Homosexuals caused Srebrenica!

[SAT]

I am saying that Dutch military officers might have held it up to be such an example. There may have been other things as well.

You seem to be implying that a policy shift towards open gay recruitment in the armed forced could not be a sign of pacification of a military force.

But one thing is pretty indisputable, the Dutch soldiers reacted like pacifists.

Maybe it's a translation problem. Perhaps the Dutch officers told Patraeus their soldiers didn't defend the civilians because they were a bunch of sissys and he interpreted that as gay

[Mouroux]

I get the impression that the general was alluding to a more general point about the dutch forces, that straight or gay, they were simply not us to the task. Soldiers, in the generals opinion, have to be ruthless, monstrous killing machines, unthinking and unquestioning of authority. In any event gay men are just as capable of killing as straight men. The whole perception that gay men are 'fem' etc. is pure rubbish. I remember being in easons and a guy walked in a very casually grabbed a gay mag of the rack an started flicking through. People were horrified... because this guys had clearly come in off a building site. I noticed the same think coming out of my local cinema after seeing 'Brokeback Mountain'. There was a lot of tension in the cinema, and afterwards, people generally looked uncomfortable... but I felt it was because the gay 'characters' were not in any way feminine/stereotyped --they were just regular looking and sounding men. The VAST majority of hollywood films etc. depict gay men as 'fem'/lacking any serious or (dare I say it) threatening dimension...

So the general was just plugging into that stereotype/media portrayal. don't ask me to explain it all. But most people are not 'tough' when it comes to sexuality, in fact they are pretty insecure.

[jcdf]

UN soldiers are not supposed to be able to fight. If they had genuine combat capability, no one would ever allow them into their countries. They are just kitted out in uniform and a gun with limited ammunition so they look like they can fight to common criminals, like thieves.

The Srebrenica slaughter had nothing to do with gay soldiers. toxic avenger has already aptly explained the situation.

[USER1234]

From what i understand he was testifying against repealing don't ask don't tell and was using this to justify his bigoted views that gay should not serve!!!

[anewbeginning]

What a nonsense argument from this general.

Many of the bravest soldiers in past wars have been either openly or secretly gay, particularly in the first world war with soldiers such as Lawrence of Arabia and others.

Being gay or not has absolutely no relevance to a person's bravery.

The whole problem was there was only about a 100 Dutch soldiers who were lightly armed against perhaps a division of heavily armed serbs.

The United Nations itself was more at fault as it was in Rwanda, because it struggles to make a distinction between an agressor and a victim. The UN sees the agressor and victim as being on the same level.

Indeed the UN has more respect for national governments than victims of those governments and this contributed to the Rwanda and Yugoslav genocides. The UN also has a history of running away from conflict and does everything it can to avoid using force or taking up arms to protect the innocent in an armed conflict and only intervenes when there is a peace to protect, and in this regard it's a pretty useless organisation. It has failed to prevent countless genocides since it's formation, in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Darfur and elsewhere.

The UN gives legitimacy to genocidal governments and welcomes every nation state to join, no matter how evil the government of that state.

[wombat]

Maybe it's a translation problem. Perhaps the Dutch officers told Patraeus their soldiers didn't defend the civilians because they were a bunch of sissys and he interpreted that as gay

Best explanation I've seen, they try really hard to keep generals away from microphones in case they speak their minds, once they retire they're off the leash.

[Thac0man]

With deferance to General Sheehans long service, and perhaps because if it, General John Sheehan is a military man. The opinions he offers on homosexuals in the army, based on hearsay opinion of a Dutch senior officer, are not worth split as they are personal views, not informed by military necessity. The General is talking out his hole basically and the Dutch are right to be angry.

[Ulster-Lad]

BBC NEWS | Europe | Timeline: Siege of Srebrenica

Better explanation of how the events unfolded can be found here in the link provided.

Bosnian Serb forces had laid siege to the Srebrenica enclave, where tens of thousands of civilians had taken refuge from earlier Serb offensives in north-eastern Bosnia. They were under the protection of about 600 lightly armed Dutch infantry forces

Serbs, who attacked Dutch observation posts, taking about 30 soldiers hostage. One peacekeeper was fatally wounded when Bosnian Muslims fired on retreating Dutch troops.

Peacekeepers handed over about 5,000 Muslims who had been sheltering at the Dutch base at Potocari. In return, the Bosnian Serbs released 14 Dutch peacekeepers who had been held at the Nova Kasaba base

Following negotiations between the UN and the Bosnian Serbs, the Dutch were at last permitted to leave Srebrenica, leaving behind weapons, food and medical supplies.
In the five days after Bosnian Serb forces overran Srebrenica, more than 7,000 Muslim men are thought to have been killed.

The article is actually a very good account of what happened. Including the part about air support being denied because it was requested on the wrong form. The workings of the UN would be funny indeed if not so tragic. It is also the reason that the UN's peacekeeping role is a farce and why the US will not allow it's troops to fall under UN authority while on these missions.

So in summation, it was not homosexuals that caused Srebrenica but rather the ineptness of the United Nations.

[JSLeFanu]

What a nonsense argument from this general.

Many of the bravest soldiers in past wars have been either openly or secretly gay, particularly in the first world war with soldiers such as Lawrence of Arabia and others.

I think you're right in almost every respect. I think you could have gone a bit further about Lawrence or Arabia though. The man wasn't only a killing machine he was also a sadist.

The whole gay argument is complete **************************************** but I wouldn't go getting into a sweat over these remarks either. I've noticed comments suggesting that this makes the USA look backward and fundamentalist.

I always get uncomfortable when I see people taking a wild or extreme comment uttered by some US official and using it to carry such a political payload. The US is a very diverse society which places a high value on free speech. Holland on the otherhand criminalizes free speech as can be seen with the Wilders show trial over there.

This general is completely wrong to link this failure to the presence of homosexuals but the fact that the US is a society where he's free to say such things should be something we celebrate. Too often euro free speech advocates want to speak freely but then shut up those who utter unapproved opinions.

There are much better candidates to hang the blame on here and a number of posters have already hit the nail on the head. The UN is more or less unfit for such tasks and the pretence that it's otherwise is dangerous and for some people lethal. Secondly, the Brits aside, most EU nations have supressed and devalued the notion of the warrior, gay or straight, as some sort of quaint and outdated idea. This extends into the political area, in fact that's one of its points of origin, where even notions of concepts like "enemy" have been subsumed into a lake of moral relativism where there are no enemies only misunderstandings.

This is of course twaddle. On the ground once two nations, or factions within a nation, decide upon a course of slaughter such slaughter continues until such a time as the US decides to devote resources to an intervention. When the US arrives the game changes and usually quickly because everyone knows it's prepared to act and the boots on the ground, whether or not those boots are filled by gays or straights, transport trained soldiers who understand that part of their work is killing.

I know if I'm a cornered minority, Bosnian or Kurd or whatever, the presence of EU or UN forces wouldn't do anything to lessen my anxiety about an imminent end to my life. US forces on the otherhand? Different story.

[ibis]

I know if I'm a cornered minority, Bosnian or Kurd or whatever, the presence of EU or UN forces wouldn't do anything to lessen my anxiety about an imminent end to my life. US forces on the otherhand? Different story.

Sure - then you'd be really concerned.