The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, refers to the July 1995 killing, during the Bosnian War, of more than 8,000[1] Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), mainly men and boys, in and around the town of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić. The mass murder was described by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as the worst crime on European soil since the Second World War.

Theodor Meron, the presiding judge of the Appeals Chamber, stated:

By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the 40,000 Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity.

In February 2007 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concurred with the ICTY judgement, stating:

The Court concludes that the acts committed at Srebrenica falling within Article II (a) and (b) of the Convention were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such; and accordingly that these were acts of genocide, committed by members of the VRS in and around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995.


Source: Wikipedia


Yesterday marked the 16th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre when at least 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were massacred by Serb forces. Only last week, the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia found the Dutch state responsible for the deaths of 3 Muslim men during the massacre after Dutch soldiers handed them over to Serb forces. May justice be done for the remaining thousands of victims.

According to further wikileaks, the following is the world view through the eye of the American administration:

1: Germany’s Angela Merkel as risk-averse

2: Russia’s Vladimir Putin as an “alpha dog”.

3: France, whose President Nicolas Sarkozy is compared to an “emperor with no clothes”,  “thin-skinned” and “authoritarian”.

4: Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi as “feckless” and “vain”.



Josef Fritzl - A face of evil?

Josef Fritzl - A face of evil?

Is this is the face of evil or a face of a man who believes in an idea called ‘personal benefit’?

Josef Fritzl kept his double life a secret even from his loved ones for over 25 years. Neighbors, friends and of course the world was shocked at the revelations that Josef Fritzl had kept his own daughter as captive in his cellar and fathered her seven children. He had virtually used his daughter as a sex slave for his own pleasures.

His defense team and the world is looking for answers; how could this happen? There must be something wrong with him.

I think the point is simple and clear. He was a man who believed that his personal benefit took preference over others. He ensured that his desires were fulfilled at all costs. Is he the only one to be blamed for his actions? Or should the society also bare some responsibility?  If an idea that can be used to such extremes should be revisited and the society also should be held accountable.

The world and in particular the West is also responsible for such actions as they are the propagators of such ideas as personal benefit. It has been the cause of wars throughout the 20th century and continues to cause misery.


A cartoon that does not depict the Arabs/Muslims as evil just the way they look. If you compare Saladin in the film ‘Kingdom of Heaven’, he is already portrayed as an evil person by the character chosen. The character of Saladin in the film ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ has dark black curly hair and long pointed nose with squinted eyes, in comparison to the main character from the European side, who is young, with short brownish hair with fair complexion.

Images portray a thousand words. The audience is forced to make a decision about who is good and evil by the way the characters look.


An alleged Holocaust denier has been arrested by police after flying into Heathrow Airport in London.

The Met Police’s extradition unit detained Australian Frederick Toben under an EU warrant issued in Germany.

He is accused of publishing material on the internet between 2000 and 2004 that “denies, approves of or plays down the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis”.

Mr Toben, 64, later appeared before City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and was remanded in custody.

A further hearing will take place on Friday.

He told the court he did not consent to extradition and would fight attempts to send him to Germany.

Published newsletter

Mr Toben, who had been in transit from the US to Dubai at the time of his arrest, represented himself at the hearing.

He said his apprehension had been an abuse of process.

The arrest warrant alleges that Mr Toben committed the offence in Australia, Germany and other countries, and that the material is also “of an anti-Semitic and/or revisionist nature”.

It was issued by a court in Mannheim, Germany, where Mr Toben was given a 10-month jail sentence in 1999 after publishing a newsletter which denied the mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers at Auschwitz.

Source: BBC (


What happened to free speech? The Australian ‘Fredrick Toeben’, was previously given a 10 month jail sentence in Germany for ‘incitement and insulting the memory of the dead’. What about  the controversial cartoon artist ‘Kurt Westergaard’ who created the cartoons of Mohammed and depicting him as blood thirsty terrorist or the editor of the Jyllands Posten ‘Roger Köppel’, who actually authorised the publication of those cartoons or even the Dutch politician ‘Geert Wilders’ who made the film ‘fitna’, calling all Muslims who believe in Islam as terrorist.

All of the above can be charged with ‘incitement and insulting the memory of the dead’.

It seems free speech is about what the West feels passionate or guilty about and not about what the rest feel passionate about.

As Henry Ford proclaimed in his Autobiography ‘You can have any colour you want, as long as its black’


Two thirds of newspaper stories in the UK portray British Muslims since 2000 as `a threat` or `problem,` according to new research.

A forty-page report, entitled Images of Islam in the UK, showed that the press in the UK increasingly utilize negative and stereotypical imagery about Muslims.

The authors, the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, found that British tabloids and broadsheets sought to engage with the “routine, everyday coverage of British Muslims” over and above the coverage which occurred around key events.

Coverage of British Muslims was also shown to have increased significantly year on year, and by 2006 had reached a level twelve times higher than that in 2000.

The authors describe how such a coverage generated a momentum all of its own, “lasting well beyond and independent of” newsworthy events.

At the same time, the report found that the context in which British Muslims were portrayed was of a consistently negative nature.

The main focus for a third of stories on British Muslims was either terrorism or the ‘war on terror.’

Eleven per cent of all stories focused on Muslim extremism, while in stark contrast, only 5 per cent covered “attacks on or problems for British Muslims.”

The notion of Islamophobia was said to have “scarcely featured as a news topic” in 2001 and 2005.

A significant yet subtle shift in stories involved a steady increase in the proportion which focus on religious and cultural differences, to such a degree that by 2008 these stories had overtaken terrorism as the single largest subject matter.

It was argued that this change in focus reflects the shift in British government policy, under the cloak of its “community cohesion” 
framework, which quietly insinuates that ‘British’ and ‘Muslim’ are mutually exclusive identities.

The consequence was that coverage about anti-Muslim racism and attacks on British Muslims has vastly reduced from 10 per cent in 2000 to only 1 per cent in 2008.

In comparison with four of the five most common story threads associating Islam and Muslims “with threats, problems or in opposition to dominant British values,” only 2 per cent suggested “that Muslims supported dominant moral values.”

In particular, the report highlighted a number of articles which frame Britain as “becoming a place of Muslim-only, ‘no-go’ areas, where churches were being replaced by mosques, and Sharia law would soon be implemented.”

The perception of Islam as a threat or a problem was further enhanced by the choice of descriptive language in the articles surveyed.

The most common nouns employed in relation to Islam or Muslims were ‘terrorist’ or ‘extremist’ whilst the most widely used adjectives included ‘fanatical’, ‘fundamentalist’, ‘radical’ and ‘militant.’

Overall, “references to radical Muslims outnumber references to moderate Muslims by 17 to one” and was consistently used by both broadsheet and tabloid newspapers. –IRNA


Next Page »