Before the Srebrenica Massacre of 1995, it was estimated by United Nation officials that a total of 34,000 soldiers would be needed to protect six Serbian towns that had been declared “safe zones”. As the Bosnian ethnic cleaning and mass murder of Muslims continued, NATO allocated too few men with only light equipment to protect the town of Srebrenica. Amidst pleas from them for supporting air strikes that fell on deaf ears, a force of only 450 Dutch Soldiers tried to hold back the Serbs, but were quickly overwhelmed, handcuffed to utility poles and rendered helpless to prevent between seven and eight thousand Muslim men and boys being marched off and slaughtered before their eyes.
There was swift and at times angry Dutch reaction after retired NATO commander and U.S. General of the Marines John Sheehan told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that former Dutch Chief of Defense General van den Breemen told him that homosexuals were partially to blame for the Netherlands’ impotent reaction during that infamous 1995 massacre. The Dutch government and people’s response to the bigoted American General’s attempt to rewrite history was immediate.
Dutch leaders and military officials were shaking their heads in outrage that anyone in their government would state such a thing, since gay soldiers have been allowed to serve openly with honor, gallantry, and distinction in their unionized military for over thirty-five years.
Retired General van den Breemen himself reacted to the use of his name by stating through official military channels that Sheehan’s statement was, “absolute nonsense.”
Dutch Defense Ministry spokesman Roger van de Wetering stated, "It is astonishing that a man of his stature can utter such complete nonsense, the Srebrenica massacre and the involvement of UN soldiers was extensively investigated by the Netherlands, international organisations and the United Nations. "Never was there in any way concluded that the sexual orientation of soldiers played a role."
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jet Gardner
I've dugg dozens of your articles lately-how about returning the favor kids?
2 - Betty
if the article was worth it, maybe more people would digg or whatever.
3 - Betty
I'm not trying to be rude, but if people like your writing, they'll digg it if they want to. Why push people to do something they don't want to.
4 - Jet Gardner
Maybe it's because of all of the articles I've dugg recently regardless of whether I agreed with them or not, and no one returned the favor despite EO sending out a mass request that we ALL, do it for the BC team. WHERE WAS ALL THIS UPROAR WHEN ERIC asked us to do it for each other several times in the last month or so?
5 - Glen Boyd
One person does not constitute an uproar Jet. And all this is accomplishing is the "Digging" subject turning attention away from your actual article, not to mention irritating some folks who might otherwise be inclined to "Digg" your work.
Also, last time I checked my name was not "no one."
-Glen
6 - Jet Gardner
Forgive me... almost no one, and I believe Mr. Olsen made it a major issue, and I believe it's one that deserves to be on the front burner.
The vast majority of people seem to be overwhelmingly interested in the comments sections over the actual contents of BC articlse anyway.
7 - Betty
If I wanted to cause an uproar, I'd definitely do it over something that was actually worth it. For instance, the lack of professionalism that some of the writers here seem to display.
8 - zingzing
i'm really struggling to see what the possible connection between gay soldiers and the massacre is. i don't even understand how the general is connecting it in his mind...
as for the digging shit, whatever.
9 - zingzing
betty, since the writers aren't paid... they're not professional. and now you're just being snotty. hoity-toity. snoot.
10 - roger nowosielski
I find the entire topic (of "diggs") demeaning. It smacks of a dog begging for his bone.
Excuse me, Jet, but I can't empathize.
Fuck fame and fortune.
11 - Glen Boyd
Just to be clear here, as an editor here I am mandated to "digg" any article that I actually publish. Beyond that, "Digging" is purely subjective. But in my case I usually do it based on an article's individual merit, or in a few rare cases when it's something by one of my friends here. The bottom line is that if someone likes your work, chances are they might "Digg" it.
I think I understand your intentions here Jet, and I also think that they are mostly good ones. I also hope that by trading off Diggs with other writers, you are on to something that might catch on -- I really do.
But right now you are kind of shooting yourself in the foot by drawing attention away from your actual article, and whatever actual merit it may or may not have. You're also coming off just a tad whiny -- this doesn't compliment you or your cause.
As to the idea of "comments" being more interesting than the articles, I think that notion is somewhat insulting to the writers and editors who put in the time and energy to create them.
Articles for BC or any other publication should stand or fall on their individual merit.
I'll wish you luck on this cause, but aren't you just a little interested in what people think of what you took the time and effort, to...you know..."write"?
-Glen
12 - Jordan Richardson
I like to exhibit a lack of professionalism on a daily basis. It's good for the liver.
13 - roger nowosielski
Not with the amount of vino you consume, Jordan.
Try another tack.
14 - Betty
Zingzing, professionalism isn't just about being paid. It's about embarrassing yourself by using inappropriate pictures as avatars and being demanding of your readers.
Not being paid has nothing to do about how people perceive you.
15 - Glen Boyd
My liver must be about as "professional" as they come based on the Jordan Richardson criteria, then.
Speaking of which,...Barkeep?
-Glen
16 - FCEtier
Betty, zingzing, and Jordan, are you writers on BC or readers?
If you are writers, why don't you leave comments with your link?
If you aren't writers, why don't you sign up?
17 - Jet Gardner
Thanks for the rare on-subject comment Zing. The bastard is just using a phony (read lie) excuse to cover his bigotry and ignorance. A lie that the Dutch govenment is vigorously uncovering as we speak.
Gee, I wonder if that's typical of American Generals?
18 - Jet Gardner
Glen, the subject came up when I was digging one of your articles and the non-BC article on the same subject beneath it had over a thousand diggs.
I thought that was pathetic and decided to raise hell about it, since EO started the ball rolling.
That's why I'm here.
...and asking a bunch of barely educated bloggers, avarage housewives and rednecks to put out professional grade stuff is silly, and smacks of the massa complaining at his slaves about the quality of work he gets out of them because his ad revenue isn't putting enough money in his pocket... doesn't it?
19 - roger nowosielski
Thank goodness. Now we're back to the substance of things rather than bitching.
Although I'd rather stay on the old topic a bit longer. It was more interesting from the human point of view.
20 - Jet Gardner
Roger wrote something about this article???... must've been deleted?
Betty, I'm touched, you're the first one in over five years to complain about my avatar!
21 - cannonshop
gee, not one comment on the actual article...
okay, one.
Jet, the finding is like noting water is wet, of course the sexual orientation of the Dutch soldiers had nothing to do with their being utterly ineffective.
NOw, if someone could just admit that the problem is deploying untrained people in blue beanies with no ammo or fire support in war zones...
22 - zingzing
FCEtier, i have written here, but i don't feel the need to mix up my writing with any link to the garbage i write in the comments.
betty, you're silly. "inappropriate avatars?" now you're being petty.
jet, unless i'm mistaken, he's blaming the undermanned dutch soldiers for being overwhelmed based on the fact that their military includes gay people? ...that there might have been a gay person or two in their outfit, who are, of course, wimps, or something, and that that gay person's wimp-ness turned them all into a bunch of distraught flamers, or something like that? is that his theory?
was this just an offhand remark, or is he really putting that forward as his military opinion? if so, someone of his intellectual abilities would be better off pursuing a career in window-washing. not to offend any window washers. noble career. birdshit don't clean itself.
23 - roger nowosielski
No, I haven't read your article, Jet, not yet. But I found the comments interesting.
I'm surprise, though, that zing refers to his own output as "garbage comments."
Is that in keeping, zing, with your earlier stated view of your presence on the net as but "an online persona"?
24 - Jet Gardner
Thank you Canon and thank god they're not pink!
25 - roger nowosielski
And yes, most comments on almost any BC thread are more interesting than the article itself.
Wonder why!!!