Gays in Dutch Army were responsible for Srebrenica failures

riiiiiiight Because being gay means you standy by and let 1000s of people be brutally murdered for no reason?
 
TaKeN said:
riiiiiiight Because being gay means you standy by and let 1000s of people be brutally murdered for no reason?
Click to expand...

Read the article, he's saying that gays in the military caused a collapse of morale, which contributed to them doing nothing.

I always thought that the rules of engagement prevented UN troops intervening in the massacre but confess that I don't know an awful lot about it.
 
Dutch troops serving as UN peacekeepers and tasked with defending the town of Srebrenica in 1995 were an example of a force that became ill-equipped for war.

'The battalion was understrength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off, and executed them,' said Gen Sheehan.

'That was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II,' he said of the killings.

The events in Srebrenica remain a sensitive subject in the Netherlands, where a six-year investigation into the massacre led to the government's fall in 2002.

Senator Levin, a Democrat and a proponent of ending restrictions on gays serving in the U.S. armed forces, appeared incredulous at the general's remarks.

'Did the Dutch leaders tell you it (the fall of Srebrenica) was because there were gay soldiers there?' he asked.

'Yes,' Gen Sheehan said.

'They included that as part of the problem.'

He said the former chief of staff of the Dutch army had told him.
Click to expand...

Dumb headline, but there seems to be more to this than just the gays comment. Unless of course you think the former NATO commander in the region is talking bull.
 
The UN declared the area a "safe area” and it was “protected” by its force UNPROFOR. When it all went pear shaped they were powerless to intervene and the massacre occurred. The debate on their non-intervention has been going on for a long time.

As to it being the fault of “gay” Dutch troops is wishful thinking on this retired general’s part. He is either seeking publicity or has lost it or possibly even both.
 
The Srebrencia business was appalling and I don't think enough 'shame' was ever dished out to Europe for it's inaction, and the UN for launching so a toothless mission in the first place.

To blame it on 'The Gays' just seems ridiculous, but the very possibility no doubt excites The Daily Mail.
 
I don't see how knowing the sexuality of the guy next to yourself leads to a collapse in morale.

The battalion was understrength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off, and executed them,' said Gen Sheehan.
Click to expand...

So their wasn't enough soldiers, they had poor leadership, and the Serbs overran them easily. This is the fault of the gay people how exactly?
 
scorza said:
I always thought that the rules of engagement prevented UN troops intervening in the massacre but confess that I don't know an awful lot about it.
Click to expand...


Rules of Engagement mean **** when your standing in front of a massacre, any half decent officer wouldnt have let it happen.
 
matt_fsr said:
True, but weren't the Dutch effectively disarmed before the massacre began? Feel free to correct me if my memory is wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were swept aside and taken prisoner. Apparently they lacked any supporting elements (no aerial missions, no artillery, nothing) and were vastly outnumbered. They were "peacekeepers" in an area with no peacekeeping mandate and in a state of open war.
 
The article is a bunch of nonsense. As some people have said already the reason for the lack of intervention was because of the succint difference between peace keeping and peace enforcing. Due to the rules of engagement (peace keeping) at the time the Dutch could not prevent what was taking place unless they were actually threatened or under attack. If they were peace enforcing then they would have been allowed to intervene.

It would have been unresponsible for them to disregard their mandate at the current time to intervene as it could have potentially further escalated an already unstable situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom