'War Criminal?' Not Necessarily...

This story was number one on my Google News widget, so I clicked on it.

Bosnian Serb leader, top war crimes suspect, arrested

Bosnia's Serb wartime president, Radovan Karadzic, Bosnia's Serb wartime president, Radovan Karadzic, one of the world's most wanted war criminals for his part in the massacre of more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica in 1995, has been arrested, Serbian President Boris Tadic's office said on Monday.

[...]

The arrest, 11 years after Karadzic went into hiding, marks the culmination of a long and protracted effort by the west to press Serbia to arrest Karadzic for what is widely considered among the most heinous crimes committed during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

It comes just weeks after a new pro-western coalition government in Serbia was formed whose overriding goal is to bring Serbia into the European Union, the world's biggest trading bloc. The EU has made delivering indicted war criminals to the Hague a precondition for Serbia's membership.

[...]

The prosecution charged him with genocide, persecution, deportation and other crimes committed against non-Serb civilians in Bosnia during the 1992-1995 war.

He was indicted together with his chief military commander, Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic, who is still on the run and believed to be in Serbia.

[End of article]

I'll admit, my first reaction was skepticism.  I am always wary of articles that speak of so-called "war criminals."  I say "so-called" because I believe this term is so overused today--other than "fascist", I think "war criminal" is the most overused, least understood term.

I have a problem with the actual term.  How can there be any crimes in a war?  What many people today don't understand is that war is a nasty thing.  Yes, it's terrible, and yes, I would love it if we could solve all of our conflicts by diplomacy.  Realistically though, that is not going to happen anytime soon.  War is a bloody, violent affair, and people are going to die.  Yes, even civilians.  Cities are going to get bombed, civilians killed, and that's that.  No, it isn't pretty.  There is no such thing as a clean war, contrary to what left-wingers want us to believe, and the sooner people accept that fact, the better.  

The term, though it is easier defined than the word fascist, still carries some sense of ambiguity, at least in my mind.  The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines a "war crime" as "a crime (as genocide or maltreatment of prisoners) committed during or in connection with a war--usually used in plural."  OK, fine.  Let's go with that definition.  I still disagree with the actual term itself (I cannot really get over the argument I presented in the previous paragraph) but for the sake of argument, we'll go with that definition.

Did Radovan Karadzic truly commit war crimes?  I am just beginning to delve into the research on the Bosnian War and its context in the broader Yugoslav Wars.  I do not really know much about this area of the world in general, and even less so during the 1990s.  I was too young at the time to actually know about it, and I have never been taught this period in school (which probably works out for the better because I'm sure I would have been taught it with an extremely liberal bias that glorified the Muslims involved).

It seems to me that a few mistakes are commonly made by most who speak about this subject: first, the events are entirely taken out of context.  No one considers all the history that preceded the events of the 1990s and the role Islam played in the history of this region.  From what I can see, it's the Muslims who were violent against the Serbs, it's the Muslims who wanted to Islamize the entire Balkan region, it's the Muslims who committed genocide against Serbians.  Yet the Muslims are glorified by many.  There's definitely something wrong with that picture.

Karadzic is being indicted for, among other things, the Srebrenica massacre, during which 8,000 Bosniak males were killed by Serbians.  Let me remind you that the Serbians fought this Bosnian War against Muslims.  At the time, the United States backed the Muslim side of the conflict.  Yet, on September 11, 2001, it was Muslims who flew planes into the World Trade Center and killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans.  It is Islam that has said it wants to rule the world.  Karadzic did order 8,000 people killed.  But does he really deserve to stand trial as a war criminal?  After World War II, the Nazis, who killed millions of innocent civilians in events unrelated to the war, stood trial as war criminals.  Karadzic was involved in a war against members of a religion (and I use that term loosely) that have oppressed and kiled millions during its bloody history.  Is Karadzic truly guilty?

One of the biggest problems I have with left-wingers is how they see everything as being black and white.  You're either good or evil, guilty or not guilty, bad or good.  I think there are many shades of grey.  There are very few, if any absolutes in life.  Another thing leftists do is take things out of context.  Context is the key to understanding.  We must study the events of the Balkan region in context to previous historical events.  Yes, it may be more difficult than simply blindly believing in what the media tells us, but nothing is easy.  

Note: this essay will probably be evolving as I read more about the Balkans.  I also eventually hope to include some material from this excellent Fjordman essay (which did influence some of my views).