DIPLOMATICALLY INCORRECT hears more from Dragan Petrovic with his critique of a debate from Russia TV’s “CROSSFIRE” Program of which Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey and Mr. Misha Gavrilovic were recent guests. Dragan expresses his anger when science is perverted as a means to justify an end, in this case – the Srebrenica Debate.
"SREBRENICA DEBATE" – From Dragan Petrovic (Facebook profile name: Dragan Peterson)
- I agree with what Mr. Sacirbey said. This is my first time to hear comments from Mr. Misha Gavrilovic, and I see dozens of discrepancies in his story. The first one is that he uses science to justify his theories by modifying well- known terms, etc. I have no intent to call someone a "pseudo-scientist", but to modify theories about genocide, massacres, etc. in order to accommodate them to your own is in my opinion a completely false and wrong scientific approach.
That kind of approach reminds me of Alfred Rosenberg, Hitler's main ideologist, who was also an educated man. My point is, name titles or a high education, don't give a right to anybody to call himself a scientist. Scientists (in my view) are those people who use science for the well-being of all mankind. Mr. Gavrilovic tries, in any way, to relativize crimes committed in Bosnia by questioning the theory of genocide, and other crimes. But at the same time, when it comes to supporting his theories about crimes which were allegedly committed by NATO in Serbia, he refers to the theory of international crimes by applying it in an appropriate way, however it is only in an "inappropriate case" (war crimes, crimes against humanity and crime of genocide weren't committed in Serbia by NATO).
Such an application helps Mr. Gavrilovic to relativize crimes committed by Serb individuals in Bosnia, as well as their responsibility for the crimes. Moreover, it is obvious that Mr. Gavrliovic tries to use the "theory of conspiracy" every time when he lacks argumentation, which is irrelevant in this case.
Conspiracy or not, that is not essential in judging whether crimes took place or not, as well as it is not the question of whether we should use this as a justification of genocide or its negation. As a person who tries to follow science objectively as much as possible, I use a simple formula (by Mr. Gregory H. Stanton) in order to recognize denial of international crimes as such. So, what I saw in Mr. Gavrliovic’s statements is Stage 8; that is, denial of crimes, or relativization; and Stage 5 (polarization). The debate was educational, because of the participation of two persons who defended two different viewpoints. One is based on denial and relativization, the other is an objective approach in order to prosecute all international crimes as such.
-------
“Hvala,” “Thank you,” Dragan for your commentary.
----By, Susan Sacirbey
Facebook: "Susan Sacirbey"
– Become a Fan at “Bosnia TV” and/or “Diplomatically Incorrect”
Twitter - Follow us at DiplomaticallyX
More Related Reports –
“Srebrenica Genocide Channel” - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/c/the-genocide-of-srebrenica/most_recent/6 Srebrenica
Debate 1 – “Russia TV” http://diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/movie/srebrenica-debate-i-russia-tv/27721
Srebrenica Debate 2 – “Russia TV”” http://diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/movie/srebrenica-debate-2-russia-tv/27722
“Assessing Cooperation with War Crimes Tribunal (ICTY)” By Ambassador Mo http://diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/blog_post/assessing-cooperation-with-war-crimes-tribunal-icty-by-ambassador-mo/42471
“Building Bridges” … More From Dragan: http://diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/blog_post/building-bridges-more-from-dragan-by-susan-sacirbey/42809
