Transcript · Serbian → English
Discussion on Ratko Mladić's Actions
What Ratko Mladić did, wasn't just for some people in Bosnia.
It was important for Serbia too. It was important for
other Serbs too. Well, look,
our enemies proved that what people say today is true.
We wouldn't, because there are no Serbs in Sarajevo.
There are two and a half percent of them. There are none in Zagreb, none in Priština.
How is it possible that we are ethnic cleansers if we are
ethnically cleansed from all territories, except those where
Ratko Mladić defended us. And Serbia is not
ethnic. It has not changed its ethnic structure
during those horrible
wars. This is the dissenting opinion of Prisceny
Nyandeh.
I keep asking people to read it. It really is very interesting.
She says that all this evidence, in fact, under every
jurisprudence, would be considered hearsay, and that with that
with a kind of indirect, hearsay evidence that they are
evidence that is not only impermissible, but inadmissible
because it is impossible to prove. He very convincingly
analyzes the evidence and explains that he neither ordered it,
nor was there any intent before the genocide.
Genocide requires intent,
nor is there evidence that he even knew, and he wasn't there at all.
Those are. Those are really important things to...
End of transcript · 211 words · machine translated
Original transcript (Serbian)
To što je Ratko Mladić uradio, pa nije to samo za neke ljude u Bosni. To je važno bilo i za Srbiju. To je bilo važno i za Srbe druge. Pa gledajte, naši neprijatelji su dokazali da je istina ovo što danas narod priča. Mi ne bismo zato što nema Srba u Sarajevu.
Njih ima dva i po posto. Njih nema u Zagrebu, njih nema u Prištini. Kako je moguće da smo mi etnički čistači ako smo mi etnički počišćeni sa svih teritorija, osim onih gdje nas je branio Ratko Mladić. A Srbija nije etnički. Nije promijenila svoju etničku strukturu
za vrijeme tih užasnih ratova. To je izdvojeno mišljenje Prisceny Nyandeh. Ja stalno molim ljude da to pročitaju. To je stvarno jako zanimljivo. Ona kaže da se svi ti dokazi zapravo po svakoj
jurisprudenciji bi se smatrali rekla kazala i da se sa tom vrstom indirektnih rekla kazala dokaza da su to dokazi koji su ne samo nedozvoljeni, nego nedozvoljivi zato što ih je nemoguće dokazati. Vrlo ubjedljivo razlaže dokaze i objašnjava da on niti je naredio,
niti je postojala bilo kakva namjera prije genocida. Za genocid je potrebna namjera, niti ima dokaza da je čak znao i da uopšte nije bio tu. To su. To su stvarno važne stvari da se.
