![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Please refrain from posting news about the Gotovina case if you're unfamiliar with proper English grammar and spelling, as it looks very unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.161.225 ( talk) 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
let me tell yu another thing... In "democracy" yu have term... "Innocent until proven gulty"... What yu mean about that... He definetly is a hero becouse he defended our homeland from invasion. And definetly he has not been proven guilty. Why is more then 4/5 of bio about war crimes and his deportation. He has done much more than that.
An innocent hero? Huh? Explain to me then, how a former General runs from the law as a fugitive for 4 years under a different alias instead of being a real man and standing before the World Court to defend himself. Is running away from responsibility the act of a hero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.253.144.65 ( talk) 04:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hague court is political court with only one objective - to equalize guilt between Croats and Serbs. Gotovina offered several times to surender to some other independent court. And now if you follow the trail it is obvious that it is not Gotovina on court but Croatia and Croatian policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.3.238 ( talk) 01:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
There are several items on the page which are really comments to other editors, and should be moved off of the article and onto the discussion page. I'm sure if its looked at closely, other similar issues will become apparent. Furthermore, I think this article really should include more detail on the assertions of the war crime tribunal. It is not really clear what he is accused of besides relocating some old people (which hardly seems like a war crime, depending on how it was done). I think most people who come here would probably be looking for information on that part of his life.
As the stub covers an individual and events that are constantly evolving, I feel the article fails to adequately capture the following points that not only give context regarding the political debate in Croatia but go to the heart of some of the issues associated with the Ante Gotovina case.
The reference to crimes committed by Gotovina in France does not adequately explain the relationship between alleged crimes, the nature of the French political system and Gotovina's role in the 'political' commando squads used by French presidents against there political opponents - refer following article for more information - [1]. This is different from what happens in the Anglo-Saxon economies where the left & right parties will not persecute each other once out of office but if in power all is fair.
Please note that the Gotovina indictment by the ICTY is nominally based on the notion of 'command responsibility', that is, in the absence of subsequent prosecution, a commander is responsible for war crimes committed by his troops even if he has not given the command, nor approves or is even aware of such acts at the time.
The application of command responsibility is certainly rare in the context of the ICTY and more generally in the history of conflicts. For this reason, many Croats feel a sense of persecution and political bias on the part of the Western body politic (albeit they are not the only South Slav peoples to feel a sense of bias) & that this bias is reflected in how the ICTY operates. However, the feeling of the Croats is not without cause. To begin with, their generals seem to be indicted on the vague legal construct of command responsibility whereas of the high ranking JNA Generals (Adzic, Kardijevic, Panic) without which former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic (on trial at the Hague for genocide & crimes against humanity) could not have prosecuted his war & political agenda, have not been indicted.
The other matter that promotes the impression of political persecution is the equating of Croatian General Ante Gotovina with Serbian General Mladic & Politician Karadzic. This certainly is disproportionate as the case against Gotovina (at least from what can be construed from the public debate & the indictment themselves) is weak & without being flippant the alleged crimes are not as significant in comparison. Yet the case against Mladic & Karadzic is for genocide & the case is strong.
It is my opinion and it is a view among many in the Croatian & Bosnian populace that there is a campaign to equate victim & aggressor in the wars between Croatia/Serbia & Bosnia & Herzegovina/Serbia by the same Western body politic that callously presided over the wars without intervention & followed a policy of appeasement. The best example of this equivalence is demonstrated by UK foreign minister Jack Straw's call on the anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre (year 2005), that all sides apologise to each other in a move for reconciliation. This caused much outrage among the communities impacted by the atrocities as it was almost tantamount to asking the victims of the holocaust and the camp commanders to apologise to each other in the spirit of reconciliation.
In addition to the policy of equivalence between victim & aggressor in the wars of succession in the former Yugoslavia, there is a trend of discouraging political dissent through derogatory/flippant political name tagging - for example: in the case of Croatia, anyone pointing out failings in international / European institutions may be labeled far right in an attempt to dismiss political facts not pertinent to the cause of a centralist Europe or supra-national organisations.
Also unusual is the ICTY indictment of Croatian journalists who denied a gag order regarding the revealing a protected witness (who is a high ranking politician in Croatia) in the Tihomir Blaškić trial. Note that most of the charges against Tihomir Blaskic were dismissed on appeal. The indictments were troubling in light of the fact that:
1) The journalists were critics of the ICTY and the protected witness who is a high ranking Croatian politician;
2) The identity of the protected witness has been & still is revealed by the ICTY website;
3) ICTY resources were being devoted to prosecuting reporters in what appears to be judicial overreach (i.e. prosecuting the messenger pursuing the public interest instead of the leakers) rather than pursuing war criminals. This strategy opens the ICTY to the accusation of political bias thus undermining the legitimacy of the work of the ICTY which would be political baggage for any future such tribunals.
There may be a number of reasons for such a policy of equivalence including:
1) The desire to deflate nationalistic tendencies in Southern Europe/ Balkans by delegitimising & attacking national identities and icons for the cause of stability in the region. Note that national identity may be seen as a hindrance by EU technocrats & politicians that favour a centralist European state;
2) To absolve European (read here EU) responsibility for the tragedy of the war in Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina by muddying the moral dimension through the portrayal of the conflict as a civil war (as opposed to the international conflict that it was), and the equivalence of all sides in the war (most effectively captured by the chauvinistic attitude "...they are all the same - if they want to kill each other, they can..."). This is especially true for the British foreign office (who were the main apologists for the Greater Serbia ideology by virtue of their historical links with Serbia) and the Dutch government, whose peacekeepers failed to protect the population of Srebrenica (albeit they were denied air support by the UN & were undermanned but arguably complicit in the crimes committed in Srebrenica by helping to separate the men and the women & children).
3) Part of the political overhang from 70 years of Yugoslav propaganda. During both Yugoslavias, the cause of Croatian statehood was viewed as the biggest threat to this artificial state & Serbian hegemony within the state. Thus we have 70 years of propaganda aimed at trying to delegitimise the cause of Croatian statehood by equating the nationality of Croat & the Croatian state as a fascist creation (despite the 1000+ year history of the Croatian state & institutions). Part of the overhang includes the sympathetic view of the Greater Serbia project by the British foreign office, the then French foreign ministry & different iterations of the US state department.
All these factors help explain why Gotovina is on the run - it would not be unreasonable to assume that he believes that despite what appears to date the weak case against him, he will not get a fair trial & such a trial will be exploited by political opportunists in Croatia for example, the ruling president. It also explains why Gotovina is still very popular in Croatia - people are cognitive of the politics behind the indictment. They also understand that he is a general that defended Croatia whilst many European institutions were impotent & devoid of moral fortitude during events such as the destruction of Vukovar & the bombing by the JNA of UNESCO recognised city of Dubrovnik.
-- Marinko.7 05:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
ma koji general i domoljub ... obicni mali narednik i kukavica koja se skriva od svega ... koji ne zasluzuje ispred svog imena rijec ... casnik ... Kako se ponasa pravi casnik pokazao je general Ademi ... svaka cast ... to je pravi vojnik ... kad su ga pozvali u Hagg ... obukao je uniformu ... i otisao reci istinu ... pa sto bude. A ovaj mali narednik za tako nesto nema hrabrosti, fali mu sve ... sto cini pravog covjeka .... covjekom. No, mozda i nije sam kriv za sve ... njega je na taj polozaj postavio pokojni Tudman ... njega i jos neke ... konobare, harmonikase ... lopine i palikuce ... pa nije ni cudo sto se bas ne snalaze u casnickim duznostima izvan ratnog vihora gdje se nikog nist ne pita ... a takvi inace moralni jadnici, bili su uvjerenja da ih se nikad nista i nece pitati ... ???? To je zato, sto vjerovatno nisu imali vremena ici u skolu i bar malo uciti povijest ...
Ma ko ga jebe u pičku mater..
As I see you are publishing some highly "educated" authors: "...ma tko ga jebe u picku materinu...". Theese words in croatian are more than unpolite. You should ask about that and remove above published text. Generaly spoken, respected internet pages does not publish offensive or undecent materials! Regarding the other aspects of above text I must say that it does not represent the public oppinion of Croatians, which by 75% (according to all inquieries) support gen. Gotovina for not going to Haag Court (ICTY), as allegatins are false and reminds us to political trials that we had a lot in communism. We are expert in that, we were experiencing such things for period wilst free countries lived far away form such things. So, we can detect political trials as easy as kids game. So, if allegations against gen. Gotovina are true we must ask ourselves:For what reasons nobody was trialed for killed Vietnamese civilians (estimated from 500.000 to 1 milion), or 300.000 Japanese civilians in Nagasaki or Hiroshima? Why communist leaders including Yugoslav)were not trialed for war crimes and crimes against humans rights, but they were respected and dealed with. What about Algier? What about Iraq?
I mean - if law is to be aplied only to smaller countries and not to all countries, including big ones, what is it but a politicaly inspired violenece?
Sorry, but we're not here to ask questions like: For what reasons nobody was trialed for killed Vietnamese civilians (estimated from 500.000 to 1 milion), or 300.000 Japanese civilians in Nagasaki or Hiroshima? Why communist leaders including Yugoslav)were not trialed for war crimes and crimes against humans rights, but they were respected and dealed with. What about Algier? What about Iraq?
First of all, Ante Gotovina has not been convicted for war crimes, therefore, he is innocent until proved guilty. That's a fact. You're stating that the accusations are false, how the hell do you know that, boy? Are you the main prosecuter at ICTY? I don't think so. If ICTY is a political court, that all of your arguments dont hold water, as most of thosos freed of any wrongdoing by the ICTY have been Croats, and Croats account for the least amount of endietments.
We are here to objectivley articles that are supported by facts, not by speculation and personal oppinions. The fact is that no criminal act is justifyable by international law, and american actions abroad such as vieatnam are no excuse to conduct ethnic cleansing. Sorry, but i find arguments like: "If they did it, we can do it" severley infantile and childish. Once again, your accusations toward "communist"leaders are not bact up by facts. Wikipedia is trustworthy just because of it's objectivity and it's clear to me, my son, that you are clearly biast. therefore, I have changed the article.
You say that 75% of the populace support Gotovina. what surveys? Those conducted by Hrvatsko slovo? Puhleezee.... h3llbent
I find this ridiculous: "This is because the extreme right in Croatia has established a cult of personality dedicated to the general". I find it quite normal, that Croatians regard Gotovina as a national hero: he is a soldier who reinstated the territorial integrity of their land. The forced and artificial PC-ness of Western countries is a joke. Serbia was the aggressor, and Gotovina is a hero. I wish we Hungarians had similar generals in the last 100 years.
Gotovina stated through his attorneys that the reason for fleeing is his distrust in Carla del Ponte and her motives for the indictment. He offered multiple times to surrender to a Croatian war tribunal, which was refused by the ICTY. It is obvious that Gotovina has little to no chance to be aquitted. Del Ponte stated in interviews many times, that a general is always ultimately responsible for the doings of his soldiers. Of course there were war crimes during operation storm, mostly out of revenge, no one denies this. But does the criminal intent of a few sole individuals make the general a war criminal? I do not think so. But is he guilty in front of the court? Yes, as he is ultimately responsible for his soldiers. It would be suicidal to surrender under such circumstances as there is no general with Gotovina`s rank in the world who would not be called a war criminal after a trial like this.
Bloody hell how many times do I have to say this as It's obvious that our anonimous user is daft: YOU CAN NOT SAY THAT THE COURT IS POLITICALLY BIAST AGAINST CROATIANS AS THEY ACCOUNT FOR THE FEWEST NUMBER OF CASES AND THE HIGHEST RATE OF NON GUILTY VERDICTS!!!!!
I cannot listen about bloody Abu Ghraib here: This is a talk page about Ante Gotovina. Like I said before, I crime is a crime, no metter where it takes place and it's silly, childish and just plain hypocritical to say: "they did it so we can do it too." We are not here to judge, you plonker!
Now I'm hating myself for ven arguing with you when you can write a sentance like this: "Many convicted "war criminals" were not convicted because they actually commited or ordered war crimes, but just because some soldiers that were officially under their command commited crimes", yes, my friend, thats exactly why they were convicted! Everybody knew what was going on.
Havent you read Tuđman's transcripts in which he divides Bosnia as if it were a cake. Let's not forget that those transcripts are official documents. Signed, sealed and delivered for the purpose of being and authentic historical record.
One more thing: How the hell do you know he refused to surrender? Are you Ante Gotovina or just another bloody right-wing telepath that can read everbody's mind from Bankok to the Hague?
He is running from the law, my son, the law. And leave Carla Del Ponte alone, she's only doing her job. What kond of prosecuter would she be if she believed in the innocence of every war crimes suspect she had to investigate. Dont be so ignorant. h3llbent
The allegations made in this article are largely unproven and should therefore be removed for the time being, regardless of what the author's opinions on Ante Gotovina's guilt/innocence/refusal to appear before the ICTY are.
What allegations? Please specify before thowing aroung words like Neutrality. I agree if you're reffering to the passages that refer to criminal escapades as they cannot be proven. h3llbent
As far as legal justice goes, his innocence has also not been proven, which is also one of the duties of any war trial. Until this happens, the Neutrality warning should remain placed on the page. Wikipedia is not about personal feelings, political orientation or symapthetizing of its users, it's about facts and statements, and until this case has been concluded it is imperative that the article remains marked as a potential minefield for anyone trying to reach a conclusion. Bear in mind that this is an international page.
Edit: Also added a Controversial boilerplate on the talk page for the same reason. Stealth 22:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
1. I dont have time to list all the verdicts we're talking about, because I do have a life, you know. A complete list is contained in a back issue of Feral Tribune, you might want to look at that. BTW: 600 trials in Croatia? You seem to have an overactive imagination, my son.
2. You mentioned Abu Ghraib here: "Take Abu Ghraib for instance. All the generals were aquitted because according to the US military investigators the generals did not know about the abuse of prisoners." My son, there were also accused on the premise of command responsibility. You might want to look at the accusation. So, let me get this straight, so you're saying this: If American generals were aquitted in Abu Graib scenario, then there must be no evidence in the case against Ante Gotovina!
You, my son, are either a telepath or Ante Gotovina himself as you seem to know whether or not he knew about major breaches of the conventions of war being comitted by his troops!
I seems to me that you are taking this discussion rather personally.
3. No evidence? My son, the ICTY is not a backwater court in the middle of nowhere where noone can oversee it's work, it's a court established by the Security Council of the UN. By saying that the Court is biast (which you are impling by saying that Ante Gotovina has been accused without evidence), you are also impling that the UN Security Council, which I might add appointed Carla Del Ponte as Cheif Prosecutor of the ICTY, is also biast against the Croatian People. You are doing this without any basis in fact, of course.
Carla Del Ponte most probably does have some kind of evidance, whether it is enough to prove that Ante Gotovina indeed is guilty, that's another story.
4. I agree that every suspet is considered innocent until proven guilty, but here you're missing something. When a case comes to court the prosecutions job is to convince a Judge or Jury that the defendant is guilty. On that the empassis is placed. If a court case was down to just the defendant proving his or her innocence, every suspect would be aquitted. My goodness, General Blaskic was spared of his 45 year sentance because of new evidance that was revealed after Pres. Stjepan Mesic opened the Croatian Presidential Archives in 2000. If you want the to direct your anger to someone, direct it to whoever hid the evidence of Blaskic's innocence. I won't even argue with you about the later portion of your fourth comment as Charles Shrader is not God, and for a fact to be valid, it must be accepted widely, not only by one historian.
5. There are no documents proving the plans for a division of bosnia? "Stenogrami o Podjeli Bosne" - Biblioteka Dan. Take a look. Oh, and it's all verified as an official historical record aand a part of the Croatian Presidential Archives. So there.
6. You are, my friend, a right wing extremist. I understand valid critisicm, actually, I love it as that is what makes wikipedia great, but I think you arguments are just plain stupid.
7. On your last comment I can say only this: Carla del Ponte is not God. She can't say "Marko Marković is a war criminal" and suddenly, Marko Marković is a war criminal. But, she can, backed up by facts and evidence, accuse people of being war criminals, issue them sub poenas and order them to appear in court. I repeat, Carla del Ponte is the cheif prosecutor at the ICTY which is, because you obviosly are blind : THE INTERNATIONAL COURT FOR WAR CRIMES IN THE FORMAR YUGOSLAVIA. SHE CANNOT INDICT SOMEONE FOR COMMITING WAR CRIMES IN RWANDA.
One more thing, you mentiond several JNA generals - How can you prove that they in some way were involved in breaching the conventions of war? How do you plan to prove this? By shouting at the top of your voice that they were part of the JNA? How does that make them war criminals?
Thats about it. h3llbent
"Alterning between France and South America, in October 30, 1999, he takes as hostage Gérald Tourmetz, who pays 350,000 francs as ransom." - This is highly speculative, and cannot be proved
"Meanwhile, Gotovina is still a member of the Paris-based Assistance Sécurité Protection, and may have been in Paraguay and Argentina in 1990 and 1991." - See above.
"The next month (March 2005), Britain led a successful campaign to halt the planned opening of talks with Croatia on joining the European Union, which were to start on March 17, 2005." -I'm sorry, but calling Britians negative opinion on opening negotiation talks with Croatia for EU membership a "campaign" is pretty relative. It sounds, and is too agressive. Croatia and Britan did not wage war.
"Among the Croat population, Gotovina is seen in many circles as a war hero and adore him, similar to a cult of personality." - Adore him? Please... Just because people don't want him to surrender, that doesn't mean they adore him. That's reserved for the occasional extreme right wing politician.
"On April 11, 2001, six weeks before his indictment by the International Penal Tribunal for War Crimes, he received a French passport from the French Embassy in Zagreb. Of course, at this time, all concerned were aware of his upcoming official indictment." - This cannot be proved. We know he posseses a Croatian passport, but this noone can confirm. This very far fethced.
That's about it. Other than these passages, the article needs some serious cleanup, as it contains too mush irrelavant information. In fact, it sounda like a James Bond novel. h3llbent
I personaly have met and have a picture of me standing next to Ante Gotovina's wife and SON (the article mentions he had a daughter). I doubt they could have possibly met in Columbia considering his wife is Croatian. Also, the CIA has proof that Gotovina did NOT expell those Serbian civilians who fled the Krajina regiond. CIA Predator spy droves helped support the operation and clearly show the civilians fleeing en massé before his forces came within range to do any type of damage. The Serbians were leaving because of Slobodan Milosovic telling them to leave and come back to the homeland. This artice is crearly biased against Gotovina and paints him as a criminal. I want newspaper articles with proof of his being sentenced to 5 years of prison in France or holding someone hostage.
Gutman, Roy. "What Did the CIA Know?" Newsweek, 27 Aug. 2001. [8]
I suggest changing up to 200,000 to over 300,000. I mean, the number of Serbs in Croatia over-all decreased by up to half a million citizens. Some returned, but the current number is still some 400,000-450,000 citizens short. If you do not believe me, see the Republic of Serb Frontier and Serbs OK? HolyRomanEmperor 19:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Anyone can write on Wikipedia, sources can be from Serbian nationalist sites, how can that be of any good to us who want to know the truth? The Serbs were the ocupants and there is a document in which people of Serbian nationality ARE ORDERED to leave as soon as possible, the document is held in Belgrade and is a proof of Gotovina's innocence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.117.196 ( talk) 18:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that nowhere in the general's indictment [9] is there any mention of the command responsibility. In fact, he is being tried for INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. This includes the murder of a number of people listed in the indictment as well as destroying of vast property, which, if true, is most certainly his responsibility. He, being the genereal, could not have been unaware of his soldiers murdering destroying civillian property. He cannot claim that the thousands of homes destroyed was just an accident he could not stop. And that is the basis of his trial.
"Alternatively, the accused Ante GOTOVINA knew or had reason to know that forces under his effective control were committing the acts described in paragraphs 21 through 26 above, or had done so, including as a result of having been so informed by representatives of the international community. The accused Ante GOTOVINA failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the commission of such acts or punish the perpetrators thereof." ( [10]). Once you take out the legal jargon that gives the indictment an air of credibility, my reading is that he knew what was going to happen & didn't do anything to stop it or punish those that committed crimes therefore he is just as guilty. It seems to be a very bottom up approach - crimes were committed, he was the general, therefore it must have been planned, therefore joint criminal enterprise & so on. -- Marinko
While I also find strange that other people, like Bush (I wonder why he wasn't mentioned before), who have done similar things, don't get punished, I still cannot agree that Gotovina is a hero. I guess I'm just different. Also, there is a majority of croatians who think the same way. You cannot write that the majority adores Gotovina. That is just not true. The majority of croats actually preferres to stay quiet. And while it may feel unfair to you that he is being punished for what he did (unlike the guy mentioned before), you have to live with it. Gotovina is not Bush and Croatia is not USA. And wikipedia is not a forum. It is here to show FACTS.
One final thing I don't understand is the people defending him. The war is long over (at least it feels like that) and Gotovina is a nobody. It surprises me that noone in his vicinity didn't think of just cashing his head for that $2 million. Think about it. If I where him, I'd cash myself in instead of living as a fugitive... (unsigned entry, anonymous)
1) They think he is innocent; 2) They view the indictment as disproportionate & inconsistent with evidence in other trials (e.g. former US ambassador to Croatia 'Galbraith' testified in the Milosevic trial that the Serb population had already left Croatia by the time the Croatian army got there – “…its hard to expel a population that is not there...”). As an aside, with regard to the so-called ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Krajina; an interesting view is presented by Ivo Goldstein (a Croatian Jew) in his book on the History of Croatia - he puts forward that the Serb mindset was ultimately responsible for their departure from Krajina - after having cleansed the region of Croats & other non-Serbs, it was inconceivable to them that they would be allowed to live in an Croatian state after what they had done to their neighbours – so they left. I see parallels between propaganda that all Croats were Ustasha (therefore it is ok to kill Croats), all Bosnian Muslims are Islamic fundamentalists (therefore it is ok to kill Bosnian Muslims) & with the eerie radio propaganda that was used in the Rwandan genocide to view all Tutsi’s as cockroaches. 3) He is a general that defended the country & liberated Serb occupied territory allowing Croatian refuges to return & for the country to begin healing & move on; 4) Croatians are cognitive of the EU politics [1] - the very same foreign offices of countries that most project propaganda against Gotovina (by grouping him in the same company as Karadzic & Mladic etc) are the same countries that appeared to be most hostile to Croatian independence or were too quick to appease Serb aggression. 5) Croatians are cognitive of the EU politics [2] - Gotovina defended his country from a genocidal project that was "the Greater Serbia project". The EU body politic was impotent in the face of crimes such as the bombing of Dubrovnik - this is the same body politic that seeks to make Gotovina a fall guy.
The bulk of people that support Gotovina are not a fringe element, but ordinary people that know their identity and increasingly disillusioned by both sides of politics in their pursuit of elitist objective disregarding the common man.
It is interesting however to note the use of Ustasha symbols by some of the young - I believe it is a reflection of the loss of faith in the major parties in their lack of defence of the institutions of the Croatian state - what was the point of independence if you replace Belgrade with Brussels. As such, I would not see the youth as Ustasha, but merely projecting symbolic gesture to show disaffection at the elitism of the main political parties & effectively saying "hey defend Croatia & Croatian's from injustice b/c if you don't the Ustasha will". --Marinko
Let's keep a closer eye on it guys, it's on the front page now. I'd suggest that locking it be a consideration. -- Mavzor 18:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I usually stay away from editing these issues because I know I'm bias as a Croat. But regarding the picture I can't see how one can tell they are radical nationalists. Is it in their hair color? Clothes? What I see in the picture is a young man kissing the image of an General who fought for them. So all the people in cities around Croatia showing their support are all radical nationalists? Please clarify. I promise I won't make any changes for now. Sporki 13:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
User:193.198.128.118 did some serious vandalism and added some serious nonsence, terribly degrading quality of this article and deserving this article a {{ TotallyDisputed}} tag. I reverted to last version before his edits because following edits were minor. After reverting, I think this article is no longer factually disputed. -- Dijxtra
Could everyone please note that we should not be using unfree images in this or other articles - fair use isn't enough, unfortunately. (See WP:ICT for more.) I've taken out the images for now; if anyone has any images which we can use (personal photos would be best) then please add them to the article. -- ChrisO 17:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Considering you did not explain how images you removed oppose to WP:ICT, and you did not supply free replacements for these unfree images, I'm returning them for now, until we find suitable replacement. -- Dijxtra 14:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I am curious; was the date of Ante Gotovina's capture on the 7th or on the 8th December ?? I am asking this because both dates were used in an article ...
on December 13, 2005 at 0:49 GMT
User:Ipernar constantly diminishes number of expelled Serbs. The real numbers can be viewed here: Operation_Storm#August_8.2C_1995_onwards. If needed, outside sources can be quoted, but I don't think that's necessary since only User:Ipernar supports the 150 thousand thesis. I stopped reverting him because this makes no sence anymore and I'd probably break WP:3RR if I haven't already. I call for discusion what is to be done about this user's actions. I propose blocking since I warned him already. -- Dijxtra 13:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear brother... ante gotovina didnt expell anybodey.... and from article... it seems that he did... but let me tell yu. He will be set free, and will be innocent on alll charges. Time will tell...
This is basically a good article on a difficult subject. But explaining the war as an uprising of local Serbs is and letting Milošević off the hook is simply not accurate. This was an military invasion with some local support. Extremists from Serbia took part in the rebellion and they had weapons supplied by the Yugoslav National Army. The Army's immediate exploitation of these conflicts shows they were largely coordinated with the Army. Being there at the time and being an anti-fascist gives me some objectivity on this issue. I suggest the authors change that one sentence.
I was back in Croatia this summer when there was a lot of news about Gotovina, and I found an interesting dynamic from friends I talked to. Most of them could not care less about Gotovina since it is common knowledge that there were crimes committed. But many people are very reticent about joining the EU (the reason Croatia is cooperating on war crimes trials) due to the bad effect the EU has had on the economies of member countries. This is a change in public in opinion from the 1990s. When I was in a doctor's waiting room in Zagreb, a very angry discussion about EU membership broke out. And this in a country of extremely polite and reserved people. I never heard any remark about Gotovina showing a strong opinion.
Can we deduce some symbolism from the name Kristijan Horvat (= "Christian Croat") or was it chosen just as a plain name?
In some parts of Croatia, the local culture has a tradition of celebrating outlaws or hajduks who defy distant authorities; this is reflected in the name of the football team Hajduk Split (literally " Split Outlaw(s)"), and it is is probably not coincidental that pro-Gotovina support is particularly strong in the Split region. Gotovina also cultivated a larger-than-life image that played up to the macho stereotypes that are very popular in parts of his native Dalmatia. This has to be the silliest thing I´ve ever heard. The link to the football team is soo far fetched. I't is insulting all dalmatian people. Does anyone have anything that verifies these allegations? Sporki 15:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)( Dalmatian)
Article Mirko Norac is being peer reviewed here. Feel free to join the review. -- Dijxtra 16:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Ahem, has anybody read the section before, the last paragraph? It talks about relationship of Milošević and Gotovina nad has some sources cited. The trivia section has no sources and repeates the same info. I will now remove the trivia section. If you wish to add some more info about relationship of Gotovina na Milošević, please edit already existing data which is sourced, do not add new data which has no source cited. Thanks, Dijxtra 16:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The reason why I removed the picture of Gotovina with a moustache is because it contains no relevance to anything. All the picture alleges to is a poster of Gotovina in Zagreb, which is supposed to serve what purpose? I don't see why some scribbling of Hitler's moustache on an aged poster (which by the way, is done almost everywhere for no reason in Zagreb; I was there this summer) shows any "public attitude towards Gotovina". As a matter of fact, most of the country supports him: I saw 5 pro-Gotovina billboards in Dalmacija alone, pro-Gotovina graffiti on walls, and a large picture of Gotovina on a bus from Sibenik to Knin on the driver's window.
And if anyone tries to put it back on, I suggest you go to Slobodan Milosevic's page and add some anti-slobo pictures, since you like to show "diversity" so much. From what I heard, from several Serbs too, they were everywhere in Serbia, and fewer people there support him than people in Croatia don't support Gotovina. Plus, there are very few pictures on that page, while Gotovina has very many, maybe we should take some more down. -- 128.195.70.96 05:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Basically, you don't like seeing Gotovina presented in that way. Fact is, many people in Croatia view him like that, and it's an interesting photo. To not put it in would be POV by omission. Also, if you have some pictures of Slobo, feel free to insert them into the relevant article. -- estavisti 06:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
And basically, you love seeing him presented in that way, otherwise, you wouldn't be crazily editing all the Croatian pages with things you like seeing on there, and adding Serbian references like I see you do. I don't really care to go to Serb pages, I don't know too much about them or care much about them, to edit their pages. I am just trying to protect Croatian pages from Serbs that want to add their propaganda or what they feel like to Croatian pages. BTW, what do you mean by, "many people in Croatia view him like that?" Where is your proof? Give me some numbers. Last time I heard, there were tens of thousands of people rallying in support of Gotovina all over Croatia. Dinamo Zagreb donated money from a game for his defense. Goran Ivanisevic, Davor Suker, Zvonimir Boban and Alen Boksic all signed a letter to the government in support of Gotovina. Look at poll numbers. The majority support him.
So my conclusion, it seems like you dislike Croats so much, you will go to any length to vilify them or try to rewrite their history or inject some sort of Serb presence in Croatian pages. This is very sad. I lived in Croatia for some time, I was there right after the war and still have family there, I still visit; I know what the situation is like, and Croatian attitude. -- 128.195.70.96 07:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for responding in such a clear matter. It will make responding easier. I wouldn't mind removing the other 2 pictures too. Ok, maybe one can stand, but I do not believe that we need all those pictures up there, maybe just the main one, what do you think? Plus, like I said earlier, Slobo's page has only one picture, as do many other bio pages, so maybe we should just stick to one. If he cared so much about representing public opinion, he would go to slobo's page and add anti-slobo picture there; from what a serbian friend told me, (and public opinion polls), he is much more hated in serbia than gotovina is in croatia. but he doesn't because his main intent i think is to undermine croatia. i don't want to go now to serbian pages and edit them, i just want to protect croatian pages from being misleading. and i stand by what i said earlier, he cannot be objective to most croatian pages because of other things i heard him say about croatia on other pages. but i hope he will be a good editor and be fair to both sides when he writes on different country's pages.-- 128.195.70.96 04:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I already said, I have no objections to taking down the other two pictures, I think that is too much, but the reason why the Hitleresque picture should not be there is because it has no relevence to the article.... the article talks about the countries attitude towards him, which explains the positive pictures, but where is the text about the negative attitude? it is not explained anywhere, someone probably put it up just for a laugh. -- 128.195.70.96 01:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
When asked by the Hague judge about his place of birth, Gotovina answered Zadar.
I just reverted a content delete from an anon. While most of this deletion was sourced cold fact. I think that this specific phrase need to be sourced. So I moved it here because I consider it as harmfull for the reader.
"In 1981, with his comrade Dominique Erulin, he helped editor Jean-Pierre Mouchard, a close friend of Jean-Marie Le Pen, organizing a commando to free his press in La Seyne sur Mer, occupied by CGT trade-union strikers." -- Esurnir 22:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Why can't people simply state the truth and always must rewrite history to their own liking. This particular section is full of aggressive talk aimed at painting the Serbs even more black:
"In 1991, Croatia declared independence from Yugoslavia. The Serbian government, led by its President Slobodan Milošević then launched various paramilitary militias to take control of various parts of Croatia, eventually followed by a conventional military assault from the Yugoslav National Army which had come under the de facto control of the Serbian President. The new Croatian army, formed in haste, managed to stop the advance of Belgrade's troops, and Croatia was internationally recognised on 15 January 1992. The Belgrade army then withdrew but left the third of Croatia it had conquered under the control of local Serbs, whom they had used as proxies to wage their war of conquest. Half of the Croatian Serbs who, according to the 1991 census, represented 12.16 percent of the country's population, lived there, mostly concentrated in Northern Dalmatia, the Lika, the Banija, the Kordun along the Bosnian border, Western Slavonia around Pakrac and in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia near the border with Serbia. The rebels had first formed "Autonomous Serb Districts" (Srpske autonomne oblasti or SAOs) which merged into a self-proclaimed "Republic of the Serb Krajina" (Republika srpske Krajine or RSK) in 1991."
This is yet another example of blatant Croatian hypocracy. Why can't you admit that the Serbs had lived there for over 4 centuries? How can they conquer a territory that they already lived in? Why does this still go on? Croatia got what it wanted - their own state. They got another goal accomplished - a Serb free Croatia. So when is enough enough? What else do you want from the Serbs? The war is over, why can't you leave it well alone? How much longer is this gonna go on for? It's over already, let it go. Christ.
I petition whomever is in charge to rewrite this part and tell the truth. A simple search of Croatian history will reveal that the Serbs did indeed live in the "Conquered" parts of Croatia for centuries, making it their HOME. Truth needs to be told here, people need to be educated with facts, not with Nationalistic lies. The war in Yugoslavia was a tragedy for all sides involved. What is so sad is that instead of building peace in the region, people like the author do all they can to stoke the flames of nationalism, thus ensuring that the Serbs and Croats will never be able to co-exist. Very very sad if you ask me. Pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milanf07 ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
The only thing I found wrong in this paragraph was "Croatian-Serbs" I'm guessing it means Serbs who lived in Croatia. The comment "It's over already, let it go. Christ"- What exactly is that meant to mean that there should be no history written about the war?? That the people who lost their lives should be forgotten?? Throughout history all wars have been documented, why should this one be forgotten? If people of certain backgrounds feel uncomfortable reading these pages they should simply avoid them. It's people like you getting all defensive that are the problem- as I see nothing in way of "painting Serbs more black" there is always an aggressor in war in this case it was the Serbs, how would you like the aggressor portrayed? I was not aware that there was a nice way to explain that someone has instigated a war!!! The point in this you need to "let it go"!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.66.177 ( talk) 15:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Equally interesting is the question of how Croatian soldiers could "ethnically cleanse" people from an area they never saw. Serbs left on their own volition because of requests from Milosevic to the RSK leaders so that they could boost demographics in Bosnia and Kosovo. The fact of the matter, whether or not Serb civilians were living there, is that they military of the JNA and Serb militias occupied the land that was internationally recognized as a separate country. 207.236.177.82 ( talk) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
M. Gotovina seems to have obtained fantastic rank & connections very quickly, but I still find this a fascinating story. To go from merchant sailor to Foreign Leigon Caporal-Chef to a Lieutenant General in Croatian Army is so meteoric to be almost absurd... His ability to go from Legion NCO to someone with aqquaintance with the President of France is equally absurd... I made some minor modificatiions to article, such as referering to his former Colonel as "former officer" rather than "comrade," since comrade refers to a position of equality (say if they had been Caporals together. Thanks V. Joe ( talk) 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Gotovina, as we see now, is a convicted war criminal with a proven record of war crimes. Writing his biography from the nationalistic point of view is a bad business. The article must be freed of most of its content describing public support to this criminal in his country.-- 71.178.115.169 ( talk) 12:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Fact that vast majority of Croatian population including every gouverment official find him inocccent and defacto think this aobut this sentece politicaly motivated and don't recognite it as legitimite is off fact that is just cant be avoided when somebody want to know anything about Ante Gotovina biography. So basicly you want to miss the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.150.110 ( talk) 17:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Nicely said by 90.137.150.110. You want to miss the truth. 83.131.76.114 ( talk) 22:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I will put annalogy.
It's legitimate to say that people who are sentenced to death by court during Stalin era might be innocent. Or for instance to say that this or that court is politicaly motivated and don't have anything with justice. Thing is that wast majority of people who know anything about Gotovina thing this verdict is just peace of crap is worth for mention in any article which want to be neutral. Aniway...wiki is full of such cases.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
194.138.12.169 (
talk)
08:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Well aware that various anonymous IPs would descend as soon as the verdict was read, I was prepared for edit warring. So far, anonymous has not really contributed much except POV-pushing. What exactly is the issue here? Moreover, it appears that anon does not have a firm grasp of the English language, evidenced by grammar and spelling and puzzling insistence that certain words and phrases aren't right. -- Jesuislafete ( talk) 20:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
-- Jesuislafete ( talk) 06:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
It makes a somewhat extreme claim on figures and calls upon the EU (which of course is not the court) to condemn the "unjust verdict" or be directly responsible for the rise of the radical, nationalist right. Is this a nationalist tabloid or a serious broadsheet? Fainites barley scribs 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a statement: "Gotovina, together with his co-accused Mladen Markač, a former commander of the special police of Croatia's interior ministry, and Ivan Čermak, assistant defense minister from 1991 to 1993, is charged with leading the three month long “Operation Storm", which resulted in the recapture of Croatia's Serb-held Krajina region in 1995 and charged the course of the war of independence."
That is incorrect translation I guess - Operation Storm took 4 days or 84 hours.
I don't want to say that source " http://www.haguejusticeportal.net" must be wrong - but this information is not correct & confusing. Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.107 ( talk) 15:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Not really wrong - the aftermath of the Operation was taken into account. What's the legal angle when judging when it begins and when it ends, I have no clue. -- SplitSpencer ( talk) 21:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
In the article Public attitude towards Gotovina there's been written couple of times that he had this "flight", but there was no flight that is worth of writing about general Gotovina. Person who was writing this probably was thinking about Zvonko Bušić. Also, Marko Perković and Miroslav Škoro didn't wrote any of their songs about general Gotovina nor Zvonko Bušić. And please remove that hajduk thing they have nothing to do with Gotovina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.227.219 ( talk) 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Please refrain from posting news about the Gotovina case if you're unfamiliar with proper English grammar and spelling, as it looks very unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.161.225 ( talk) 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
let me tell yu another thing... In "democracy" yu have term... "Innocent until proven gulty"... What yu mean about that... He definetly is a hero becouse he defended our homeland from invasion. And definetly he has not been proven guilty. Why is more then 4/5 of bio about war crimes and his deportation. He has done much more than that.
An innocent hero? Huh? Explain to me then, how a former General runs from the law as a fugitive for 4 years under a different alias instead of being a real man and standing before the World Court to defend himself. Is running away from responsibility the act of a hero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.253.144.65 ( talk) 04:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hague court is political court with only one objective - to equalize guilt between Croats and Serbs. Gotovina offered several times to surender to some other independent court. And now if you follow the trail it is obvious that it is not Gotovina on court but Croatia and Croatian policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.3.238 ( talk) 01:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
There are several items on the page which are really comments to other editors, and should be moved off of the article and onto the discussion page. I'm sure if its looked at closely, other similar issues will become apparent. Furthermore, I think this article really should include more detail on the assertions of the war crime tribunal. It is not really clear what he is accused of besides relocating some old people (which hardly seems like a war crime, depending on how it was done). I think most people who come here would probably be looking for information on that part of his life.
As the stub covers an individual and events that are constantly evolving, I feel the article fails to adequately capture the following points that not only give context regarding the political debate in Croatia but go to the heart of some of the issues associated with the Ante Gotovina case.
The reference to crimes committed by Gotovina in France does not adequately explain the relationship between alleged crimes, the nature of the French political system and Gotovina's role in the 'political' commando squads used by French presidents against there political opponents - refer following article for more information - [1]. This is different from what happens in the Anglo-Saxon economies where the left & right parties will not persecute each other once out of office but if in power all is fair.
Please note that the Gotovina indictment by the ICTY is nominally based on the notion of 'command responsibility', that is, in the absence of subsequent prosecution, a commander is responsible for war crimes committed by his troops even if he has not given the command, nor approves or is even aware of such acts at the time.
The application of command responsibility is certainly rare in the context of the ICTY and more generally in the history of conflicts. For this reason, many Croats feel a sense of persecution and political bias on the part of the Western body politic (albeit they are not the only South Slav peoples to feel a sense of bias) & that this bias is reflected in how the ICTY operates. However, the feeling of the Croats is not without cause. To begin with, their generals seem to be indicted on the vague legal construct of command responsibility whereas of the high ranking JNA Generals (Adzic, Kardijevic, Panic) without which former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic (on trial at the Hague for genocide & crimes against humanity) could not have prosecuted his war & political agenda, have not been indicted.
The other matter that promotes the impression of political persecution is the equating of Croatian General Ante Gotovina with Serbian General Mladic & Politician Karadzic. This certainly is disproportionate as the case against Gotovina (at least from what can be construed from the public debate & the indictment themselves) is weak & without being flippant the alleged crimes are not as significant in comparison. Yet the case against Mladic & Karadzic is for genocide & the case is strong.
It is my opinion and it is a view among many in the Croatian & Bosnian populace that there is a campaign to equate victim & aggressor in the wars between Croatia/Serbia & Bosnia & Herzegovina/Serbia by the same Western body politic that callously presided over the wars without intervention & followed a policy of appeasement. The best example of this equivalence is demonstrated by UK foreign minister Jack Straw's call on the anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre (year 2005), that all sides apologise to each other in a move for reconciliation. This caused much outrage among the communities impacted by the atrocities as it was almost tantamount to asking the victims of the holocaust and the camp commanders to apologise to each other in the spirit of reconciliation.
In addition to the policy of equivalence between victim & aggressor in the wars of succession in the former Yugoslavia, there is a trend of discouraging political dissent through derogatory/flippant political name tagging - for example: in the case of Croatia, anyone pointing out failings in international / European institutions may be labeled far right in an attempt to dismiss political facts not pertinent to the cause of a centralist Europe or supra-national organisations.
Also unusual is the ICTY indictment of Croatian journalists who denied a gag order regarding the revealing a protected witness (who is a high ranking politician in Croatia) in the Tihomir Blaškić trial. Note that most of the charges against Tihomir Blaskic were dismissed on appeal. The indictments were troubling in light of the fact that:
1) The journalists were critics of the ICTY and the protected witness who is a high ranking Croatian politician;
2) The identity of the protected witness has been & still is revealed by the ICTY website;
3) ICTY resources were being devoted to prosecuting reporters in what appears to be judicial overreach (i.e. prosecuting the messenger pursuing the public interest instead of the leakers) rather than pursuing war criminals. This strategy opens the ICTY to the accusation of political bias thus undermining the legitimacy of the work of the ICTY which would be political baggage for any future such tribunals.
There may be a number of reasons for such a policy of equivalence including:
1) The desire to deflate nationalistic tendencies in Southern Europe/ Balkans by delegitimising & attacking national identities and icons for the cause of stability in the region. Note that national identity may be seen as a hindrance by EU technocrats & politicians that favour a centralist European state;
2) To absolve European (read here EU) responsibility for the tragedy of the war in Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina by muddying the moral dimension through the portrayal of the conflict as a civil war (as opposed to the international conflict that it was), and the equivalence of all sides in the war (most effectively captured by the chauvinistic attitude "...they are all the same - if they want to kill each other, they can..."). This is especially true for the British foreign office (who were the main apologists for the Greater Serbia ideology by virtue of their historical links with Serbia) and the Dutch government, whose peacekeepers failed to protect the population of Srebrenica (albeit they were denied air support by the UN & were undermanned but arguably complicit in the crimes committed in Srebrenica by helping to separate the men and the women & children).
3) Part of the political overhang from 70 years of Yugoslav propaganda. During both Yugoslavias, the cause of Croatian statehood was viewed as the biggest threat to this artificial state & Serbian hegemony within the state. Thus we have 70 years of propaganda aimed at trying to delegitimise the cause of Croatian statehood by equating the nationality of Croat & the Croatian state as a fascist creation (despite the 1000+ year history of the Croatian state & institutions). Part of the overhang includes the sympathetic view of the Greater Serbia project by the British foreign office, the then French foreign ministry & different iterations of the US state department.
All these factors help explain why Gotovina is on the run - it would not be unreasonable to assume that he believes that despite what appears to date the weak case against him, he will not get a fair trial & such a trial will be exploited by political opportunists in Croatia for example, the ruling president. It also explains why Gotovina is still very popular in Croatia - people are cognitive of the politics behind the indictment. They also understand that he is a general that defended Croatia whilst many European institutions were impotent & devoid of moral fortitude during events such as the destruction of Vukovar & the bombing by the JNA of UNESCO recognised city of Dubrovnik.
-- Marinko.7 05:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
ma koji general i domoljub ... obicni mali narednik i kukavica koja se skriva od svega ... koji ne zasluzuje ispred svog imena rijec ... casnik ... Kako se ponasa pravi casnik pokazao je general Ademi ... svaka cast ... to je pravi vojnik ... kad su ga pozvali u Hagg ... obukao je uniformu ... i otisao reci istinu ... pa sto bude. A ovaj mali narednik za tako nesto nema hrabrosti, fali mu sve ... sto cini pravog covjeka .... covjekom. No, mozda i nije sam kriv za sve ... njega je na taj polozaj postavio pokojni Tudman ... njega i jos neke ... konobare, harmonikase ... lopine i palikuce ... pa nije ni cudo sto se bas ne snalaze u casnickim duznostima izvan ratnog vihora gdje se nikog nist ne pita ... a takvi inace moralni jadnici, bili su uvjerenja da ih se nikad nista i nece pitati ... ???? To je zato, sto vjerovatno nisu imali vremena ici u skolu i bar malo uciti povijest ...
Ma ko ga jebe u pičku mater..
As I see you are publishing some highly "educated" authors: "...ma tko ga jebe u picku materinu...". Theese words in croatian are more than unpolite. You should ask about that and remove above published text. Generaly spoken, respected internet pages does not publish offensive or undecent materials! Regarding the other aspects of above text I must say that it does not represent the public oppinion of Croatians, which by 75% (according to all inquieries) support gen. Gotovina for not going to Haag Court (ICTY), as allegatins are false and reminds us to political trials that we had a lot in communism. We are expert in that, we were experiencing such things for period wilst free countries lived far away form such things. So, we can detect political trials as easy as kids game. So, if allegations against gen. Gotovina are true we must ask ourselves:For what reasons nobody was trialed for killed Vietnamese civilians (estimated from 500.000 to 1 milion), or 300.000 Japanese civilians in Nagasaki or Hiroshima? Why communist leaders including Yugoslav)were not trialed for war crimes and crimes against humans rights, but they were respected and dealed with. What about Algier? What about Iraq?
I mean - if law is to be aplied only to smaller countries and not to all countries, including big ones, what is it but a politicaly inspired violenece?
Sorry, but we're not here to ask questions like: For what reasons nobody was trialed for killed Vietnamese civilians (estimated from 500.000 to 1 milion), or 300.000 Japanese civilians in Nagasaki or Hiroshima? Why communist leaders including Yugoslav)were not trialed for war crimes and crimes against humans rights, but they were respected and dealed with. What about Algier? What about Iraq?
First of all, Ante Gotovina has not been convicted for war crimes, therefore, he is innocent until proved guilty. That's a fact. You're stating that the accusations are false, how the hell do you know that, boy? Are you the main prosecuter at ICTY? I don't think so. If ICTY is a political court, that all of your arguments dont hold water, as most of thosos freed of any wrongdoing by the ICTY have been Croats, and Croats account for the least amount of endietments.
We are here to objectivley articles that are supported by facts, not by speculation and personal oppinions. The fact is that no criminal act is justifyable by international law, and american actions abroad such as vieatnam are no excuse to conduct ethnic cleansing. Sorry, but i find arguments like: "If they did it, we can do it" severley infantile and childish. Once again, your accusations toward "communist"leaders are not bact up by facts. Wikipedia is trustworthy just because of it's objectivity and it's clear to me, my son, that you are clearly biast. therefore, I have changed the article.
You say that 75% of the populace support Gotovina. what surveys? Those conducted by Hrvatsko slovo? Puhleezee.... h3llbent
I find this ridiculous: "This is because the extreme right in Croatia has established a cult of personality dedicated to the general". I find it quite normal, that Croatians regard Gotovina as a national hero: he is a soldier who reinstated the territorial integrity of their land. The forced and artificial PC-ness of Western countries is a joke. Serbia was the aggressor, and Gotovina is a hero. I wish we Hungarians had similar generals in the last 100 years.
Gotovina stated through his attorneys that the reason for fleeing is his distrust in Carla del Ponte and her motives for the indictment. He offered multiple times to surrender to a Croatian war tribunal, which was refused by the ICTY. It is obvious that Gotovina has little to no chance to be aquitted. Del Ponte stated in interviews many times, that a general is always ultimately responsible for the doings of his soldiers. Of course there were war crimes during operation storm, mostly out of revenge, no one denies this. But does the criminal intent of a few sole individuals make the general a war criminal? I do not think so. But is he guilty in front of the court? Yes, as he is ultimately responsible for his soldiers. It would be suicidal to surrender under such circumstances as there is no general with Gotovina`s rank in the world who would not be called a war criminal after a trial like this.
Bloody hell how many times do I have to say this as It's obvious that our anonimous user is daft: YOU CAN NOT SAY THAT THE COURT IS POLITICALLY BIAST AGAINST CROATIANS AS THEY ACCOUNT FOR THE FEWEST NUMBER OF CASES AND THE HIGHEST RATE OF NON GUILTY VERDICTS!!!!!
I cannot listen about bloody Abu Ghraib here: This is a talk page about Ante Gotovina. Like I said before, I crime is a crime, no metter where it takes place and it's silly, childish and just plain hypocritical to say: "they did it so we can do it too." We are not here to judge, you plonker!
Now I'm hating myself for ven arguing with you when you can write a sentance like this: "Many convicted "war criminals" were not convicted because they actually commited or ordered war crimes, but just because some soldiers that were officially under their command commited crimes", yes, my friend, thats exactly why they were convicted! Everybody knew what was going on.
Havent you read Tuđman's transcripts in which he divides Bosnia as if it were a cake. Let's not forget that those transcripts are official documents. Signed, sealed and delivered for the purpose of being and authentic historical record.
One more thing: How the hell do you know he refused to surrender? Are you Ante Gotovina or just another bloody right-wing telepath that can read everbody's mind from Bankok to the Hague?
He is running from the law, my son, the law. And leave Carla Del Ponte alone, she's only doing her job. What kond of prosecuter would she be if she believed in the innocence of every war crimes suspect she had to investigate. Dont be so ignorant. h3llbent
The allegations made in this article are largely unproven and should therefore be removed for the time being, regardless of what the author's opinions on Ante Gotovina's guilt/innocence/refusal to appear before the ICTY are.
What allegations? Please specify before thowing aroung words like Neutrality. I agree if you're reffering to the passages that refer to criminal escapades as they cannot be proven. h3llbent
As far as legal justice goes, his innocence has also not been proven, which is also one of the duties of any war trial. Until this happens, the Neutrality warning should remain placed on the page. Wikipedia is not about personal feelings, political orientation or symapthetizing of its users, it's about facts and statements, and until this case has been concluded it is imperative that the article remains marked as a potential minefield for anyone trying to reach a conclusion. Bear in mind that this is an international page.
Edit: Also added a Controversial boilerplate on the talk page for the same reason. Stealth 22:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
1. I dont have time to list all the verdicts we're talking about, because I do have a life, you know. A complete list is contained in a back issue of Feral Tribune, you might want to look at that. BTW: 600 trials in Croatia? You seem to have an overactive imagination, my son.
2. You mentioned Abu Ghraib here: "Take Abu Ghraib for instance. All the generals were aquitted because according to the US military investigators the generals did not know about the abuse of prisoners." My son, there were also accused on the premise of command responsibility. You might want to look at the accusation. So, let me get this straight, so you're saying this: If American generals were aquitted in Abu Graib scenario, then there must be no evidence in the case against Ante Gotovina!
You, my son, are either a telepath or Ante Gotovina himself as you seem to know whether or not he knew about major breaches of the conventions of war being comitted by his troops!
I seems to me that you are taking this discussion rather personally.
3. No evidence? My son, the ICTY is not a backwater court in the middle of nowhere where noone can oversee it's work, it's a court established by the Security Council of the UN. By saying that the Court is biast (which you are impling by saying that Ante Gotovina has been accused without evidence), you are also impling that the UN Security Council, which I might add appointed Carla Del Ponte as Cheif Prosecutor of the ICTY, is also biast against the Croatian People. You are doing this without any basis in fact, of course.
Carla Del Ponte most probably does have some kind of evidance, whether it is enough to prove that Ante Gotovina indeed is guilty, that's another story.
4. I agree that every suspet is considered innocent until proven guilty, but here you're missing something. When a case comes to court the prosecutions job is to convince a Judge or Jury that the defendant is guilty. On that the empassis is placed. If a court case was down to just the defendant proving his or her innocence, every suspect would be aquitted. My goodness, General Blaskic was spared of his 45 year sentance because of new evidance that was revealed after Pres. Stjepan Mesic opened the Croatian Presidential Archives in 2000. If you want the to direct your anger to someone, direct it to whoever hid the evidence of Blaskic's innocence. I won't even argue with you about the later portion of your fourth comment as Charles Shrader is not God, and for a fact to be valid, it must be accepted widely, not only by one historian.
5. There are no documents proving the plans for a division of bosnia? "Stenogrami o Podjeli Bosne" - Biblioteka Dan. Take a look. Oh, and it's all verified as an official historical record aand a part of the Croatian Presidential Archives. So there.
6. You are, my friend, a right wing extremist. I understand valid critisicm, actually, I love it as that is what makes wikipedia great, but I think you arguments are just plain stupid.
7. On your last comment I can say only this: Carla del Ponte is not God. She can't say "Marko Marković is a war criminal" and suddenly, Marko Marković is a war criminal. But, she can, backed up by facts and evidence, accuse people of being war criminals, issue them sub poenas and order them to appear in court. I repeat, Carla del Ponte is the cheif prosecutor at the ICTY which is, because you obviosly are blind : THE INTERNATIONAL COURT FOR WAR CRIMES IN THE FORMAR YUGOSLAVIA. SHE CANNOT INDICT SOMEONE FOR COMMITING WAR CRIMES IN RWANDA.
One more thing, you mentiond several JNA generals - How can you prove that they in some way were involved in breaching the conventions of war? How do you plan to prove this? By shouting at the top of your voice that they were part of the JNA? How does that make them war criminals?
Thats about it. h3llbent
"Alterning between France and South America, in October 30, 1999, he takes as hostage Gérald Tourmetz, who pays 350,000 francs as ransom." - This is highly speculative, and cannot be proved
"Meanwhile, Gotovina is still a member of the Paris-based Assistance Sécurité Protection, and may have been in Paraguay and Argentina in 1990 and 1991." - See above.
"The next month (March 2005), Britain led a successful campaign to halt the planned opening of talks with Croatia on joining the European Union, which were to start on March 17, 2005." -I'm sorry, but calling Britians negative opinion on opening negotiation talks with Croatia for EU membership a "campaign" is pretty relative. It sounds, and is too agressive. Croatia and Britan did not wage war.
"Among the Croat population, Gotovina is seen in many circles as a war hero and adore him, similar to a cult of personality." - Adore him? Please... Just because people don't want him to surrender, that doesn't mean they adore him. That's reserved for the occasional extreme right wing politician.
"On April 11, 2001, six weeks before his indictment by the International Penal Tribunal for War Crimes, he received a French passport from the French Embassy in Zagreb. Of course, at this time, all concerned were aware of his upcoming official indictment." - This cannot be proved. We know he posseses a Croatian passport, but this noone can confirm. This very far fethced.
That's about it. Other than these passages, the article needs some serious cleanup, as it contains too mush irrelavant information. In fact, it sounda like a James Bond novel. h3llbent
I personaly have met and have a picture of me standing next to Ante Gotovina's wife and SON (the article mentions he had a daughter). I doubt they could have possibly met in Columbia considering his wife is Croatian. Also, the CIA has proof that Gotovina did NOT expell those Serbian civilians who fled the Krajina regiond. CIA Predator spy droves helped support the operation and clearly show the civilians fleeing en massé before his forces came within range to do any type of damage. The Serbians were leaving because of Slobodan Milosovic telling them to leave and come back to the homeland. This artice is crearly biased against Gotovina and paints him as a criminal. I want newspaper articles with proof of his being sentenced to 5 years of prison in France or holding someone hostage.
Gutman, Roy. "What Did the CIA Know?" Newsweek, 27 Aug. 2001. [8]
I suggest changing up to 200,000 to over 300,000. I mean, the number of Serbs in Croatia over-all decreased by up to half a million citizens. Some returned, but the current number is still some 400,000-450,000 citizens short. If you do not believe me, see the Republic of Serb Frontier and Serbs OK? HolyRomanEmperor 19:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Anyone can write on Wikipedia, sources can be from Serbian nationalist sites, how can that be of any good to us who want to know the truth? The Serbs were the ocupants and there is a document in which people of Serbian nationality ARE ORDERED to leave as soon as possible, the document is held in Belgrade and is a proof of Gotovina's innocence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.117.196 ( talk) 18:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that nowhere in the general's indictment [9] is there any mention of the command responsibility. In fact, he is being tried for INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. This includes the murder of a number of people listed in the indictment as well as destroying of vast property, which, if true, is most certainly his responsibility. He, being the genereal, could not have been unaware of his soldiers murdering destroying civillian property. He cannot claim that the thousands of homes destroyed was just an accident he could not stop. And that is the basis of his trial.
"Alternatively, the accused Ante GOTOVINA knew or had reason to know that forces under his effective control were committing the acts described in paragraphs 21 through 26 above, or had done so, including as a result of having been so informed by representatives of the international community. The accused Ante GOTOVINA failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the commission of such acts or punish the perpetrators thereof." ( [10]). Once you take out the legal jargon that gives the indictment an air of credibility, my reading is that he knew what was going to happen & didn't do anything to stop it or punish those that committed crimes therefore he is just as guilty. It seems to be a very bottom up approach - crimes were committed, he was the general, therefore it must have been planned, therefore joint criminal enterprise & so on. -- Marinko
While I also find strange that other people, like Bush (I wonder why he wasn't mentioned before), who have done similar things, don't get punished, I still cannot agree that Gotovina is a hero. I guess I'm just different. Also, there is a majority of croatians who think the same way. You cannot write that the majority adores Gotovina. That is just not true. The majority of croats actually preferres to stay quiet. And while it may feel unfair to you that he is being punished for what he did (unlike the guy mentioned before), you have to live with it. Gotovina is not Bush and Croatia is not USA. And wikipedia is not a forum. It is here to show FACTS.
One final thing I don't understand is the people defending him. The war is long over (at least it feels like that) and Gotovina is a nobody. It surprises me that noone in his vicinity didn't think of just cashing his head for that $2 million. Think about it. If I where him, I'd cash myself in instead of living as a fugitive... (unsigned entry, anonymous)
1) They think he is innocent; 2) They view the indictment as disproportionate & inconsistent with evidence in other trials (e.g. former US ambassador to Croatia 'Galbraith' testified in the Milosevic trial that the Serb population had already left Croatia by the time the Croatian army got there – “…its hard to expel a population that is not there...”). As an aside, with regard to the so-called ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Krajina; an interesting view is presented by Ivo Goldstein (a Croatian Jew) in his book on the History of Croatia - he puts forward that the Serb mindset was ultimately responsible for their departure from Krajina - after having cleansed the region of Croats & other non-Serbs, it was inconceivable to them that they would be allowed to live in an Croatian state after what they had done to their neighbours – so they left. I see parallels between propaganda that all Croats were Ustasha (therefore it is ok to kill Croats), all Bosnian Muslims are Islamic fundamentalists (therefore it is ok to kill Bosnian Muslims) & with the eerie radio propaganda that was used in the Rwandan genocide to view all Tutsi’s as cockroaches. 3) He is a general that defended the country & liberated Serb occupied territory allowing Croatian refuges to return & for the country to begin healing & move on; 4) Croatians are cognitive of the EU politics [1] - the very same foreign offices of countries that most project propaganda against Gotovina (by grouping him in the same company as Karadzic & Mladic etc) are the same countries that appeared to be most hostile to Croatian independence or were too quick to appease Serb aggression. 5) Croatians are cognitive of the EU politics [2] - Gotovina defended his country from a genocidal project that was "the Greater Serbia project". The EU body politic was impotent in the face of crimes such as the bombing of Dubrovnik - this is the same body politic that seeks to make Gotovina a fall guy.
The bulk of people that support Gotovina are not a fringe element, but ordinary people that know their identity and increasingly disillusioned by both sides of politics in their pursuit of elitist objective disregarding the common man.
It is interesting however to note the use of Ustasha symbols by some of the young - I believe it is a reflection of the loss of faith in the major parties in their lack of defence of the institutions of the Croatian state - what was the point of independence if you replace Belgrade with Brussels. As such, I would not see the youth as Ustasha, but merely projecting symbolic gesture to show disaffection at the elitism of the main political parties & effectively saying "hey defend Croatia & Croatian's from injustice b/c if you don't the Ustasha will". --Marinko
Let's keep a closer eye on it guys, it's on the front page now. I'd suggest that locking it be a consideration. -- Mavzor 18:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I usually stay away from editing these issues because I know I'm bias as a Croat. But regarding the picture I can't see how one can tell they are radical nationalists. Is it in their hair color? Clothes? What I see in the picture is a young man kissing the image of an General who fought for them. So all the people in cities around Croatia showing their support are all radical nationalists? Please clarify. I promise I won't make any changes for now. Sporki 13:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
User:193.198.128.118 did some serious vandalism and added some serious nonsence, terribly degrading quality of this article and deserving this article a {{ TotallyDisputed}} tag. I reverted to last version before his edits because following edits were minor. After reverting, I think this article is no longer factually disputed. -- Dijxtra
Could everyone please note that we should not be using unfree images in this or other articles - fair use isn't enough, unfortunately. (See WP:ICT for more.) I've taken out the images for now; if anyone has any images which we can use (personal photos would be best) then please add them to the article. -- ChrisO 17:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Considering you did not explain how images you removed oppose to WP:ICT, and you did not supply free replacements for these unfree images, I'm returning them for now, until we find suitable replacement. -- Dijxtra 14:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I am curious; was the date of Ante Gotovina's capture on the 7th or on the 8th December ?? I am asking this because both dates were used in an article ...
on December 13, 2005 at 0:49 GMT
User:Ipernar constantly diminishes number of expelled Serbs. The real numbers can be viewed here: Operation_Storm#August_8.2C_1995_onwards. If needed, outside sources can be quoted, but I don't think that's necessary since only User:Ipernar supports the 150 thousand thesis. I stopped reverting him because this makes no sence anymore and I'd probably break WP:3RR if I haven't already. I call for discusion what is to be done about this user's actions. I propose blocking since I warned him already. -- Dijxtra 13:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear brother... ante gotovina didnt expell anybodey.... and from article... it seems that he did... but let me tell yu. He will be set free, and will be innocent on alll charges. Time will tell...
This is basically a good article on a difficult subject. But explaining the war as an uprising of local Serbs is and letting Milošević off the hook is simply not accurate. This was an military invasion with some local support. Extremists from Serbia took part in the rebellion and they had weapons supplied by the Yugoslav National Army. The Army's immediate exploitation of these conflicts shows they were largely coordinated with the Army. Being there at the time and being an anti-fascist gives me some objectivity on this issue. I suggest the authors change that one sentence.
I was back in Croatia this summer when there was a lot of news about Gotovina, and I found an interesting dynamic from friends I talked to. Most of them could not care less about Gotovina since it is common knowledge that there were crimes committed. But many people are very reticent about joining the EU (the reason Croatia is cooperating on war crimes trials) due to the bad effect the EU has had on the economies of member countries. This is a change in public in opinion from the 1990s. When I was in a doctor's waiting room in Zagreb, a very angry discussion about EU membership broke out. And this in a country of extremely polite and reserved people. I never heard any remark about Gotovina showing a strong opinion.
Can we deduce some symbolism from the name Kristijan Horvat (= "Christian Croat") or was it chosen just as a plain name?
In some parts of Croatia, the local culture has a tradition of celebrating outlaws or hajduks who defy distant authorities; this is reflected in the name of the football team Hajduk Split (literally " Split Outlaw(s)"), and it is is probably not coincidental that pro-Gotovina support is particularly strong in the Split region. Gotovina also cultivated a larger-than-life image that played up to the macho stereotypes that are very popular in parts of his native Dalmatia. This has to be the silliest thing I´ve ever heard. The link to the football team is soo far fetched. I't is insulting all dalmatian people. Does anyone have anything that verifies these allegations? Sporki 15:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)( Dalmatian)
Article Mirko Norac is being peer reviewed here. Feel free to join the review. -- Dijxtra 16:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Ahem, has anybody read the section before, the last paragraph? It talks about relationship of Milošević and Gotovina nad has some sources cited. The trivia section has no sources and repeates the same info. I will now remove the trivia section. If you wish to add some more info about relationship of Gotovina na Milošević, please edit already existing data which is sourced, do not add new data which has no source cited. Thanks, Dijxtra 16:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The reason why I removed the picture of Gotovina with a moustache is because it contains no relevance to anything. All the picture alleges to is a poster of Gotovina in Zagreb, which is supposed to serve what purpose? I don't see why some scribbling of Hitler's moustache on an aged poster (which by the way, is done almost everywhere for no reason in Zagreb; I was there this summer) shows any "public attitude towards Gotovina". As a matter of fact, most of the country supports him: I saw 5 pro-Gotovina billboards in Dalmacija alone, pro-Gotovina graffiti on walls, and a large picture of Gotovina on a bus from Sibenik to Knin on the driver's window.
And if anyone tries to put it back on, I suggest you go to Slobodan Milosevic's page and add some anti-slobo pictures, since you like to show "diversity" so much. From what I heard, from several Serbs too, they were everywhere in Serbia, and fewer people there support him than people in Croatia don't support Gotovina. Plus, there are very few pictures on that page, while Gotovina has very many, maybe we should take some more down. -- 128.195.70.96 05:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Basically, you don't like seeing Gotovina presented in that way. Fact is, many people in Croatia view him like that, and it's an interesting photo. To not put it in would be POV by omission. Also, if you have some pictures of Slobo, feel free to insert them into the relevant article. -- estavisti 06:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
And basically, you love seeing him presented in that way, otherwise, you wouldn't be crazily editing all the Croatian pages with things you like seeing on there, and adding Serbian references like I see you do. I don't really care to go to Serb pages, I don't know too much about them or care much about them, to edit their pages. I am just trying to protect Croatian pages from Serbs that want to add their propaganda or what they feel like to Croatian pages. BTW, what do you mean by, "many people in Croatia view him like that?" Where is your proof? Give me some numbers. Last time I heard, there were tens of thousands of people rallying in support of Gotovina all over Croatia. Dinamo Zagreb donated money from a game for his defense. Goran Ivanisevic, Davor Suker, Zvonimir Boban and Alen Boksic all signed a letter to the government in support of Gotovina. Look at poll numbers. The majority support him.
So my conclusion, it seems like you dislike Croats so much, you will go to any length to vilify them or try to rewrite their history or inject some sort of Serb presence in Croatian pages. This is very sad. I lived in Croatia for some time, I was there right after the war and still have family there, I still visit; I know what the situation is like, and Croatian attitude. -- 128.195.70.96 07:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for responding in such a clear matter. It will make responding easier. I wouldn't mind removing the other 2 pictures too. Ok, maybe one can stand, but I do not believe that we need all those pictures up there, maybe just the main one, what do you think? Plus, like I said earlier, Slobo's page has only one picture, as do many other bio pages, so maybe we should just stick to one. If he cared so much about representing public opinion, he would go to slobo's page and add anti-slobo picture there; from what a serbian friend told me, (and public opinion polls), he is much more hated in serbia than gotovina is in croatia. but he doesn't because his main intent i think is to undermine croatia. i don't want to go now to serbian pages and edit them, i just want to protect croatian pages from being misleading. and i stand by what i said earlier, he cannot be objective to most croatian pages because of other things i heard him say about croatia on other pages. but i hope he will be a good editor and be fair to both sides when he writes on different country's pages.-- 128.195.70.96 04:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I already said, I have no objections to taking down the other two pictures, I think that is too much, but the reason why the Hitleresque picture should not be there is because it has no relevence to the article.... the article talks about the countries attitude towards him, which explains the positive pictures, but where is the text about the negative attitude? it is not explained anywhere, someone probably put it up just for a laugh. -- 128.195.70.96 01:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
When asked by the Hague judge about his place of birth, Gotovina answered Zadar.
I just reverted a content delete from an anon. While most of this deletion was sourced cold fact. I think that this specific phrase need to be sourced. So I moved it here because I consider it as harmfull for the reader.
"In 1981, with his comrade Dominique Erulin, he helped editor Jean-Pierre Mouchard, a close friend of Jean-Marie Le Pen, organizing a commando to free his press in La Seyne sur Mer, occupied by CGT trade-union strikers." -- Esurnir 22:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Why can't people simply state the truth and always must rewrite history to their own liking. This particular section is full of aggressive talk aimed at painting the Serbs even more black:
"In 1991, Croatia declared independence from Yugoslavia. The Serbian government, led by its President Slobodan Milošević then launched various paramilitary militias to take control of various parts of Croatia, eventually followed by a conventional military assault from the Yugoslav National Army which had come under the de facto control of the Serbian President. The new Croatian army, formed in haste, managed to stop the advance of Belgrade's troops, and Croatia was internationally recognised on 15 January 1992. The Belgrade army then withdrew but left the third of Croatia it had conquered under the control of local Serbs, whom they had used as proxies to wage their war of conquest. Half of the Croatian Serbs who, according to the 1991 census, represented 12.16 percent of the country's population, lived there, mostly concentrated in Northern Dalmatia, the Lika, the Banija, the Kordun along the Bosnian border, Western Slavonia around Pakrac and in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia near the border with Serbia. The rebels had first formed "Autonomous Serb Districts" (Srpske autonomne oblasti or SAOs) which merged into a self-proclaimed "Republic of the Serb Krajina" (Republika srpske Krajine or RSK) in 1991."
This is yet another example of blatant Croatian hypocracy. Why can't you admit that the Serbs had lived there for over 4 centuries? How can they conquer a territory that they already lived in? Why does this still go on? Croatia got what it wanted - their own state. They got another goal accomplished - a Serb free Croatia. So when is enough enough? What else do you want from the Serbs? The war is over, why can't you leave it well alone? How much longer is this gonna go on for? It's over already, let it go. Christ.
I petition whomever is in charge to rewrite this part and tell the truth. A simple search of Croatian history will reveal that the Serbs did indeed live in the "Conquered" parts of Croatia for centuries, making it their HOME. Truth needs to be told here, people need to be educated with facts, not with Nationalistic lies. The war in Yugoslavia was a tragedy for all sides involved. What is so sad is that instead of building peace in the region, people like the author do all they can to stoke the flames of nationalism, thus ensuring that the Serbs and Croats will never be able to co-exist. Very very sad if you ask me. Pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milanf07 ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
The only thing I found wrong in this paragraph was "Croatian-Serbs" I'm guessing it means Serbs who lived in Croatia. The comment "It's over already, let it go. Christ"- What exactly is that meant to mean that there should be no history written about the war?? That the people who lost their lives should be forgotten?? Throughout history all wars have been documented, why should this one be forgotten? If people of certain backgrounds feel uncomfortable reading these pages they should simply avoid them. It's people like you getting all defensive that are the problem- as I see nothing in way of "painting Serbs more black" there is always an aggressor in war in this case it was the Serbs, how would you like the aggressor portrayed? I was not aware that there was a nice way to explain that someone has instigated a war!!! The point in this you need to "let it go"!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.66.177 ( talk) 15:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Equally interesting is the question of how Croatian soldiers could "ethnically cleanse" people from an area they never saw. Serbs left on their own volition because of requests from Milosevic to the RSK leaders so that they could boost demographics in Bosnia and Kosovo. The fact of the matter, whether or not Serb civilians were living there, is that they military of the JNA and Serb militias occupied the land that was internationally recognized as a separate country. 207.236.177.82 ( talk) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
M. Gotovina seems to have obtained fantastic rank & connections very quickly, but I still find this a fascinating story. To go from merchant sailor to Foreign Leigon Caporal-Chef to a Lieutenant General in Croatian Army is so meteoric to be almost absurd... His ability to go from Legion NCO to someone with aqquaintance with the President of France is equally absurd... I made some minor modificatiions to article, such as referering to his former Colonel as "former officer" rather than "comrade," since comrade refers to a position of equality (say if they had been Caporals together. Thanks V. Joe ( talk) 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Gotovina, as we see now, is a convicted war criminal with a proven record of war crimes. Writing his biography from the nationalistic point of view is a bad business. The article must be freed of most of its content describing public support to this criminal in his country.-- 71.178.115.169 ( talk) 12:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Fact that vast majority of Croatian population including every gouverment official find him inocccent and defacto think this aobut this sentece politicaly motivated and don't recognite it as legitimite is off fact that is just cant be avoided when somebody want to know anything about Ante Gotovina biography. So basicly you want to miss the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.150.110 ( talk) 17:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Nicely said by 90.137.150.110. You want to miss the truth. 83.131.76.114 ( talk) 22:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I will put annalogy.
It's legitimate to say that people who are sentenced to death by court during Stalin era might be innocent. Or for instance to say that this or that court is politicaly motivated and don't have anything with justice. Thing is that wast majority of people who know anything about Gotovina thing this verdict is just peace of crap is worth for mention in any article which want to be neutral. Aniway...wiki is full of such cases.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
194.138.12.169 (
talk)
08:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Well aware that various anonymous IPs would descend as soon as the verdict was read, I was prepared for edit warring. So far, anonymous has not really contributed much except POV-pushing. What exactly is the issue here? Moreover, it appears that anon does not have a firm grasp of the English language, evidenced by grammar and spelling and puzzling insistence that certain words and phrases aren't right. -- Jesuislafete ( talk) 20:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
-- Jesuislafete ( talk) 06:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
It makes a somewhat extreme claim on figures and calls upon the EU (which of course is not the court) to condemn the "unjust verdict" or be directly responsible for the rise of the radical, nationalist right. Is this a nationalist tabloid or a serious broadsheet? Fainites barley scribs 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a statement: "Gotovina, together with his co-accused Mladen Markač, a former commander of the special police of Croatia's interior ministry, and Ivan Čermak, assistant defense minister from 1991 to 1993, is charged with leading the three month long “Operation Storm", which resulted in the recapture of Croatia's Serb-held Krajina region in 1995 and charged the course of the war of independence."
That is incorrect translation I guess - Operation Storm took 4 days or 84 hours.
I don't want to say that source " http://www.haguejusticeportal.net" must be wrong - but this information is not correct & confusing. Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.107 ( talk) 15:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Not really wrong - the aftermath of the Operation was taken into account. What's the legal angle when judging when it begins and when it ends, I have no clue. -- SplitSpencer ( talk) 21:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
In the article Public attitude towards Gotovina there's been written couple of times that he had this "flight", but there was no flight that is worth of writing about general Gotovina. Person who was writing this probably was thinking about Zvonko Bušić. Also, Marko Perković and Miroslav Škoro didn't wrote any of their songs about general Gotovina nor Zvonko Bušić. And please remove that hajduk thing they have nothing to do with Gotovina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.227.219 ( talk) 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)