Duitsers en Serviers zijn altijd Tätervölker en moslims ‘Öpfervölker’ , according to biased international criminal courts

Hoe zat het ook al weer met Srebrenica? De grootste etnische zuivering na WO II?
Uiteraard zijn Duitsers geen mensen, dus die 11 miljoen tellen niet mee:    zie hier

Maar volgens de jongste inzichten zijn Serviërs dat ook niet: zie hier

Huilen om een paar duizend uit Srebrenica geschopte Moslims (sinds wanneer is dat een etniciteit?), maar die honderduizenden Serviërs kunnen de pleuris krijgen.

Het  CIA/Soros sponsored Strafrechttribunaal voor ex Yougoslavie heeft de meeste Moslims en Kroaten na voorarrest vrij snel weer vrijgelaten, terwijl Serviërs drakonische straffen kregen.

More about the biased and distorted so-called international criminal courts by Alfred Vierling:

The Hague, my home town, claims to be the ‘Capital of International Law’ , but which is the governmental residence of a country, though obliging its citizens each year to commemorate the victims of nazism, whose government committed horrendous war crimes within the framework of the NATO bombings on former Yougoslavia. My very university lecturer of international law Mr. Lammers defended these illegal bombings at the International Court of Justice in the Peace Palace in the Hague.It is interesting to see, that as an official international lwa adviser to the Dutch Government he orders a memorandum written by him revealing lack of international public law grounds to go along with the USA attack on Irak to be withheld from government inspection and to be ‘stored for later generations’. He explicitly rejects the idea of the dutch top-diplomate van Walsum as published in the Financial Times, that repeated and sustained violation by a state of binding security council resolutions justify implicitly violent attacks by SC members against such a state, but supports the idea that such violent action is justified by so-called ‘humanitarian intervention’, it is if states violate basic human rights regardless of their recognition of these, referring to Prof. Kooymans book on international law. Prof. Kooymans, now judge in the ICJ was the dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs during the Srebrenica debacle, for which he is totally responsable having uphold the fancy idea of UN ‘safe havens’ protected according to the naive concept of ‘deterrence by mere(UN-)presence’.So Prof. Lammers, fidel to his international law colleague Kooymans, still clings to their belligerous attitudes against former Yougoslavia but refrains from accepting their explanation of international law regarding Bush’s war against Irak. Being an official, however, he is bound to ‘store’ his account of international law and to offer his services to ther belligerous government as ‘a loyalist attorney’ in case the government be criticized….

Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time of the NATO warfare against Yougoslavia, Mr.van Aartsen, is now the Mayor of the Hague. He refused to receive Mr. Milenkovic seeking prosecution of the politicians and military involved in killing his daughter Sanja by a second NATO presumably Dutch air attack on the bridge of Varvarin, where she was about to assist victims of the first attack, both directed against citizens. In 1999 I denounced the war crimes by The Netherlands in an official procedure at the International Criminal Law Tribunal for former Yougoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, but to no avail. NATO’s war crimes went unscreened and unjudged and will continue to take place in a world which sets aside its entire international law system when it suits the interests of its war machinery. Today NATO air strikes on Afghan citizens with the collaboration of the Dutch air force continue to commit genocide without any accountability before whatever court or tribunal. Nothing has changed since the Vietnam war, if not for the media to keep quite and turn a blind eye. The Vietnam war, the first and the last war to be broadcasted without censorship was conducive to at least some moral tribunals composed of philisophers like Mr. Russel, but now even the intelligentia collaborates withn the system. Only the ‘Dialogue Forum’ in Paris 1999, which I participated in, was active in denouncing the ICTY as a kangaroo court representing the NATO interests. The ICTY went as far as to have the Yougoslavian President Milosevic killed within its prison walls at the very moment that he would express the main part of his personally presented apologia and legal defence, nullifying any of the prefabricated NATO arguments to go to war. The ICTY even removed upon notification of the death of Mr. Milosevic his defence notules from its internet site, so only his legal assistants outside the ICTY framework and some specialists having attended in person his defense speeches at the ICTY buildings (I attended some) have a mere glance over his brilliant uncovery of the NATO war machine. Today NATO bombings are targeting civilians in Afghanisatan and Irak. What country is next? Iran ? Read the following denouncement, skip over the legally technical complicated passages and be aware of the hypocrisy of the Dutch politicians involved.
My denunciation of NATO War Crimes in Yougoslavia 1999
pdf-version

Though the present-day International Criminal Law Court has been based on an International Treaty it cannot be considered as a world penal law forum since the United States preclude the jurisdiction of it over its citizens.
It is a winners’ court, not a really independent criminal court. The USA opposes an independent prosecutor. What is more, the Court is bound to contradict Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which presupposes a threat to international peace, not merely peace as a prerequisite for the Security Council to make use of its special powers under that chapter.
If President Clinton is supposed to be the father of The International Criminal Law Tribunal for Former Yougoslavia (ICTY), then Secretary Albright was its mother, both having stated openly that they rely on NATO governments for investigations. Though claiming independence from many national government this forum is totally dependent on national forces to arrest and bring up any suspect. The ICTY was financed mainly by the USA, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Open Society Institue of George Soros, Time-Warner and Discovery Products, both American companies. The Court claims to apply the presumption of innocence, but unlike normal criminal courts, the court itself is involved in the laying of the charges. When a charge is to be laid the approval of one of the trial judges must be obtained. That approval is only given if a prima facie case is established. That is, a case which if not answered could result in a conviction. Yet one claims presumption of innocence! The presumption is also compromised by automatic detention upon arrest and only very rare form of release pending trial. Prisoners are separated from family, friends, have to obey prison rules and are under permanent surveillance, censored mail rules, in short by whom are the suspects presumed to be innocent ?. The court is exempt of any protection against heresay evidence. Witnesses can testify anonymously or not shown in court. There are provisions for closed hearings in vaguely described circumstances, secret trials, use of sealed indictments, thast means no one knows in advance of arrest by military police in any country of what he/she is suspect of; suspects can be kept uptil 90 days without charge. Confessions are presumed to be free and volutary unless the contrary is established by the prisoner (who has been kept for 90 days by military police and prosecutors!! If you are arrested in a foreign country it sums up to exile! The choice of counselers is hampered by the possibility of severe fines for contempt and lawyers from some countries are barred on the ground there are already to many of them representing accused persons. No biased judge can be removed by the suspect. But most of all this new international criminal law forum smells like an instrument of war, thwartening subtle diplomatic peace deals by incriminalizing even (former) heads of states with whom the family of nations has been dealing , often promising exit strategies to them as a condition to their cooperation in an international peace deal. That was the case of Milosevic, that is the case of Karadzic: