Talk:Račak killings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Kosovo Portal Račak killings is part of the WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Administrators: when banning a user from an article, look up this article on the list of active general sanctions, select the relevant Arbitration case, and list the user under the Log of Bans at the page bottom; additionally, make use of {{User article ban arb}}.

This article and other articles related to Kosovo are subject to article probation in the Kosovo arbitration case. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

[edit] POV Article

There's a lot of Serbian propaganda in this article. All reliable evidence and sources support that it was in fact an massacre of civilians. Serb nationalists is just desperate enough to continue to arguee against the truth considering they cant accept the facts. --Nirvana77 (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I already reverted one POV-pusher, could you kindly state, which sentences do you consider POV? Because I, for one, can see a lot of POV here, but more anti-Serbian POV than pro-Serbian. Szopen (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality disputed?

Who disputes the neutrality of this page? Since there is no discussion, I intend to remove the neutrality tag unless there are objections.2toise 22:23, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please don't. The last paragraph (suggesting that William Walker is a CIA agent but without adding any evidence) screams of bias. I'll work on it when I've finished my current edits. - ChrisO 23:20, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As promised, I've reworked the article. Actually, I've done a complete rewrite: the original article had quite a lot of POV bias in it so I decided that the best course was to ditch it and start over. -- ChrisO 23:46, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on Racak incident edits

1. "Displacement" vs "evacuation" - according to the OSCE, the population was "displaced" following fighting in July 1998. Displacement can mean both expulsion and voluntary evacuation. I don't have information as to which it was, so I suggest that we use "displacement" to cover both possibilities. -- ChrisO 22:40, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I believe that "relocation" is the most neutral term. Nikola 08:18, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Relocation" suggests an orderly evacuation. "Displacement" covers all of the scenarios, because it describes what actually happened on the ground; "relocation" is an explanation of displacement (just as "ethnic cleansing" is an alternative explanation). -- ChrisO 08:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am not a native English speaker, but to my ear "relocation" doesn't suggest whether there is order in it or not, and "displacement" suggest that it is done forcibly. Don't try to convince me otherwise, I will not believe you. You might suggest a third term. Nikola 09:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it's a nuance of English (I am a native English speaker, btw). Displacement is an event - it means literally something moving from one place to another. Relocation is one process by which that event happens. Other processes in this context include abandonment, evacuation and expulsion. We both agree that the inhabitants left Racak - in other words, they were displaced. The disagreement is over how they were displaced. In English, the term is entirely neutral, and doesn't imply anything other than that they moved away from their original location. If you don't believe me on this, I suggest that you raise the question on Wikipedia:Village pump or somewhere like that and get a second opinion from another native English speaker. -- ChrisO 10:30, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm native English (well, Canuckistani) and on the why-is-Milosovic-in-the-Hague-but-not-Bush-Klinton-and-Dumbya? side: "relocation" does connote orderly and "displacement" does connote force, but not necessarily more direct force than trying to avoid crossfire. (A flood could cause "displacement.") The only alternative I can suggest offhand is "uprooting", which just sounds pussy. Kwantus 02:33, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

2. "He immediately used the killings to incite the conflict" - this is POV and is in any case not an description of what happened. It's a statement of (your view of) what effect Walker's actions had, not a statement of what those actions were. I think we can both agree with my statement that "He immediately blamed the killings on government forces." -- ChrisO 22:40, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No. The government force announced the killings at a press conference, so why would there be a reason to blame them!? Even you yourself wrote that he branded the incident "an unspeakable atrocity" which was "a crime against humanity" etc. and I don't see how could that do anything but incite the conflict. Nikola 08:18, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You don't see how it could do anything but incite the conflict - in other words, it's your POV.

Mistake: I wanted to write "I don't see how could anyone not see that that will do anything but incite the conflict." Nikola 09:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's still your POV, though. I'm sure Walker and others would disagree. -- ChrisO 10:30, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Don't know about others, but I am certain that he would agree. Nikola 21:37, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that we confine ourselves to describing what Walker actually did, not what effect you or I think it had on the conflict. We can agree (I hope) on his actions if not the consequences of his actions. -- ChrisO 08:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you could think of something more neutral then what I wrote, but one thing Walker surely didn't do is blaming the killings on the government forces. Nikola 09:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He definitely did do this. From the London Sunday Times, 17 Jan 1999:

William Walker, the American head of the monitoring mission run by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, was visibly shaken after touring the site of the massacre outside Racak in southern Kosovo.

"It is about as horrendous an event as I have seen, and I have been in some nasty situations," he said. "I do not hesitate to accuse the (Yugoslav) government security forces. We want to know who gave the orders, and who carried them out. I will insist that justice will be done. They certainly didn't deserve to die in circumstances like this."

I suggest that we include this direct quote in the article. It was reported independently in many other newspapers (a large group of journalists accompanied Walker to Racak). -- ChrisO 10:30, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Look, yes, he said it, but it wasn't blaming -- as I said, they announced it on a press conference and there never was any dispute that the killings were done by the government forces. If we say that he blamed them it would be as if we say that "Nikola Smolenski blamed Jimbo Wales for creating Wikipedia". Nikola 21:37, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be noted he looked at it and—in very poor diplomatic form for an supposed diplomat—imposed an anti-Serb bias ("horrendous event") before any forensic work had been done. The circumstances hadn't been determined -- and Ranta cast her own doubts on the circumstances in Es begann mit einer Lüge, doubts she was strenuously rehearsed to retract in court. Kwantus 02:33, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

3. I've added a sentence on the reaction to the Finnish and Yugoslav/Belarusian forensic reports. It's fair to say that the latter was not generally regarded as credible outside of Yugoslavia and Belarus; as far as I recall, even the Russians didn't believe it. It's certainly true to say that the Finnish report had more impact internationally. -- ChrisO 22:40, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I recall that subsequent bombing did not have UN backing, because it was clear that Russia would veto it, and Russia would veto it because... Nikola 08:18, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What has that got to do with the forensic reports? They were both done well before the bombing started. -- ChrisO 08:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

...it didn't believe the forensic and various other reports. Nikola 09:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The bombing took place on the basis of the breakdown of the Rambouillet talks, not the Racak killings. Bear in mind that there was a 2½ month gap between the two events. -- ChrisO 10:30, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but this was used as pretext for the "agreements". Nikola 21:37, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

4. "NATO governments very quickly agreed" - not just NATO or for that matter Western governments. The EU, OSCE, Council of Europe and UN all issued statements condemning the killings. This wasn't simply Yugoslavia versus NATO - there were a lot of non-NATO governments involved (the reason why a team of Finns was sent to do the autopsies was precisely because of their country's neutral status). -- ChrisO 22:40, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ChrisO : the archetypical Anglo-centric viewpoint as usual. Wouldn't expect any better from your typical Wikipedia busybody. The Albanians were ethnically cleansing Kosovo was before the Serb police reacted against KLA terrorism. Killings, hostage takings, Desecration of Orthodox churches, Mafia corruption of local Government, breakdown in law and order.....they were a great bunch to side with, after all, they only wanted a 'Greater Albania' and that would be great for Gangsterism in the region and abroad (London!!). 82.35.34.24 02:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

We are talking about Racak, mr/ms 82.35.34.24. It would suffice if you backed your claims that The Albanians in Racak were Desecrating Orthodox churches, breaking law and order etc etc. Even if you break the law and desecrate churches, that still doesn't call for death squads.Xhamlliku —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.92.213 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More notes on edits

1. "It was also alleged that William Walker has never been a per se diplomat but is in fact an agent of United States intelligence on the basis that he is known as an apologist for United States-backed death squads in El Salvador who personally managed a phony humanitarian organization organized to deliver weapons to the Contras." Very POV, and a distortion of what happened; I've sourced the claim and moved it to an appropriate section with major rewording.

2. I've also expanded the paragraph on the international reaction to the forensic reports.

3. "NATO governments and various NATO-dominated international organisations" - this is simply untrue. You seem to be trying to blame NATO for everything; the fact is that it wasn't just NATO. Is the UN Secretary General "NATO-dominated"? What about Finland, Sweden and Ireland, all non-NATO EU members? For the record, the non-NATO organisations and countries mentioned in the article are very jealous of their independence from NATO (why do you think the issue of an "EU army" is so controversial?).

4. "Reports compiled by investigations conducted by the Congress of the United States state that the decision to invade Kosovo was taken in 1998, and awaited a "pretext" to "pull the trigger"." - what is your source? This is such an extraordinary claim that it really needs to be sourced. -- ChrisO 21:04, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chris, I should warn you that the impression I have gotten from Nikola was that he doesn't believe anything in the mainstream Western media. He also doesn't believe the HRW because it is funded by the Finish. For more of this, have a read of our long "discussion" when you have some time: [4]. Dori | Talk 22:19, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, that discussion does shed light on what's going on here as well. -- ChrisO 23:56, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nikola, your claim that this was driven by NATO is simply untrue. NATO itself has no power and no representation on other international organisations (e.g. the UN, EU etc) - it's the member states who exercise that power, and in the case of Kosovo it was Britain and America which were in the driving seat. NATO is simply a vehicle for the implementation of member states' military policies. But the situation was not like Iraq where a lot of countries disagreed with the Anglo-US view - the EU and OSCE (with lots of non-NATO members) fully agreed and supported the proposition that the Yugoslav government was to blame in Racak.

Also, as I've already said, you need to source your claim that the US Congress found that the decision to invade was taken in 1998. If an investigation was carried out it will have been published online. What's the URL? -- ChrisO 11:09, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd say it would be more likely to be Arkan than the Yugoslav Army. Still. Hardly genocide is it. The Albanians did just as bad. PS ChrisO - just because the BBC website doesn't have a story or an angle on something, doesn't mean it isn't true. This is one incident blown out of all proportion and investigated ad nauseum. I'm sure there were likewise atrocities carried out on the Serb minority by the KLa prior to the crackdown which received absolutely 0 coverage :) 82.35.34.24 03:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand. KLA was not a governmental organization. Serb police or army was. Whatever KLA was doing, police and army must conduct their operations in accordance with law. Mass shooting of alleged KLA members without investigation and trial was clearly NOT in accordance with law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.128.182.143 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And didn't happen here. Nikola 07:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

We'll have to see what the court says about it... -- ChrisO 19:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The article is POV

Source BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/295000/audio/_298317_ranta.ram Dr Helena Ranta tells BBC that "most likely the victims were civilians". You can hear the clip yourself. THIS MUST BE INCLUDED.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah30 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ranta said in the press report that there were "no indications of not being [civilians]". The devil is in the detail. This is why she later accepted that her words were unclear (and misunderstood by the press at the time) when testifying at the ICTY. In any case, I am more than happy with placing a request for comments on the intro wording for uninvolved editors to express their views. Regards, Asterion^talk 20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not read any place that she says he words could be misunderstood, but read this article: http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20021126IE10

She is Finnish and the article is written by a serious Finnish newspaper. Also listen to the BBC clip where she says "most likely the victims were civilians". The article right now is very much supporting the Serbian version and you now from earlier that we can not use e.g. the Turkish version when we write about the Armenian massacre. We should also be aware of the fact that Belarusian is Europe’s last dictator state and that there are NO freedom of expression. The Belarusian had to say what their dictatorial leaders wanted them to say.In one or another way we should present the both version in the intro of the article.--Noah30 08:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you are demonising some people (Belarusians) as if they were all corrupt. I will read the rest of the sources provided by you and recent editors during the weekend and get back to you later. Till someone can find a quote I will remove the bit of text where it says "...she later admitted that...", as it is not verified. As far as I remember, at the time Ranta was careful not to offer any non-forensic answer. This is why she probably said "no indication of not being civilians", instead plainly affirming that the dead were civilians (I guess she did not want to pass judgement till a proper judicial process had taken place). Regarding the other forensic teams, you could add an extra paragraph with criticism in the media and add references. This way the reader can make their own mind. Regards, Asterion^talk 18:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that all Belarusian are corrupt, just described the political situation there. I feel that you are ignoring what Ranta told BBC: "most likely they were civilians", she could not use stronger words, when an investigator says something like this that means she is convinced 100 %. Please listen to the file. Ranta has all the time used the word "crime against humanity". It is very very very important to include this; otherwise this article will continue to be POV. If you do not have prejudices and read little bit more than you will come to the same conclusion as me. --Noah30 19:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Source Helsingin Sanomat English Edition 13.3.2003 http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20021126IE10:

The Finnish forensic team led by Ranta investigated the massacre in Racak in 1999. One of the victims was a young woman, another a young boy, and the rest were men. The investigators did not find any evidence to suggest that the dead were combatants. Milosevic tried to put forward a conspiracy theory according to which Germany, as well as William Walker, ambassador of the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), had put pressure on Ranta. In her testimony Ranta pointed out that all of the members of her team were Finns, and that Finland is not even a member of NATO. She emphasised that she was in Kosovo exclusively to determine the causes of death of those who were killed, without consideration of the possible political repercussions of her report.

At Tuesday's session of the trial, Milosevic also focused on reports by Serb investigators who said that there were powder burn marks on the hands of 37 of the 40 bodies. He saw this of an indication that the dead were fighters, and not civilians. Ranta rejected the findings, pointing out that they were based on a paraffin test which had been used already in the 1930s, and which she did not consider reliable. Ranta's group did not conduct any powder burn tests, because they were not able to study the bodies until a week after the victims had died. She said that such tests should be conducted within three to six hours after the shots had been fired. Milosevic also showed pictures of an ammunition cartridge and a military identification tag, saying that they were further evidence that the victims were fighters. According to the Ranta report, all of the bullets found by the Finnish investigators were found in the ground directly beneath the bodies. In an ordinary combat situation the bullets would have been more likely to penetrate the bodies, flying further away. The bullets found inside the bodies were taken by the Serb investigators.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah30 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Source Human Rights Watch: Yugoslav Forces Guilty of War Crimes in Racak, Kosovo

(January 29, New York) — Human Rights Watch today categorically rejected Yugoslav government claims that the victims of the January 15 attack on Racak were either Kosovo Liberation Army soldiers killed in combat, or civilians caught in crossfire.

After a detailed investigation, the organization accused Serbian special police forces and the Yugoslav army of indiscriminately attacking civilians, torturing detainees, and committing summary executions. The evidence suggests that government forces had direct orders to kill village inhabitants over the age of fifteen.

The killing of forty-five ethnic Albanian civilians has provoked an apparent shift in western policy toward Kosovo, which the Contact Group is meeting in London today to discuss.

A report in the Washington Post yesterday provided excerpts from telephone conversations between Serbian Interior Ministry General Sreten Lukic and Yugoslav Deputy Prime Minister Nikola Sainovic, who clearly ordered government security forces to “go in heavy” in Racak. The two officials later discussed ways that the killings might be covered up to avoid international condemnation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah30 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Source: Washington Post:

Serbs Tried To Cover Up Massacre; Kosovo Reprisal Plot Bared by Phone Taps

By R. Jeffrey Smith The Washington Post January 28, 1999

RACAK, Yugoslavia, January 27, 1999

The attack on this Kosovo village that led to the killing of 45 ethnic Albanian civilians 12 days ago came at the orders of senior officials of the Serb-led Belgrade government who then orchestrated a coverup following an international outcry, according to telephone intercepts by Western governments.

Angered by the slaying of three soldiers in Kosovo, the officials ordered government forces to "go in heavy" in a Jan. 15 assault on Racak to search out ethnic Albanian guerrillas believed responsible for the slayings, according to Western sources familiar with the intercepts.

As the civilian death toll from the assault mounted and in the face of international condemnation, Yugoslavia's deputy prime minister and the general in command of Serbian security forces in Kosovo systematically sought to cover up what had taken place, according to telephone conversations between the two. .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah30 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In President Bill Clinton's March 19, 1999 address to the nation announcing NATO's determination to launch airstrikes against Yugoslavia, he said:

As we prepare to act we need to remember the lessons we have learned in the Balkans.... We should remember what happened in the village of Racak back in January -- innocent men, women and children taken from their homes to a gully, forced to kneel in the dirt, sprayed with gunfire -- not because of anything they had done, but because of who they were. It is the responsibility of U.S. journalists to try to find out whether or not this official account is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah30 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

http://citycellar.com/BalkanWitness/racak.htm Every thing abou Racak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah30 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I have provided enough sources to make necessarily NPOV edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah30 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The intro paragraph must be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah30 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion from Talk:Kosovo

The following discussion took place at Talk:Kosovo#Comments on 90s History until 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC) — All subsequent comments were made in this talk page.

When copying the text here, I edited the original posts to place here only comments relevant to this article. - Evv 21:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

But the ceasefire did not hold and new violence erupted over the winter. On January 16, 1999, the bodies of 45 Albanian civilians were found in the village of Racak. OSCE monitors alleged they were the victims of a massacre by Serb forces.^[1][2] The Racak event in particular brought new international attention to the conflict in Kosovo. Envoy202 02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC) — The preceding comment was part of the proposed text for the "Kosovo War" section of the Kosovo article.

My comment: 45 Albanians - it's disputed whether they were civilians. Nikola 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Nikola.
45 Albanians - I know there are lots of conspiracy theories about Racak and believe me when I say I don't want to argue about them! Therefore, in the interests of harmony, I'm fine with leaving out "civilians." Envoy202 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll also try to introduce a friend of mine who devoted a bit more of his time to this. Nikola 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, discussion is always welcome, and the best way to improve these articles. Davu.leon 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "It is worth arguing about"

• I have to say that I think that giving credence to the utterly unsubstantiated and frankly lunatic claims that the majority of people killed at Racak were anything other than civilians is sick and just downright wrong. I have personally talked to survivors of smaller mass killings by Serbian police, including in Likosan, where fourteen members of a family were taken from their house, one by one, and tortured to death over a twelve hour period. To ignore what was done by some members of the Serb security forces, to cover up and hide these incidents in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia is a travesty, and tantamount to condoning these actions. I feel very strongly about this particular issue, and I would ask that people think long and hard before they agree to whitewash it. I am perfectly OK with noting that most Serbs believe the Racak conspiracy stories; I might too, were I fed them by my own government, who I am supposed to be able to trust, but just because someone believes a thing, does not make it so. I urge you all to please think about this, rather than just giving in for the sake of convenience. This one is worth arguing about. Davu.leon 12:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  Perhaps lunatic is the wrong term, and it certainly wasn't directed at Nikola in particular, just at the claims themselves. Anyway it would perhaps have been better to call them risible. Yes, I think that will do. Please read the above as saying 'unsubstantiated and frankly risible claims'. Davu.leon 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't studied Likosane case in detail, so I won't comment on it. But to me, claims that people killed in Racak were civilians appear lunatic. Scores of terrorist attacks happened around the village, and that is undisputed. Stashes of weapon, military equipment, medicines and KLA uniforms were found in it, and that too is undisputed. People killed were heavily clothed, indicating they were not taken from their homes as the usual story goes, they had wounds typical for combat and not typical for a massacre, and gunpowder residue on their hands, which too is undisputed (or, to be absolutely exact, it is undisputed that they had residue at their hands that looked exactly the same as gunpowder residue; yet it is somehow disputed that it was in fact gunpowder residue). I do not understand how can anyone claim that they were civilians. Nikola 09:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And, while I certainly don't approve of beating people to death even if they are KLA members, the event wasn't as clearcut as you make it to be[5]. Nikola 09:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you don't approve of torturing people to death, even if they are KLA members, but your link doesnt make the event any less clear cut. (Except for the fact that I erroneously stated there were fourteen killed, when there were in fact twelve.) UCK forces were engaged in a firefight with Serb Police near Likosan, in which a couple of police were killed, so in retaliation they broke into someone's house and TORTURED THEM TO DEATH ONE BY ONE OVER A TWELVE HOUR PERIOD. These men were not members of the UCK, they were civilians. Oh those who survived may have joined up afterwards alright, but even then torturing them to death would be a crime against humanity. Your above post makes you appear to be an apologist for mass murder. I would hope that this is not the case, and I would invite you to consider carefully before replying further on this matter. Davu.leon 12:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Racak -- I, too, feel uncomfortable accommodating the conspiracy theorists about Racak. I've been to Racak, spoken with family members of those massacred and have seen where the bodies of the civilians were found. This is the kind of stuff that hits you in the gut. That being said, I know that it has emerged as an article of faith in some communities that Racak was either 1) a legitimate military operation against "KLA terrorists," or 2) a staged incident designed to provoke international community involvement in the Kosovo crisis (probably done by the same people who faked the Apollo moon landings). But in the interest in harmony, I'm willing to leave the article vague and just say "Kosovo Albanians" instead of "Kosovo Albanian civilians." I would reject any further attempts, however, to cater to the conspiracy theorists. Envoy202 02:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone who would say that the incident was staged. Perhaps someone would say that it was a legitimate operation against KLA terrorists staged as an attack against civillians. Nikola 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1. Terrorists ?

UCK were not terrorists. But yes, they did fight against Serb security forces around Racak, in order to prevent the torture and murder of innocent civilians of which Likosan is just one example, but I'll get to that in a moment. Davu.leon 12:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

UCK were terrorists. While I don't think that should be in the article, there is no doubt that they went towards their political goals primarily through threatening civilian population. Nikola 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Completley untrue. UCK went towards their goals by attacking the mechanisms of the state. There was no intention to kill or even ethnically cleanse Kosovo, (at least not on an institutional level, I'm sure some individuals wished to do so.) Crucially, no reputable source agrees with you on this, so ther's no point trying to force us to include your POV unless you can back it up. Davu.leon 08:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Thousands of completely unprovoked UCK attacks on civilians are recorded. Nikola 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a lie. Provide these records, please. Then we will discuss who recorded them. Then we will talk about whether any attacks made by KLA were unprovoked. I know that some Serb civilians were threatened, beaten and even killed by some UCK members, but it was never UCK policy to attack civilians. Why do you think your monasteries and churches were not burned down until after the war, and then not by UCK but by ordinary civilians? Because the UCK were interested in getting rid of the state, not the people. Have you ever been to Kosova? Have you ever talked to anyone who was in the UCK? I doubt it, but please feel free to prove me wrong. I would have a far easier time assuming good faith if I thought you actually knew what you were talking about. Davu.leon 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2. On the caches found

I'm happy to admit that caches of weapons and medical supplies were found. If you can find an Albanian village in 1998/99 that didn't have weapons, and for very good reason, I'll be surprised, to say the least. Davu.leon 12:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that in Serbian villages, in and out of Kosovo, a good amount of weapons can be found, however, that weapons would mostly be hunting shotguns with a few AK-47s brought from a war; not RPGs, heavy machineguns and other weaponry found in Racak. Nikola 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Serbia is not currently at war with Kosovo. If there were an invasion of Serbia by Albnania, for example, I believe it reasonable to imagine you might find more serious hardware chached around the villages. Davu.leon 08:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

However it won't be stored together with uniforms of terrorist Serbian Liberation Army. Nikola 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So there were uniforms in the village, but the fighters just chose not to wear them? But why? Davu.leon 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3. On the clothing

The people were 'heavily clothed'. In a village. In Kosovo. Without electricity. In January. When the temperature regularly drops below -30C. That's just earth-shatteringly conclusive evidence there. You must be a genius. And on the subject of clothing, you forgot to mention the following: Despite Serbian Government claims that several dozen terrorists wearing UCK insignia were killed, 'the clothing bore no badges or insignia of any military unit. No indication of removal of badges of rank or insignia was evident. Based on autopsy findings (e.g. bullet holes, coagulated blood) and photographs of the scenes, it is highly unlikely that clothes could have been changed or removed.' -from the autopsy report. Davu.leon 12:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rest assured that even in a village, in Kosovo, without electricity, in January, people don't wear three pairs of trousers in their homes. That isn't some conclusive evidence, but runs contrary to the usual story - that people were taken from their houses. That 'the clothing bore no badges or insignia of any military unit. No indication of removal of badges of rank or insignia was evident. Based on autopsy findings (e.g. bullet holes, coagulated blood) and photographs of the scenes, it is highly unlikely that clothes could have been changed or removed.' is actually Serbian autopsy report and I don't see how is that relevant at all. It is not surprising that they had no uniforms given that ther uniforms were taken away in one of previous police raids, as I said above. Nikola 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

People could easily have been getting ready to flee the fighting, wearing extra clothes because they did not know how long they would have to survive in the open. Or maybe they just like to be really warm. It doesn't matter - this is not evidence and proves nothing either way. The fact that they were not in UCK uniform, and that their clothes had been neither changed nor altered, as claimed by the Serbian Government, is evidence. Davu.leon 08:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the opposite. The fact that they were not in UCK uniforms proves exactly nothing, because terrorist organisations usually don't use uniforms, even when they do they don't use them constantly, and additionally a stash of UCK uniforms was removed from the village. The fact that they were heavily clothed is very weak circumstantial evidence, but evidence still. Nikola 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was UCK policy to wear uniform at all times. Because they were not terrorists. They also shaved daily, (at least in the Dukagjin.) The fact that they were heavily clothed could just as plausibly mean any one of a dozen things, including the theory I put forward earlier. It's just a stupid point, and there's no reason for us to argue it when there are far more compelling discrepancies. Davu.leon 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ranta admits she’s not aware of what KLA insignia look like when confronted with Exhibit RA-37-004F, a picture from the scene of one of the victims wearing a KLA necklace and a cartridge belt, “Your Honour, I'm not familiar with the ornaments worn by members of the KLA or any other people. To me, this does not indicate anything. It is just an ornament”. Ranta reacted in a similar way when asked about the army boots shown on some people in some pictures, “To my recollection, and I want to emphasise I don't know what is a military boot, but I can't recall of seeing any…”http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/030312ED.htmKnez-Glupovic 06:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A fair point, but not really relevant to the fact that they wore no UCK badges, and none had been removed from their clothing, and it their clothing was not changed. Wearing a necklace with a KLA insignia does not necessarily indicate membership, merely support for their aims/actions. The fact is that it was UCK policy to wear uniforms; they were proud to do so and it would be, to put it mildly, unlikely that fifty-odd UCK members would engage in battle out of uniform. Davu.leon 00:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4. On the autopsy

The autopsy report also states that 'They were most likely shot where found.' Lined up in front of a ditch. Where all UCK fighters like to conduct their combat. 22 gunshot wounds to the head in 22 bodies lying in a ditch do not constitute wounds typical for combat. That is what we call an execution. Davu.leon 12:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The bodies were found in the village mosque. The gunshot wounds to the head oftenly continue into the body - indicating they were shot while laying on the ground - indicating that they were shot while shooting from the laying position. Nikola 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Or shot in the top of the head while kneeling. As in an execution. The bullets found in the ground by the forensic team are under and around the bodies, indicating that they were shot from extremely close range - If shot from afar, the bullets which missed would have travelled futher before entering the ground, especially if the targets were 'lying down' as you claim, and thus presenting a far smaller visible target. Davu.leon 08:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not. If you would want to shot someone in head while he is kneeling, you would have to place the gun above his head, which would leave gunpowder traces around the wound. Not to OR, even Ranta's report personal opinion explicitly states that they were not shot while kneeling. Bullets could have entered the ground near the bodies if they were shot from upper ground, though I have to admit that I haven't read a lot about these findings. Nikola 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that Ranta's report stated that. If you have a link could you include it below, for ease of reference? Also, I believe the Serbian forces advanced up the hill, making your higher ground scenario unlikely. Davu.leon 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the official forensic report by Ranta.

http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/fsi.pdf

OK, I count 11 head shots out of the 40 people autopsied in the forensics report. Not like that matters, I just dislike misinformation. In addition, the SEM-EDX test on the gunshot wounds came up negative, indicating that they were not shot close range execution style. I would also like to point out that the forensic report also disproved that two of the bodies were beheaded with axes, something widely reported in the media at the time, and repeated in the Wikipedia article here in regards to the Racak incident. While its technically true the KVM team reported the decapitations, I feel the article should be revised to indicate that this was in fact clearly disproved by Ranta’s report.Knez-Glupovic 04:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. To be honest, it never made sense to me that they would go down a line individually executiing one after another when they could just stand back and use an automatic rifle. I agree with you about the suggested revision; disinformation is to be avoided. The truth of what Serb tropps did in Racak is bad enough without any exaggerated claims. Davu.leon 00:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5. On the diphenylamine test

'Since the diphenylamine test for oxidation agents is given, it is no wonder that all substances of this kind that, for whatever reason, happen to be on a hand can produce a finding of a ‘shooting hand’. The paraffin test thus loses its analytical specificity.' - Chemistry Nobel Prizewinner Heinrich Wieland. 'Although this test often but not invariably gave positive results on the hands of individuals who fired weapons, it also gave positive results on the hands of individuals who had not fired weapons because of the widespread distribution of nitrates and nitrites in our environment. The paraffin test is in fact nonspecific and is of no use scientifically. - Cowan, M. E., Purdon, P. L. A study of the "paraffin test." J. Forensic Sci. 12(1): 19-35, 1967. Paraffin test was for the above reasons not used by the Finnish Team. Test samples for SEM-EDX were taken and they proved to be negative. Davu.leon 12:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

While mr. Wieland certainly is an excelent chemist, he is not a criminologist. While a number of substances can give positive results on the diphenylamine test, the results are not the same for all of them. For example, nail polish could give positive results, but it would be concentrated around (obviously) nails; artificial fertilizers could also give positive results but they would appear in large "blots" all over hands and palms, and they would be unexpected in January. Results from Racak are consistent with firearms discharge, and firearms discharge only. Samples taken by SEM-EDX were expectedly negative because a) they were taken long time after the shooting and b) residues were removed by the paraffin test. Nikola 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The paraffin test is of no use scientifically. That's really all we need to hear. It simply does not matter whether Mr. Wieland is a criminologist or not; it has no bearing on the validity and scientific verifiability of the paraffin test. Davu.leon 08:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a chemist said that the paraffin test is of no use scientifically in chemistry? In criminology, the test was used widely, and is still used in countries which can't afford a better test. It is still accepted by Interpol. Criminology is a science, so the test has scientific use. Nikola 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Of no use scientifically means just that: A test which often provides false positives, and sometimes false negatives, is so unreliable as to be worthless as evidence. Tobacco can cause a positive, for christ's sake, which would lead to concentrations around the 'trigger' finger and thumb. How many people from the Balkans have you met that don't smoke? The fact that it is used only in countries that can't afford a proper test is actually damning to your argument. You have to ask yourself why anyone would knowingly use a test that regularly gives false positives when a far more advanced and reliable test is available to them, and in fact being actively advised by impartial scientists. Before you go crazy about that 'impartial,' please remember that Finland is not a NATO country. Lastly, if indeed the test is accepted by Interpol, (which I'm sure it may be,) please provide a reference for the ease of other editors. Davu.leon 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The paraffin test was abandoned by Interpol in 1968 according to Ranta. Ranta also did not conduct tests on the hands of the victims, only some clothing and bones to see if they were inflicted at close range. http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/030312ED.htmKnez-Glupovic 07:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the link, I think that's the whole 'postitve for firing weapons' nonsense pretty much conclusively debunked, then. Davu.leon 00:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 6. On the eyewitnesses

Numerous CIVILIAN eyewitnesses confirmed the details of the massacre. Oh, but I forgot, they were just Shiptar terrorists, weren't they. It's just a shame they didn't get killed too. Davu.leon 12:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

All of the policeman which were engaged in fights in Racak would tell a different story. Nikola 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Very well, eyewitness testimony is, as we all know, hugely unreliable, even if emotionally affecting.

So here we are again, going around in circles. Perhaps we should just do a search, and see how the incident is referred to in most of our sources. I'll agree to stand by the results if you will. (As a caveat, I don't think pro-Serb or pro-Albanian sources should be included, I'm talking about reputable sources such as BBC, CNN, Britannica and so on. And just in case it comes up, quoting the Le Monde, Le Figaro etc articles of the time isn't going to fly either; if you actually read them all they are saying is that they doubt the official interpretation, and an international inquiry needs to be carried out. One was, it's called the ICTY.) Davu.leon 08:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. These media which you speak of are based in NATO countries, BBC is even the official media of the UK. You are suggesting that we should cite NATO media, on the issue which NATO used to start its war with Serbia, and calling these media neutral? As NATO countries have 60 times more population than Serbia, are hundreds of times wealthier than Serbia and completely dominate world media you don't have to count, we know beforehand what the result is going to be. ICTY is likewise founded, financed and supported by NATO countries. Nikola 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely I am. All of those outlets are regarded as reputable sources by this encyclopaedia. They are not NATO media, they are media based in countries which are members of NATO. We have in our countries a concept known as freedom of the press. It's not perfect, granted, but it's a damn sight better than the media in the Balkans which, sorry to say, has traditionally been little more than an outlet for government propaganda. The bottom line is, the BBC is a respected institution with probably the highest level of journalistic integrity in the world. Serbianna.com, for example, is nothing more than a cesspool of naked nationalism and hate-mongering. I'm not suggesting we should be including Koha Ditore, just reputable, intelligent, reliable sources.

Also, I was under the impression that the ICTY was a UN institution. Isn't... Serbia... in the UN? Davu.leon 21:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes Serbia is a member of the UN but no, it yields no influence in it, that is done by the Greater Powers. As for Balkan news being biased but news from Nato countries being fair, don't kid yourself. The Nato countries are supposedly more liberal and relaxed, but even their reporters know where to draw the line, and what they can and cannot broadcast, and through every stage of the Balkan conflicts, I know from living in England, the messages were anti-Serb, and anti-Yugoslav. This was particularly so when Milosevic was leader. I go to my part of the world eight times a year at least, and I know what is happening, and what the Dutch, French, Canadian, American and British news are showing. Let's face it, for most of the time, they show nothing at all, yet RTS, B92, Politika and the rest of the media focus on Kosovo every day, not just with words, but with incidents. Sure, the SPS were removed from power; surely with it should have gone the "lies about Serbs being victims", but did it? Non-state controlled Serbian media, closed down for upsetting the old authorities, re-opened when the coast was clear - still give reports of abuse against non-Albanians, including murders and shootings which took place in front of troops from Holland, or Germany, and where is the same information to be found on the German news? "Today, our troops stood and watched Serbian houses being burned by armed KLA in unifords WITH beards and speaking a middle-eastern language"? And you think because your Anglo-American news does not report it that THIS is evidence that it is not happening? You think that the French and American media on the Balkan are God? What they say IS so it IS and anything else is incorrect because they are not reporting it. When a country gets involved with another, every intelligent human being knows that this is because they have an interest there, only the stupid uniformed people here really believe that there are humanitarian reasons behind this: where-as the KLA who were bringing harm to non sympathisers in Kosovo for years before Belgrade hit back, always had Albania to run and hide in whenever the army caught up with them, a place to breathe, a place to relax, a place to talk, to regroup, a place where they knew Milosevic would not enter; Israeli Arabs are not so lucky, it seems that when their interests similar to the Albanians will result in harming of Jews as Albanians did to Serbs, the Israeli authorities will go beyond their own borders as recently witnessed in the Lebanon, and stay there until the climate is right. How many millions have they killed and when was an Israeli ever indicted for war crimes by a UN court? UN and fair Nato-country reporting, I ask you. Just remember something, the fact that the media is not state controlled does not mean that the media will not do the bidding of the goverment in question. Evlekis 19:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I made a few small changes, but all are backed up by references, except style/spelling edits. I also noted a large number of unsupported/unreferenced claims. I marked the ones I found, and I suggest giving it a week before we remove any contentious claims that aren't backed up. Davu.leon 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there seem to be no objections, I will remove unsourced claims tomorrow. Davu.leon 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing if you are supposed to be a researcher. A source is a source, no matter from whom. If you fundementally decide that the media from the Nato countries tells the whole truth and anything else is lies, then there is no point you investigating this, just record your BBC reports and watch them till you've learn them off my heart. You'll then have your picture that Kosovo and Bosnia were once beautiful lands with sunshine everyday until a monster called Slobodan brought the dark clouds and Hell to every non-Serb, killed people for what they were ethnicly; committed other atrocities etc. and expelled others for no readily apparent reason. You already have the facts at your fingertips regarding the position of CNN, you have already decided that Serbian news is unfair; now prove it, GO into Northern Kosovo and hide out among the Serbs, listen to their stories and see their photos, and take note whether the KLA are really unarmed as your reporters tell you, and when you see a KLA officer, slap his face to see if his beard actaully falls off as to you, it is only a fake one, his long hair may fall out too since it is a wig: after all, the KLA (according to you) are not terrorists, they are an army who are disciplined (I agree) and shaved. And let's see what you have to say about Klečka. And what did your reports say about it? Evlekis 19:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no massacre at Klecka. The University of Helsinki certified EU Expert Forensic Team came to the following conclusions about Klecka; "….the remains consisted of 89 major identifiable bones or bone fragments and a group of 108 small burnt bone fragments.….. On the basis of DNA analysis, the examined bone samples were determined to belong to three male individuals….. According to forensic and anthropological investigations, all remaining unspecified bone samples were consistent with originating from the three bodies. The results do not indicate the presence of more than the three bodies specified." There you have it. Not 100 bodies, as your government claimed, not 20, as they later claimed. 3. There was no massacre. Davu.leon 20:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There I have nothing, Helsinki, Stockholm, Washington, they all play for the same team. The incident is known and many Albanians publicly brag about it and how they can do these things without having to answer for it. You started off my stating that you wanted to investigate the Kosovo affair and it seems that all you wish to do is clarify the rubbish which the Western media spread throughout to their nations. Let me tell you a little something about Klecka - your little Helsinki investigation was nothing more than a honorary ceremony to show that certain individuals are investigating certain things, everyone knows how these events can be manipulated. The number I had was 22 and not 100, and I don't have a government to call my own; I am not Serbian, nor from Serbia. Those 22 are named and they are known, and if they were not cremated, perhaps you can find out what happened to them. It appears that you want to live in this fairytale that all Kosovar Albanians were innocent and Belgrade was the agressor. If you are an Albanian in disguise, I fully accept where you are coming from, you don't have to explain yourself to me, only there are stockpiles of solid irrefutable documents which prove outright that the Racak massacre was fabricated. In both cases, some facts are played down by the perpertrators whilst the others are exaggerated by the victims. The EU? Nothing but individuals who serve the governments who have their private issues: the writing was on the wall before the investigation happened. Well if you wish to go ahead on your poxy "Anglo-American-French being Almighty" evidence that Albanians never caused a single atrocity and it was all Serb, go and believe it, but you find me one rational explanation why Yugoslav troops would have been in Kosovo in the first place. The zone was theirs for the best part of a century, they no more needed to take it than Portugal needs to take the Algarve. National security forces don't simply just enter parts of their country for no reason; there had to have been a collection of politically sponsored incidents caused by a political body to evoke this action. Do you know about the non-Albanians who were being raped, tortured, killed and castrated from 1990 onwards? Did you know that the Albanians even declared Kosovo independent in 1990? Did you know that for long periods of time, much of the region was not under Serbian/Yugoslav control during that time? And do you really think that they overpowered the authorities loyal to Belgrade peacefully by causing no harm to anyone? If you think that this is all a fabrication, I'd question whether the whole Kosovo crisis even happened. With nobody to strike, there is nobody to retaliate; I doubt you even know that war is a two-way enterprise, and it only needs one side to come out with his hands in the air to stop atrocities against those whom he claims to care for. Once the people agree to live under the conditions of their victorious opponents, the victor no longer has a grievance nor a purpose to expel the former enemy, unless it comes to his attention that there is a security issue, and the locals are planning to regroup, and sponsor new terrorism/freedom fighting. One more thing, I am not Nikola, and you're never going to get the last word over me about the Balkans. I will Never in the name of Christ back down from a Balkan dispute with an outsider. Evlekis 07:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, you can debate all you want, you can argue all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is you can't make changes to Wikipedia without backing them up with reliable evidence. All I see in your posts are unsupported allegations. As far as I can see you have never been to Kosova, and all your knowledge of the place comes from media reporting, both that of Serbia and the UK. You call me an outsider yet it seems I have spent far more time in Kosova than you ever have, or will. It seems to me that you are the one who knows nothing of the conflict. Now unless you have something useful to contribute to this article, I would suggest that you confine your barely coherent ravings to my talk page. This is not a chat room. Davu.leon 12:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The only person who thinks that this is a chat room is you. Accortding to Wikipedia, a source is a source, you are the one who says that "they are not equal". I actually agree. Because where-as the arguments against you have come from deep within your own quarters, it's funny that seven years after the fall of the SPS, you still don't get Serbian formerly-suppressed closets jumping out of the woodwork saying "Oh yes! Klecka, I knew it was a lie but I had to keep my mouth shut!", just as you never had this sort of information from dissidents in exile, living in full safety; you didn't even get that from Milosevic's sworn enemies neither before nor after the events. But the irregularities surrounding your buddy Mr.Racak (Walker) are endless, and documented by journals all over the world, even Sri Lanka. Oh sorry, I forgot, that's all lies, only US/EU journalists speak the word of truth, and that when supporting their governments, not against them, even though there has been some of that too. You say that the arguments against you have been conclusively debunked, where? show me? You like to speak of proof; give me proof where those who have argued against you have conceded "Yes Mr.Davu, sorry, you were right and I was wrong"; that could never happen. One thing would only lead to another. You ahve even forgotten what this argument is all about: your thesis is that the KLA were a group of peaceful clean-shaven cultured clerics who risked their lives to protect innocent civilians from being captured, expelled and killed by hard-line Communists with moustaches. I always believed that the truth about Racak lies somewhere between the various versions of events, but you are clearly pro-Albanian. Even the bitterest enemies within Serbia of the SPS and the SRS know that the so-called "Helsinki Findings on Klecka" was EU sponsored, and 11 of the then 15 were also in NATO. Don't kid yourself Davu, you'll give yourself away. Evlekis 19:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My statement was that UCK soldiers in the Dukagjin Operational Zone were clean-shaven by order. Of course this dates from 1998 on, and I'm not claiming that some KLA didn't wear beards - I have seen photographs of Adem Jashari, obviously. Neither am I claiming that they were peaceful, only that they were not the agressors in the conflict. While they did much to help start it, it was the disproportionate and brutal response of the MUP, against innocent civilians, that made war necessary. I don't understand your point about Klecka. I have provided for you the results of the forensic investigation, and you have yet to supply one shred of evidence showing the contrary. The fact that 20-odd people went missing over a period of time does not mean that they were massacred by Albanians, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that they were burned in a limekiln as you suggest. Three bodies were burned there, but that is in no way indicitave of some kind of massacre. I believe we've dealt with many of the 'irregularities' about Racak above, but if there's something in particular you wish to re-examine, please mention it. Finally, yes I am pro-Albanian. I believe that they had a right to defend themselves, and I have seen firsthand the results of what the MUP and Paramilitary organisations were doing in Kosova. Sometimes I get carried away, but it angers me to hear people denying that Serbia did wrong in Kosova. On the other hand, I know some Serbs that have had a terrible time since 1999, and I feel a great deal of sympathy for them, but that does not mean that a return to Serbian rule will ever be an option. I share the view of most in the international community that Serbia has lost any moral right to exercise authority over Kosova. Ps. Now the EU are against you as well? Grow up, Evlekis, you are not a victim. Davu.leon 19:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In Afganistan, Polish soldiers were ordered to shell the hills near the village, from which talibs were attacking Polish base. The village was shelled because of faulty ammo (or whatever). Also, anonimous american officers said that there is nothing to do fuss about because this is normal practice. Does that mean that war on Poland and USA is necessary? Or recently american soldiers shot a woman and her daughter. Does that mean USA lost any moral right to control Iraq and should be bombed? Szopen (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Small comment on Klecka:

KLECKA: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6W-44GH09H-4&_user=1647796&_coverDate=10%2F01%2F2001&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=5041&view=c&_acct=C000054080&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1647796&md5=f3d1c31abf5b01abc79c3c61b2824048&ref=full#sec4 "The investigated separate bones and bone fragments from Klecka consisted morphologically of a minimum of three adult male victims. This conclusion was based on the number of pelvic structures and internal occipital protuberances. In one case age was estimated by anthropological examination. Another victim was odontologically estimated as middle-aged. Stature estimation could not be performed in the absence of intact long bones.

One sample, containing 108 small burned bone fragments, could not be connected by DNA analysis with the three victims because of the degree of fragmentation and burning of the bones. Osteologically, it was possible to determine 43 of the fragments. Morphologically, it was estimated that all fragments could be from one adult person."

NOTE: MINIMUM three adult person, and other bone fragments NOT FROM OTHER THREE VICTIMS. "According to information received from the presiding district court, “several” persons were killed in Volujak and 22 persons including women and children were killed and cremated in Klecka. By using morphological, anthropological, odontological, and DNA analyses, the “Volujak” remains were shown to contain most likely the bones of five adult male victims, and the “Klecka” remains, those of three adult male victims. The chain of custody for the samples from the alleged finding places in Klecka and Volujak to Pristina could not be documented and verified by the EU-FET. Thus, the EU-FET was unable to confirm that all remains located in both areas were submitted for investigation, or that the remains were from the area from which they were purportedly collected. In addition, some of the investigated bone fragments could not be identified. Therefore, the possibility exists that among these fragments were the remains of a greater number of persons, possibly killed in Volujak, and the remains of another 19 persons, possibly killed in Klecka. Evaluation of the certainty of information received was beyond the possibilities of the EU-FET." NOTE: Again, " the possibility exists that among these fragments were the remains of a greater number of persons". Davu.leon, where did you get your information? The quotes above is from 2000 Finnish report "Forensic osteological investigations in Kosovo". If your report is more recent, I would be glad to read it.

Using your quote I was able to identify this: http://www.glypx.com/BalkanWitness/Racak-FET-summary2.htm In this very report, you have: " there were 14 burnt fragments of adult human bone, which could not be linked to these three individuals". The rest of the report is inconsistent with the Finnish report cited above.

Note, that quoted report contains however references to other massacres of Serb civilians. 13:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Szopen (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC) (nickname)

[edit] Link to TENC

There is strong reason to believe this is a copyright violation. Do not re-add this link. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protect request

This is out of complete ignorance; but as of recent events I think it would be wise to semi-protect this and other Serbia/Kosovo related articles. (QUINTIX (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Ranta about "close range"

12 Q. The entry and, where they existed, the exit wounds from firearm

13 deaths were consistent entirely with these people being killed at close

14 range or fairly close range?

15 A. I wish to emphasise that I'm not an expert on ballistic, and in

16 fact, I asked several experts on ballistics what they really consider a

17 close range or short range, so the answers are very variable. So I think

18 I refrain from any comment. Szopen (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, I think it's quite obvious that the quote in the article does not represent what She said in the Hague. Therefore, if I am forbidden to change this quote, the quote must be removed in its entirety. What she said was indeed, that "all died in the same time" but also that she cannot determine whether shots were from close range or from distance. I highly recommend http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/030312ED.htm - fascinating read. She is very precise. Szopen (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Aah, and she didn't said that it was "provably not staged". She said:

 A. I'm a scientist, and I have -- I had several hypotheses. I think

3 it's very important to remember all possibilities. But when I said

4 "could," I was not referring to any probability.

Szopen (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am asking for other quote representing what H. Ranta said, or I will remove whole quote as it is. I will will for a day to let other express their opinion. Szopen (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you have good grounds for removing the quote. There is no reason for the article to rely on a Croatian news agency report of what Dr. Ranta said when her entire testimony is a matter of public record. Examination of the ICTY transcript you provided supports your interpretation - she declines to give an opinion on whether the victims were shot at "close range". I also notice that there is nothing in the transcript about the incident being "provably not staged". She does state clearly though that the victims were all killed "approximately at the same time". I suggest replacing the quote from the HINA news agency with a mutually agreed upon quote from the actual ICTY transcripts. Sanguinalis (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decapitation

ChrisO, why have you removed the quote from Finnish forensic raport about decapitation? Szopen (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some similarities with a Polish massacre of ethnic Germans

I see some interesting similarities here with the Polish massacre of ethnic Germans in Poland 1939. Bloody Sunday (1939). It seems that even with international investigations by physicians[6] showing otherwise in both cases the perpetrators claim the civilians shot first, although one difference may be that the Poles still claim this; see Talk:Bloody Sunday (1939).--Stor stark7 ^Talk 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Polish research has pretty well proven that the claims about German 5th column were quite true. I am not familiar with research on Racak, though.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Finnish did not prove that there was NO SHOOTING. Actually, it's indeed good comparison, since Finnish report also was misused, and different people were claiming that Finnish report contain things it didn't. E.g. that "Finns prove victims had no gun powder traces on their hand" while in fact Finns simply said it's too late to carry proper test and ealier forensic research used unreliable methods, so the results were also unreliable. Szopen (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, you know my position on Polish historical "research". It is pretty much summed up in this title: Jan T Gross's unflinching account of anti-Semitic atrocities in the war, Neighbors, has awakened a nation to its systematically hidden and falsified past.[7]. The non Polish source linked to at the start of this section[8] would seen to very clearly present evidence that disproves the "research" of Polish historians that were brought up/trained and employed by a Communist dictatorship. If they can lie about massacred Jews for 60 years then they can lie about massacred Germans too. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 16:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Stork, do not shut yourself in the foot. Gross is Polish (Jewish-Polish) historian, and he is NOT THE FIRST POLISH HISTORIAN who wrote about Jedwabne. E.g. Szymon Datner wrote about that before. The diference is that Datner wrote historical monography, while Gross wrote popular book and that's why nobody cared about Datner while Gross' book was great affair. Szopen (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(Just a small comment: Szymon Datner wrote about Jedwabne porgrom in 1966. He wrote didn't wrote in one sentence "Poles murdered Jews in Jedwabne", there were few sentences from which it's clear however who is responsible. Simply, Datner didn't wrote specifically as Jedwabne and used it as one example. 22Poles were sentenced for Jedwabne already in 1949. Datner was also Jewish-Polish. You see. most of Polish historians simply didn't care about that backward region, as they were concentrated on other areas. It wasnt some widespread conspiracy, it was ignorance.) Szopen (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Aand there was Zbikowski in 1992. Then there was Agnieszka Arnold with her movie, and only then Gross. Szopen (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Szopen, Please take your time and think through what you write when writing in English. It is aggravating to try to see what your point is. The Finnish proved that the Yugoslav claim that the victims had been wearing uniforms that later were replaced by civilian clothes to make the Yugoslav killers look bad was a lie.

That's true. But have you actually read Milosevic trial, when Finnish doctor testified? Serbs pointed that a lot of UCK fighters did not wear in fact uniforms. Several victims wore several layers of cloth. Serbs pointed that this is typical for people, who are expecting to spent a lot of time outdoors, not for people who were abruptly taken out of house. Helena pointed that this is typical also for peopl who have no central heating. So we still do not know anything for sure about about half of victims. And of course we know that THERE WAS fighting in Racak (Franch report on this very wikipedia page). Szopen (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would the Serbs try to lie like this? It obviously is a strong indicative that everything the Serbs said was a lie.

By the same logic, you HAVE TO argue, that since Germans lied that in Poland 60.000 Germans were killed in September, then EVERYTHING they said was a lie and there was no Bromberg Bloody Sunday. Or because Polish historians were able to trace some Germans listed as killed in "death marches" as dying in hospitals several weeks laters, this means everything German historian wrote was a lie. Come one, apply the same logic to both events. Szopen (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason that it was too late to conduct some of the tests was that against international protests the Serbs have already messed up the bodies by conducting their own autopsies. Why would they want to do that, if not for trying to hide the facts. The medical team from neutral Finland was honest about what could be ascertained and what could not be ascertained, just as I expect the neutral International Red Cross medical team in Poland in 1939 was honest about its findings, mutilated and raped German civilians. I don't see that your claim that the Germans themselves could have prepared the dead bodies to look raped and mutilated has any credibility, it would have been easy for the Red Cross doctors to tell the difference, most certainly as regards the rapes, dead bodies don't bruise. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 16:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But here we have several questions 1) Where there Red Cross at all? I perused several books about Bromberg and while I found a lot of references to foreign journalist, I have found not a single mentioning of Red Cross doctors making forensic investigation. In fact, I even browsed through jbrbooksonline, which is extremely chauvinistic German site, which tries to prove the massacres, and I have no mentioning about Red Cross. 2) What's the proof that those were GERMAN bodies. From what i've read, amongst bodies counted as Germans were all bodies who couldn't be identified at all (no documents etc). I mean it's hard to prepare dead body to look as raped. It's easy to take tortured and killed Polish witnesses (You know of course about Nazi torturing Poles during their investigation) and to present them as German bodies. 3) Finns conducted their research meticulously for several MONTHS. How long Red Cross was investigating bodies in Poland? Szopen (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Stork, note here that I am NOT (and again _NOT_) implying that ALL of the victims killed in Bromberg were evil bad German Nazi diversants. In fact I am perfectly aware about several killed innocent civilians, including woman. However, I am sick and tired about rhetoric of people like you, who try to present this incident as result of Poles suddenly without any reason running amok, murdering thousands of innocent people. Szopen (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

@Szopen: "Stork"?, "people like you"? and please don't mess up my postings by inter spacing your text in it' As to I am sick and tired about rhetoric of people like you, who try to present this incident as result of Poles suddenly without any reason running amok, murdering thousands of innocent people. Let me reply that I'm sick and tired of some Poles still thinking that their nation is a perpetual victim that never ever did anything wrong, and then work their arses off to try to bury evidence to the contrary. There is even a commonly used term to explain this Polish self-image: "martyr nation"[9], [10] or "christ of europe"[11] and many similar I believe it is labeled in literature.

Let me also provide an example of some Polish massacres from 20 years earlier:[12], Polish troops staged pogroms in every town they captured. Polish propaganda and Polish press pretended the pogroms were "police actions" so the west would not interfere. Sound familiar? Oh, and I like this one: "The press and the propaganda aparatus claimed that one of the main reasons for military defeat was the treason espionage and diversion practiced by Jews on behalf of the bolshevics" Reminescent of the Polish propaganda 20 years later about the German population, no? Polish propaganda claiming German Fith columnists working on behalf of the Naziz caused the Polish defeat, and that those massacred deserved it since they were 5th columnists..... History just keeps repeating itself, and will probably keep repeating itself until certain people start dealing honestly with their nations history.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1) I put the text between your text to make it easier to read - so you could see the context for each answer

2) I am _NOT_ and emphatically _NOT_ think I think POland is eternal victim and martyr. Please provide any links in which I would claim something similar. Moreover, I think I put myself completely clear when I wrote, several times, that I believe Polish mob DID lynched some innocent people.

3) "The massacres" were discussed in detail in the wiki page on Polish antisemitism. The cutting the beards of Jews is shameful act, but to compare it to "pogroms" and "massacres" is something distasteful

4) I am sick and tired of people like you - you continue to twist my words and pretend that I think, meant, and wrote something that I didn't. I never said that killing civilians was justified and killed woman and children "deserved" to be shot. This yours attitude is what really angers me. I wrote quite clearly:

• There is enough evidence to see that there were 5th columnists in Bydgoszcz. You can claim of course all evidence is falsified, Polish witnesses lied, (and even German nazi courts were mistaken!).
• There is enough evidence to see that a lot of Germans who were killed, were diversants caught with arms in hand
• There is enough evidence to see that a lot of innocent Germans were killed by mob in lynching. Killings of those innocent people was NOT justified and it was shameful act. It was result of chaos created by both war and by action started by 5th column. HOWEVER, people who were killing innocent woman are NO LESS GUILTY because of that, and they are responsible for their actions alone. Polish propaganda however was not GUILTY as in did not incite hatred or called to killings.
• There is also enough evidence to see that Germans did everything they could to falsify evidence, create false proofs, and to magnify the number of victims. Including tactics as taking bodies of Germans killed in bombings, or taking the un-identified bodies and claiming that those of bodies of Germans.

I would advice to move this whole section to proper place in Bromberg Bloody Sunday, since it does not have much in common with Racak killings. Szopen (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

AARGH, I was wondering why Stor Stark was angered by "Stork". Sorry. Only now i see that your nick is "stark", not stork. My mistake, please accept my apologise for mistyping your nick (and only for that).

1. I accept your apology.

2. Polish historiography, including "Recovered Territories"

Polish sources from the communist era are unreliable. See this Recent Polish Historiography on Polish-Ukrainian Relations during World War II and its Aftermath. It clearly shows that Polish history books were filled with lies as regards Ukrainians. How likely is it to think that they would be more truthful regarding the Germans? And how easy is it to leave communist indoctrination and propaganda behind? As an example. A surprising number of wikipedians still use and promote the term "Recovered Territories" to designate the 20% of Germany that Poland annexed after the war and cleansed of its millions of overwhelmingly German population. This despite the fact that it is obvious, at least for westerners, that Recovered territories is a propaganda term^[3] The creation of a picture of the new territories as integral part of historical Poland in post-war had the aim of forging Polish settlers and repatriates arriving there into a coherent community loyal to the new communist regime.^[4] Instead of the term "recovered territories" nowadays the term "Western and Northern territories" is usually used.^[5]

3. Other massacres

Before WW-II the Poles oppressed and massacred Jews. Pogroms started already in 1918^[6] Polish troops conducted bloody Pogroms amongst others Vilnius, Lida and Minsk^[7] During WW-II the Poles instigated Pogroms such as the one in Vilnius in October 1939^[8] and the Jedwabne pogrom in 1941.

After WWII the Poles still oppressed and massacred Jews. Surviving Jews were returning to Poland after the war, but events such as the Kraków pogrom on August 11, 1945, and more importantly the July 4, 1946 Kielce pogrom led to the exodus of a large part of the remaining jewish population, which no longer felt safe in Poland^[9]. Anti-Jewish riots also broke out in several other Polish cities where many Jews were killed. (see: Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944-1946) An important reason for the atrocities was a widespread Polish belief that the Jews were supporters of the new communist regime and thus betrayers of Poland, but some were simply killed for financial reasons.^[10]

4. Polish explanations for massacres of Jews:

The Polish press and the government propaganda apparatus claimed that one of the main reasons for the Polish 1919 military defeat was the treason, espionage, and ,diversion, practiced by Jews on behalf of the communists.^[11]

Pogroms often started on the pretext that Jews had fought against Polish troops and were sympathetic to the communists. Propaganda by Polish authorities and Polish press pretended that the Pogroms were simply "police actions" against communists, and they were believed by the west.^[12]

It is still stressed that many Jews were communists when talking about the pogroms.[13] Sadly and contrary to popular delusions, the Communist Regime in Poland was no friend of the Jews, and continued repression led to a large exodus of Jews also in the 60's.

5. Cutting beards? Please don't try to pretend that the sources^[13] show that the only thing the Poles did was cut the beards of some Jews.

6. Alleged ethnic German 5th columnists in Poland.

The following paragraph has this source: "A Lesson Forgotten: Minority Protection Under the League of Nations"^[14]

According to German historians,the small number of "diversionaries", saboteurs and members of self-defense groups had in almost all cases infiltrated Polish territory from the Reich, where they had been trained. Nations, which become victims of a military invasion frequently fail to distinguish between internal and external 5th columns, the latter being regular enemy forces which operate in accordance with the Hague regulations. Both the German foreign office and the German Army high command advised against arming ethnic Germans in Poland and letting them participate in hostilities. The German army opinion was that there were too few German in Poland, they were too poorly armed, and too disorganized. Therefore any insurrection attempt would be useless.

The obvious futility of any armed insurrection in territory still occupied by the Polish army also casts doubts on some Polish accounts of the Bromberger bloodsunday. Also, the German army bypassed the city during the invasion, as it had no strategic significance.

During the 5 year occupation, almost no minority member came forward to boast of 5th column activities.(among the notable exceptions were a few JDP members in a city near the Danzig border, who stole some guns and occupied public buildings in the town until German army troops arrived 2 days later.(footnotes page 253)) In the post war collaboration trials, no ethnic German was charged in connection with Bloody Sunday. Most 5th column theories rely on uncorroborated stories by individual "eye-witnesses" and reflect a "tendency to rely on fanciful explanations for the rapid defeat". Among the many ethnic Germans and Poles who were charged after 1945 with collaborating with the occupation regime, there was no a single person accused of armed insurrection or "diversion", despite the best efforts of West and East German judiciaries to supply evidence and to extradite suspects.(footnotes page 253)

The following paragraph has this source: "The Shadow of Death: The Holocaust in Lithuania"^[15]

Some Polish historians claim that massacres were caused by uprisings meant to distract Polish troops from the advancing German forces. Other Polish historians claim the Germans wanted to provoke the Poles to massacre Germans, in order to provide the Nazis with a pretext for reprisals. This convoluted argument presupposes that the Germans were willing to sacrifice the German minority, and there is no evidence for such plans. The best argument against Polish claims is that during the occupation, when local Germans were free to do so, almost none tried to gain status by boasting about such activities. When Poland after the war made charges against 1,159 German minority members for anti-state activities in 1939, no-one was charged with activities in relation to the Bromberger bloodsunday massacre.

7. "Enough" Polish evidence for 5th columnists, and faked victims.....???

What "enough evidence?" are you claiming for 5th columnist activities, and evidence falsification? Allow me to sound slightly skeptical to your evidence claims. The only falsification there is evidence for is the German propaganda claim that the victims were 58,000 instead of the 5,800 that the German investigators estimated. One Polish historian claims the victims were only 2,000 but most westerners estimate 4000 - 5000. Should be enough German civilian corpses lying around in the city of Bromberg to show some of them to the International Red cross investigation without having to resort to using Polish corpses (which I presume you meant when you wrote write "Including tactics as taking bodies of Germans killed in bombings, or taking the un-identified bodies and claiming that those of bodies of Germans.").

8. "However, I am sick and tired about rhetoric of people like you, who try to present this incident as result of Poles suddenly without any reason running amok, murdering thousands of innocent people."

Western sources state that the main reason for the killing of the German civilians has to do with Polish confusion, and a willingness to believe the Germans were traitors. I believe I've shown that Poles can massacre people on the spur of the moment just as everybody else, and that you don't need to have a real provocation to do so, an imagined one works just fine. Many Jews are communists, the communists are the enemy, therefore the Jews living amongst us must be traitors, therefore we must... The Germans are the enemy, the Germans living here must be traitors....

9. Summation

Polish "evidence" and propaganda should be dealt with very carefully, just as we don't take the Nazi 58,000 victims figure seriously. I tried to use the Jewish example to show that Poland has a history of massacres and of successfully using bogus justifications and "covering up" propaganda to hush it up. I see strong similarity here as regards the conflict between what western scholars and what Polish scholars state about the massacres of Germans. I think the Polish scholars/sources are still stuck in the old-time propaganda, which makes sense since they were (or were run by) communists until just 18 years ago. I could probably have dug up evidence showing the same type of thing as regards the Polish relationship to its Ukrainian minority, see the histography article at the top of this post. How many have heard of Operation Wisła? So far I've seen nothing to refute what the International Red Cross reported in 1939 regarding the ethnic German victims, and I hope I've shown that what the Poles claim might not always be the full truth and should be examined just as any other claim.

10. Notes

1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1812847.stm
2. ^ http://www.hrw.org/press/1999/jan/yugo0129.htm
3. ^ An explanation note in "The Neighbors Respond: The Controversy Over the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland", ed. by Polonsky and Michlic, p.466
4. ^ Martin Åberg, Mikael Sandberg, Social Capital and Democratisation: Roots of Trust in Post-Communist Poland and Ukraine, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2003, ISBN 0754619362, Google Print, p.79
5. ^ Martin Åberg, Mikael Sandberg, Social Capital and Democratisation: Roots of Trust in Post-Communist Poland and Ukraine, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2003, ISBN 0754619362, Google Print, p. 51
6. ^ The Jews of East Central Europe Between the World Wars
7. ^ Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern Antisemitism, 1870-1933/39
8. ^ American Jewry and the Holocaust: The American Jewish Joint Distribution
9. ^ [1]
10. ^ [2]
11. ^ Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern Antisemitism, 1870-1933/39 page 1036
12. ^ Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern Antisemitism, 1870-1933/39 page page 1035
13. ^ [3]
14. ^ "A Lesson Forgotten: Minority Protection Under the League of Nations"
15. ^ The Shadow of Death: The Holocaust in Lithuania

11--Stor stark7 ^Speak 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1)The so called "pogroms" were discussed widely in the page about POlish antisemitism. They were researched on by joint allied commission of Morgenthau. it's sad that until today some aiuthors prefer to quote sensational

articles from NYT instead of documents, reliable reports etc.

2) Similarly, 5800 victims is the sum of ALL Germans who died across WHOLE Poland in September 1939, including victims of bombardments, war conditions and soldiers of Polish army (it may be surprise to you, but Germans were drafted too and some of them didn't try to avoid that). If some German and Western authors still claim that number as number of victims of Polish violence, it means that Western and German historiography has still some serious problems to overcome. Are you seriously claiming that no German died as a result of bombing, that Germans were immune to effects of artillery shelling, or that no Germans died during fighting within ranks of Polish army?

As for the rest, you are again and again restating the same. Stor Stark, I won't reply here, since this is the page for discussion. The discussion about Jewish pogroms has place at [[14]]. You may note, that in all case Polish authorities did all they could to prevent violence - in case of Minsk 4 soldiers died while fighting the robbers, and number of rioters was executed by military. All in all, number of victims of all accidents of violence, which happened as result of poor discipline, chaos etc was about 200 to 300. Contrary to your believe, one can easily find info about that in Polish historiography. It's not the main topic of the book, because the number of incidents, their scale etc made them absolute small incidents. The discussion about other topics, similarly, has place on appriopriate pages. Here I will only note that you are seriously claiming here that 1) Several dozens of Polish witnesses have all lied 2) Polish military reports were falsified, including those which were written during the fights 3) Polish soldiers died while shooting at themselves 4) German nazi judges were absolutely nuts when they freed several Polish officers from accusations, considering their actions as justified. Szopen (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what is all of this doing on this talk page, but this commeny by Stor is absolutely wrong:

The reason that it was too late to conduct some of the tests was that against international protests the Serbs have already messed up the bodies by conducting their own autopsies.

The autopsies conducted by the Serbian forensics were done under supervision of OSCE and, later, Finnish forensics. Specifically, gunpowder traces were taken in front of OSCE representatives. No one has ever expressed doubts that the tests were done correctly, and that they were positive; it has only been claimed that positive results of the test do not show that the traces were actually made by gunpowder, which is nonsense. Nikola (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is not nonsense; Helen explicitly stated that in her testimony. Parafin tests conducted are considered obsolete, because they could lead to false positives, they are unreliable. She explained that this is the reason why parafin tests were abandoned in western countries. When asked whether she knows, that they are still conducted in Serbia she answered she advices her Serbian collegues to abandon those obsolete methods.

Actually it is. It is very unlikely for the test to give 20 fake positives, especially when it can also give false negatives. The test is not as ureliable as it is claimed to be. Nikola (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

But indeed, Helen did not questioned the forensic tests done by others; in fact, she complimented the other team for professional cooperation. She only questioned the validity of the results, but as I said, for good reasons.

BTW, I do not doubt that massacre of civilians happened at Racak. I question the presentation of the massacre as it is in this article (e.g. putting Walker quote about mutilated bodies, when from later autopsies it was clear that bodies were NOT mutilated before death, and all damages were done by animals; or ignoring the fact that indeed THERE WAS fight in Racak, with 9 UCK fighters claimed to be killed, with possibility therefore that some of civilians died as "collateral damage". I do not doubt however the killings of 20plus males in cold-blood execution, since I read enough evidence to convince me it's possible.

And I do hope that you don't believe everything you are convinced in as possible. Nikola (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, Helen Ranta did contradict herself.. a bit. Her testimony in Hague is different from what she supposedly said in interview with some Dutch newspaper, translated at balkanarchives.com.

As for the discussion with Stor Stark, I do apologise for it and I promise to continue it at appriopriate pages, as I already said above. Last thing: Stor Stark, I promise I will publicly state that Polish historiography is unreliable (because it failed to mention 8 pogroms done by bandits, undisciplined soldiers and deserters) IF you will find ONE reference in Western German books, written before 1980 about either of the mentioned events: 1) razing of the Frampol by Luftwaffe 2) cold-blood massacre of Polish PoWs in Ciepielów 3) burning alive Polish PoWs near Przemysl 4) pogrom of Polish civilians in Wyszanow and Torzeniec. All done in 1939. Find one reference and I will recognise clear superiority of German historians (Eastern German historians don't count). Should be easy task. Szopen (talk)

[edit] First two paragraphs

These are obviously in need of spelling and grammar cleanup, but are also not very sourced, and arguably not very neutral either. I'd do the spelling/grammar cleanup but it would only serve to add more weight to questionable text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizofaus (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)