before? andy 11:54, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's Karadzic, and yes, Milošević has a law degree, it's Karadžić who was a psychiatrist. --Shallot 17:58, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How do you pronounce his last name?

Something like slo-BO-dahn me-LO-sheh-vitch. --Shallot 17:58, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The addition of some substantiation or at least a reference to the agency or entity, or literature which proves the allegation that Milosevic' had Stambolic' murdered would improve the article. Can anyone add to this aspect of the history/biography? I think it's probably true, but what I'm asking is for some more rigorous historical writing.

Substantiation would be difficult - as with all the other NATO/ICTY allegations. If we put in everything NATO said we will accuse him of being a follower of Hitler, suicidal, stealing $10s of billions, forcing Bosnian women to give birth to dogs & having hypnotic/magic powers. Neil Craig 10/11/4

He's stood for a couple of elections while trussed up in The Hague ... and done pretty well IIRC. That oughta get a mention... 142.177.168.90 17:22, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No he didn't. His party did, though. Nikola 05:45, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The statement that he fell by "losing in" elections should be removed. He fell between the 1st & 2nd rounds of the election because the Nato funded opposition worried that they were going to lose organised spontaneous demonstrations/a coup/Nato funded rent-a-mob (according to preference). The election was not completed.

Various comments on Slobodan Milošević's ideology and politics are currently scattered throughout the main article. The result seems to me to be overly simplistic and insufficiently coherent. I think it would make more sense if they were grouped together in a separate paragraph. Or maybe it's just me. What do people think? --BertD 18:55, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

I don't think that the two could be successfuly separated. But a separate paragraph about his politics would make sense without removing (most of) the politics from the biography. OTOH, who knows enough to write it? Nikola 05:39, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC) BALLS

I came across this article that briefly mentioned Milosevic connnection with Yugoslavian mafia gang. There is nothing related with drugs in Slobodan Milosevic article, but i felt it may not help to add it without other wikipedia having a say as the article looks likely to be controversial. The article is available from here [2], but you need to register first. This is why i have felt necessary to do the copy and paste below.

Why Akasha had to bite the bullet in Amsterdam

Story by DOMINIC WABALA Publication Date: 02/06/2005

In better times: Everybody else had to be out of the picture when Moi and Biwott talked.

As he blissfully walked hand-in-hand with his wife of many years that fateful day in Amsterdam in May, 2000, Mombasa drug baron Ibrahim Abdalla Akasha may have felt safe and secure far away from home.

Back in Kenya he was a wanted man facing drug trafficking charges. But, unknown to him, he faced far more deadly foes in Amsterdam due to a long-standing feud over non-payment for a Sh200 million consignment of heroin he delivered to the Netherlands in 1999. The festering dispute was getting worse each day and even an Egyptian mediator had failed to reconcile Akasha, his accomplices in the Netherlands and a Yugoslavian mafia hitman over payment for the heroin pack.

As he walked hand-in-hand with second wife Gazi Hayat, a gunman riding a motorcycle trailed Akasha and struck just as the couple stepped onto Bloedstraat (Blood Street). It is in the same street that Magdi Barsoum, the man whom Dutch police suspect killed Akasha, was shot two years later.

The hitman on a bike fired five bullets hitting Akasha at point-blank range and shattered his face right between the eyes; the sixth bullet ruptured his heart and the seventh punctured his abdomen.

Akasha died in the hands of his wife as two other people who had accompanied the couple, Ms Zainabu Hassan and Mr Mohammed Ali Musa, watched in horror.

What followed was a vicious gang war that claimed the lives of most of the key players in the Netherlands-based drug trafficking syndicate Akasha was a part of.

Akasha’s downfall in earnest began when he was charged with drug trafficking in a Nairobi court back in 1996. Adverse publicity and an altercation with journalists – when he was photographed at the law courts – alarmed the international drug syndicate in which he operated, and many of his accomplices now perceived him as a liability.

The situation was aggravated by the arrest of his brother, Yusuf Abdallah Ibrahim Abdi, who was charged with possessing white heroin worth Sh13 million in 1998.

Akasha now had to use a Yugoslavian conduit, which was then based in Kenya, to deliver huge consignments of drugs around the world while waiting for the furore created by the Kenyan media to wear off.

The arrangement worked well until sometime in 1999 when the Yugoslavian agent failed to pay for a hashish consignment delivered to the Dutch network led by kingpin Sam Klepper.

Desperate to maintain the trickle of money from his deals, Akasha insisted on being paid by the Dutch network.

What followed was a vicious gang feud in which Akasha abducted the Yugoslavian broker who had delivered the consignment to the Dutch and held him hostage in Kenya for more than two months.

Using his hostage and dirty tricks, Akasha extorted US$2.5 (Sh195 million) from the Dutch syndicate.

Two Egyptian brothers based in Amsterdam, Mounir and Magdi Barsoum, tried in vain to resolve the dispute between Akasha's network on one side and that of Dutch baron Sam Klepper, who was said to have refused to pay for Akasha's consignment.

The feud was complicated by the entry of an influential Yugoslavian mafia gang led by Streten 'Jotcha' Jocic, who had ties with a Yugoslavian warlord only identified as Arkan and then President Slobodan Milosevic.

Aggrieved by the abduction of their trusted lieutenant by Akasha, Klepper's operatives invited the Mombasa tycoon to Amsterdam, saying this would be an opportunity for them to settle amicably the Sh200 million dispute.

Magdi allegedly called Akasha and invited him to travel to Amsterdam and collect the money from his cafe in the city's Oudezijds Archterburgwal Street.

Ironically, the invitation could not have come at a more opportune moment. Akasha obtained visas at the Netherlands Embassy in Nairobi for himself and his wife only days before the discovery of 4.7 tonnes of heroin worth Sh940 million in the up-market Nyali Estate, Mombasa. Security agents said this was made possible by a split in Akasha's polygamous family; aggrieved members of the family must have spilled the beans.

Akasha was already in the Netherlands by the time police in Kenya announced he was wanted for questioning and possible detention over the 4.7 tonnes of heroin.

In the Netherlands he sought medical attention for a a number of ailments, including hypertension and diabetes. Dutch police were monitoring his movements.

A perfect scenario had now been set for the Mombasa drug baron's fall. For a hideout, Akasha and his wife Hayat chose the seedy red-light district whose streets are lined with skimpily dressed prostitutes in romantically-lit window displays.

Unknown to Akasha, he was already in a death trap. He was staying in an apartment belonging to his Egyptian associate who was later implicated in his murder.

The hitman on a bike struck in broad daylight as Akasha walked gaily hand-in-hand with his wife Hayat in May, 2000.

Then followed a vicious gang war that claimed the lives of most of the key players in the Netherlands drug trafficking syndicate.

The well-connected Dutch gang, rivalled by the influential Yugoslavian network, battled it out for the turf with the Egyptian and Middle East barons in a series of executions that claimed the lives of some of the world's most notorious and dreaded drug barons.

Akasha's nemesis, Sam Klepper, who controlled a larger part of the international drug trade was assassinated in October 2000, four months after the Kenyan baron was executed.

It is widely believed these and several other gangland killings were connected to a feud between Dutch and Yugoslavian criminals.

In May, 2004 real estate tycoon Willem Endstra – said to be a banker to the drug underworld – was gunned down outside his office on Apollolaan Street in the south of Amsterdam.

Mounir Barsoum, the notorious drug dealer linked to Akasha's killing, himself fell victim to a gangland execution in Amsterdam.

Mounir, 55, was shot dead at midday from the wheel of his car in the west of Amsterdam by a helmet-wearing gunman who was sitting on the back of a man riding a scooter.

Mounir's 12-year-old daughter, who was in the car with him at the time of the shooting, was airlifted to hospital in a critical condition.

Father and daughter were in a dark blue car at the traffic lights in the junction of Amsterdam’s Jan van Galenstraat and Willem de Zwijgerlaan streets.

An eyewitness told police that the pillion passenger dismounted from the scooter and fired 10 shots into the front and side of the Mounir's car before jumping back onto the scooter which sped away.

Mournir was dead by the time police arrived at the scene. Dutch police revealed that Mounir was the victim of a spate of gang warfare executions.

Egyptians Mounir and his brother Magdi ran the coffee shop christened 'Bar Red Light' located in Oudezijds Achterburgwal Street.

In 2002, Magdi was murdered in the same Bloedstraat area where Akasha fell, in what police described as "yet another gang warfare execution".

Magdi and his brother Mounir did business with Dutch drug dealer Klaas Bruinsma, who had been gunned down outside the Hilton Hotel in Amsterdam in 1991.

The Dutch police have never arrested anyone over the killings but have always suspected the involvement of Yugoslavian mafia either directly or for hiring the hitmen.

in the section about his currently standing trial in The Hague, the Internationaal Strafhof is referred to as something "he thinks is illegal". Isn't this wording POV? Surely, the use of "thinks" implements that he's wrong in thinking the Court is illegal. Wouldn't "which he believes to be illegal" be more non-POV wording in this case?

Can somebody please provide references for citeing the points of this agreement? --Dejan Čabrilo 22:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you ever wonder if he will die of old age before they reach a verdict? This trial just seems to go on and on.... Maybe we'll all die of old age before they come to a verdict. Talk about beuracracy.

User:129.240.145.93 has been making changes to this and other related articles recently. I do not know enough about the subject to know, but they look like potential POV pushing. Could somebody please have a look? TigerShark 21:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article and specifically the 'Trial' section are not POV. The autor(s) seems to want to defend Milošević. There is very few information about accusations against Milošević and a lot about Milošević beeing (a) moderate (nationalist). The article should state the accusations but also say that some people don't believe the accusations (and that some do), that Milošević is /was seen as a moderate person by some people and that some people hold him responsible for the wars in Yugoslavia --Scafloc 14:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the first paragraph of the following article is not enough to confirm to others that Milosevic infact DID come forward to the greek government, in order to seek the creation of a Serbian Greek State, then I don't know what is! The paragraph goes as follows: " For the second time in the last two years, Serbian political leaders came forth with a proposal to the Greeks for their unification into a confederation. The first time, at the end of 1992 the proposal was made, suddenly and informally by Slobodan Milosevic himself, during an interview given to a private Greek TV station. Official Greek political circles, if we remember correctly, had absolutely nothing to say in that connection."

Still don't believe it? Here's the url: http://www.aimpress.ch/dyn/trae/archive/data/199402/40227-006-trae-beo.htm

And as for him supporting a greater Serbian state...well I think that's just plain obvious

 Slobodan Milosevic considers himself to be a Serb, rather than Montneegrin, and has always done so. The same is true for his immediate family. Therefore, the only uncontroversial thing to do is to state he is a Serb FROM Montenegro, rather than a person of Montenegrin ethnicity, just as, say, Nikola Tesla was a Serb FROM Croatia (then part of Austria-Hungary).
 Slobodan Jovanovic was not a philosopher, nor did he ever receive a formal training in philosophy. He never wrote a piece of philosophical work per se, either.

In private, Milošević is patriarchal and conservative, devoted to his family and wife, Mirjana Marković, who was his high-school sweetheart. His personality is marked by stubbornness (of which he is proud) and rigid adherence to personal moral beliefs. Modest and unassuming during his years in power, he was often opposed to appearing on state TV, and his presence in the media was consequently rare and discreet. His most devoted followers are older people, pensioners who spent most of their lives in another era, whose moral code Milošević followed flawlessly. His stubbornness and unwillingness to compromise or betray his principles is at least partly to be credited for the political problems and wars which marked his years in power. His unrelenting defence in the trial has also to do with this stubborn personality.

Seems like we've got someone from the milosevic fan club...i was worried about deleting this, but it seems like original research and a definite case of someone inserting their own opinions. I don't know if the stuff about him being worried about appearing on tv is true. Should I try and rewrite this or just delete it? XYaAsehShalomX 19:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need,thats true,read Wesley Clarks book on it,I think its part of it194.106.189.130 12:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is pro-Serbian propaganda. The bibliography cites only three sources that this article was derived from as academic reference points yet there remains thousands of academic articles on Milosevic.

Moreover the use of the word "supposed" and "alleged" should NOT be used when referencing Milosevic's war crimes.

I had added 'alleged war crimes' in the supporters section where the vauge term 'actions' was used instead. After thinking about it, I realized that I probably fell into the trap of [WP:NPOV#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 | Giving Equal Validity ] and changed the wording back. The difficulty is that since he died before the trial, he can only be convicted in the courts of public opinion. Personally, I would avoid calling them 'war crimes' leaving only vauge phrases like 'his actions during the war' or detailed accounts of what actually happened. Antonrojo 19:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is biased and is a shame on Wikipedia.

I second this sentiment. Added NPOV tag to page. The biases are too numerous to list, but in general, the article needs less discussion of whether or not he is a criminal or a patriot (such a discussion will always be biased), and more discussion of historical facts. RK 65.213.77.129 20:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I read this article, I was appalled by the pro Milosevic bias, it should more closely resemble the point of view taken here. Simon Beavis

I've added the names of Slobodan Milošević's parents.

Gardenworker 07:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why there is a NPOV tag on this article. First of all, just so noone thinks I am a Milosevic sympathiser, I was in Belgrade on October 5th 2000., protesting against Milosevic, and helped bring down his government. But this article is not biased at all. Just turn on any american News channel, like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and you will see what "biased" means.

Slobodan Milosevic is an alleged war criminal. Alleged. Nothing has been proven yet. So far, he is 100% INNOCENT. Listen to ANY of the above news channels when they talk about Serbian politics. "Serbian war criminal Slobodan Milosevic...", and not to mention when they talk about general Mladic or maybe Radovan Karadzic. And you are calling THIS article biased? Please...

He is no hero. It is true that many Serbian people consider him a defender of Serbian pride and justice, simply because the Serbian people were "demonised" by Western media outlets. Remember turning on a News channel in the 90's? "Bosnian refugees fled from Serbian militia...", "Albanian refugees have no where to go". Have you ever heard anything about Serbian refugees? Of course not, thats not what they wanted you to focus on. And don't think there wasn't Serbian refugees, as well as a genocide of the Serbian people, just read the article Kravica. See how short the article is? Now go to Srebrenica massacre. Notice how long it is. Also, there is an article on Bosnian Genocide, but no article on Serbian genocide (read what the Croats did to the Serbs in this article).

So, people that have almost NO knowledge what REALLY happened in Yugoslavia in the 1990s can't stick the tag on and claim it's biased. You have to look at it from all sides. Yes, he may be a war criminal. Some might claim that he is responsible for the break-up of Yugoslavia. That would be hard to prove, since the EU offered 5,5 billion denmarks to the Ante Markovic government, and they offered EU membership to Yugoslavia granted that it doesn't split-up. The only man that objected was Croatian president Franjo Tudjman. Well, I've said too much, the FBI is probably going to knock on my door after I post this ;-) I think the NPOV tag should be removed. If someone has a solid reason why they still think it should be there, feel free to challange my facts and knowledge about Milosevic. --Bormalagurski 02:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read a lot of books regarding the history of the Balkans. Can you substantiate your claims regarding Jugoslavia was offered EU-membership if it didn't split up? And Where does the 5,5 billion D-marks come from? I've never read nor heard about it before. Gardenworker 19:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name of a very detailed article about this is "Tudjmana je spasila smrt", but it's in Serbian. It has all the information about the offers of the EU during the Ante Markovic government. I'll try to find it and post it.

Also, I want to explain why Yugoslavia didn't accept the offer. If the "throw money at the problem" theorem were right - and it never was, not even once in human history - the Yugoslav wars of secession and succession would have never erupted. Former Yugoslavia was economically independent and prosperous. It constituted an effective and dynamic free trade zone between its six constituent republics. Resources were allocated within it with reasonable efficiency. Still, the most important trade partner was the EU, and Ante Markovic knew that. But, good ol' Franjo, thought that it was more important to focus on an indipendent Croatia, so he said "no". But the situation is way too complexed, and cannot be explained in a few paragraphs, it can hardly be explained in a book or two. All I'm saying is that people who put the NPOV tag did it for the wrong reason. Why? Because there is no good reason. --Bormalagurski 00:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can read Serbian, with some help from serbian - english dictionary :) Studiram Srpski :) I agree with you that the NPOV tag is uncalled for. But if it were removed, someone would defintely put it up there again, without any kind of discussion about the disputed parts in the article. --Gardenworker 05:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who removed the NPOV tag? This article is nothing but propaganda for Milosevic. It doesn't even mention the genocide he inspired, the rape of Bosnian women, etc. The Wikipedia is not here to let Serbs try to convince themselves that what happened in the 1990's was good and justifiable, its here as an information resource. This article is obscenely NPOV. --soto 18:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put a pov tag on the pres. section but it says article' maybe it could be replaced by a section tag but don`t know the code. --Isolani 18:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milosevic is dead. The good news is that the whole "Greater Serbia" movement may be dying too. The bad news is, he dies before he recieved any sentence from The Hague. This trial was fairly unique. It's one of the first of it's kind since the Nuremberg trials. However, the Nuremberg trials reached a decisive conclusion, which in turn allowed the healing process to begin, and established the legal authority of a court like the ICC. This trial did not. Europe's lodestone has always been, and always will be, it's inability to unite over much of anything. Here was the opportunity for the ICC to justify it's existence by bringing a war criminal to justice. The ICC instead became weighed down with beuracracy and indecision, to the point where it could not frunction well enough to reach a verdict of either innocence or guilt before the defendant died in his cell. Maybe the judges thought this would relieve them of the burden of having to say something controversial, which either verdict would have been. But it just makes the Court look spineless and weak, unable to take a stand. Their inability to reach a consensus within the time needed shows the inefficiency of this court, and displays for all the world to see it's fatal flaw. War criminals need not fear the ICC. Milosevic got away with it. The signal sent out by his death is that all the other war criminals probably will, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandering Star (talk • contribs)

I hope you understand how much you offended an entire nation. There was never a plan for a Greater Serbia, and mentioning that word offends Serbs. How dare you...

--Boris Malagurski ₪ 21:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo, what's that got to do with Milosevic's wikipedia article? --Dijxtra 15:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I so agree, War Criminals are united! Whilst former Turkish leaders walk freely following years of mass murders against Kurds - every US leader having declared war on one country, having killed millions over the decades, it seems we only need war Crime chambers for show trials. I think we call it "victors justice" here, whereby the weak pay the price for losing their respective battle. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians destroyed during their war. By the way, when is the first trial due for the Chatila massacres in Lebanon 1982? I guess that wasn't a war crime because only women and children refugees were killed. Still havn't heard the "international community" comdemn this one either... Celtmist

Congratulations. You're a moron. Milosevic was one of the biggest mass-murderers of the 20th century. The world is a better place without him.--24.60.107.154 17:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, my dear Wikipedian, the world would be better without you. You should suffer and die for that statement. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 21:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with certain types of people who claim that offending their leader should result in the death penalty? We know you luves you some Milosevic, but get over yourself, pointing out (correctly) that he was a mini-Hitler, even if such a statement were factually false, does not merit the death penalty. Sheesh, even most of the Bushites in the USA don't call for the death of people who insult Bush. Until people like you stop issueing death threats to people who offend your delicate sensibilities I really doubt you'll be taken seriously.

However, your insanity does offer an explantion for some things. Maybe all those women Milosevic's followers raped to death insulted Milosevic, so they "should suffer and die" right? --soto 23:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the world is better without Milosevic. All AIDS victims have been cured, a remedy has been discovered which helps us live forever, no more pollution, but whilst he was alive, people in Africa were starving - and it was his fault. Not anymore though! Hey Pal, 24.60.107 etc. - every world leader has the right to defend his territory. How many people you kill depends upon how resistent your opponent is over how much time...if they give don't start on you in the first place, then you don't kill a single person. Of 192 countries, about 35 are all right, the rest are below the poverty line and US troops are in 124 that I know of. Not exactly making Haiti a good place are they? How about Iraq? Suppose that's good too. It's all right for Israel to invade whoeevr it wants, kill however many peope it needs to achieve its goals without labelling their prime minister of the time a mass-murderer, but be honest, you don't see their vicitms out and about walking and being free do you? Or was everyone in Golan Heights a potential suicide bomber? You've got a lot to learn 24.60.107 - go and start reading a bit... Celtmist

What is this, like, an anti-Milosevic party? THE WEST PROCLAIMED HIM AS THE BIGGEST FACTOR FOR PEACE IN 1995!!! Don't you see how much you are brainwashed? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 21:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

"