Talk:Operation Storm: Difference between revisions

On removing POV

I've reverted the latest anonymous edit en masse because it didn't appear to contribute much other than POV and hearsay. I'll probably look at the diff in detail later and see if any actual factoids can be salvaged. --Joy [shallot] 22:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Should they prove to be authentic, as far as the major points are concerned, they present the case for clean and brilliant military operation that decisively defeated the Serbian expansion of the 90ies and paved the way to the Dayton peace agreement."

This line, and in fact the whole Controversy section, doesn't abide a neutral POV. I'm not familiar enough with the details of Operation Storm to correct this all, but this certainly shouldn't be allowed to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.119.118.12 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

One should add that the Serbs who were driven out during Storm were not backed by Milosevic at the time, they had been abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.153.38 (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"clean and brilliant military operation" - could stand, "defeated the Serbian expansion" - could not stand, because Serbs lived there for ages. I agree that this paragraph shoud be changed. --Majmun 18:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The following document makes me believe that Krajina Serb exodus was initiated by the RSK Supreme Defence Council. This was also echoed by the former president of Republic of Serb Krajina Milan Babic:
(the following was translated into English...)

REPUBLIC OF SERB KRAJINA
SUPREME DEFENCE COUNCIL

Knin, 4th Aug 1995

16.45 hrs
No: 2-3113-1/95.
Due to a newly created situation appearing from a large-scale agression of the Republic of Croatia against the Republic of Serb Krajina and in spite of successful defence at the beginning, the greater part of North Dalmatia and the part of Lika are endangered. Having considered all these facts
WE DECIDED
1. To start evacuating population unfit to military service from the municipalities of Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, Drniö and Graãac.
2. Evacuation to be carried out according to the plan towards direction of Knin and furthermore via Otriç, and towards Srb and Lapac.
3. UNPROFOR HQ Sector South Knin to be requested support.

Knin, 4th Aug 1995

Certified by Serb Army HQ dtd 4th Aug 1995 at 17.20 hrs

under Reg. No. as above.
P R E S I D E N T

Mile Martiç

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameismine (talk • contribs) 09:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What does "Casualties" mean?

I'm against the redefining of the term "casualties" by including people who left their homes. If one consults dictionary.com, the definitions are as follows:

1. An accident, especially one involving serious injury or loss of life.

2. One injured or killed in an accident: a train wreck with many casualties.

3. One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high.

4. One that is harmed or eliminated as a result of an action or a circumstance: The corner grocery was a casualty of the expanding supermarkets. [1]

"People who left their homes" do not fit into any of the above - except, perhaps, into definition #4, which is chiefly metaphorical. Still, the grey box on the right ("Battlebox") shows a military textbook-style information on a particular battle, used in a number of articles; in that sense, when one speaks of casualties, only definition #3 makes sense and is appropriate.

I have no objection to discussing the effects of a battle on a civilian population, provided it is done elsewhere in the article (especially that, in fact, it already is). GregorB 22:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Choice of the word "casualties" is perhaps not optimal; I believe that, in sense #3, slightly more correct would be "losses". This is, of course, a template issue. GregorB 22:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

This war and battle are very specific and controversial. The entry "left their homes", gives something to think about. "Why? What were historical/present/at-the-time reasons, if any? Is that something that contradicts some other information?" We are not talking about some small number of people, but ~200 000, and that is something that should not be left out of "immediate" after-effects.

There's more - this is not military report, to base information solely on info strictly involving "military" stuff. Alter all, this is en encyclopedia, "civil" one.

Btw, "casualties" is not suitable word at all for things like this, I agree - and not only in this example. In fact, it is "chosen" jut because of that (so that some facts could be interpreted differently). But, this has nothing to do with Wiki, but with some broader topics including use of language & psychology. As you pointed out - losses is maybe far more better choice. --Majmun 10:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely that "this is not military report" if by "this" you mean the article. It shouldn't be, and it isn't. But the infobox itself is meant to be a military report, so I think it's better that it be kept that way. Incidentally, Template_talk:Battlebox (I've read it only after my original writeup here) is also rather clear in that respect.

I'd like to add that I certainly don't consider this to be a big issue. It is simply that I had deleted extra information from the infobox, and wanted to explain here why, so that my edit is not confused for pushing a particular POV on the article. GregorB 14:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Support from the USA

I noticed that this article claimed that Operation Storm had received air support from the US. That isn't accurate, I'm afraid: the only US activity was the destruction of two SAM sites before the start of the operation, and it wasn't linked to the operation as far as I know. I quote from http://www.afsouth.nato.int/operations/denyflight/DenyFlightFactSheet.htm :

On 4 August 95, four NATO aircraft attacked two Croatian Serb surface-to-air missile radar sites using anti-radiation "HARM" missiles. Two U. S. Navy EA-6Bs and two U. S. Navy F-18Cs struck sites near Knin and Udbina in self-defence after the aircraft' electronic warning devices indicated they were being targeted by anti-aircraft missiles.

The article also claimed that the US had supported the operation by destroying telecoms facilities. That didn't happen until Operation Deliberate Force, which took place in Bosnia (not Croatia) about 3 weeks after the end of Operation Storm. -- ChrisO 13:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

First, even if this would be the only attack, it still amounts to air support, especially given that later Croatia used aviation against Serbian civilians and that SAMs could be used to defend from it. Second, here's a link to Yugoslav aeroclub "Nasa krila" (our wings) which says "Exact list of targets is not reported, but it is known that NATO was shooting communication centers, radars AA systems, command posts and repeaters of Serbian television. Besides in this operation have also participated airplanes of Croatian air force MiG-21." Tha page details other attacks of NATO on RSK. Nasa krila is a respectable aeroclub, I think the oldest in Serbia, founded in 1921. Nikola 13:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I looked it up and it would appear that Nasa krila is definitely wrong. There were no NATO air strikes during Operation Storm (indeed, NATO was criticised by the media at the time for sitting it out). According to the Washington Post of 5 August 1995, the air strike of 4 August 1995 took place after UNPROFOR personnel at Knin requested a show of force from NATO after coming under threat from Croatian Serb forces. While on patrol near Knin, the EA-6Bs were illuminated by SAMs, which were then targeted and destroyed.

How does destroying a SAM system protects UNPROFOR personnel? Nikola 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't - it protects the NATO pilots. -- ChrisO 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The air strike took place under the auspices of Operation Deny Flight, which was the enforcement of the no-fly zone over Bosnia and the UNPAs. NATO aircraft were allowed to shoot down aircraft violating the no-fly zone, as well as attacking ground air defence sites which were deemed to pose an immediate threat. Earlier air strikes against RSK targets (such as the 21 November 1994 strike against Udbina airbase) were in response to violations of the no-fly zone.

I would guess that Nasa krila was probably thinking of the later Operation Deliberate Force, in which communication centres, radars, command posts and TV transmitters were targeted - but that was in Bosnia, not Croatia, and it wasn't until three weeks after the end of Storm. -- ChrisO 20:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I should add that the 4 August strike shouldn't be characterised as "air support" either. Look up the Wikipedia article on close air support: "Close air support (often abbreviated as CAS or CAIRS) is the use of military aircraft in a ground attack role against targets in close proximity to friendly troops, in support of ground combat operations. In this role, aircraft serve a purpose similar to that of artillery." This wasn't the case on 4 August, as the strike was mounted to defend patrolling aircraft against a hostile surface threat rather than supporting ground forces. Technically it would be counted as a defensive counter air operation. -- ChrisO 22:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Is all air support close air support or maybe there are some other kinds of air support? Nikola 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There are other uses of air power - air interdiction and strategic bombing come to mind. However, an attack on SAMs wouldn't have constituted close air support, as SAMs aren't a threat to the ground troops whom CAS is intended to support. If the attack had been premeditated, it would have counted as air defence suppression or offensive counter air. The rules of engagement allowed the pilots to attack air defence sites on their own initiative if their aircraft were fired on or locked onto by SAM radars, as apparently happened in this instance. -- ChrisO 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

so in fact although this was not a CAS it was a strategic bombing, as you say,which can be caled air support since it helped Croation Air Forecs in this battle. Thank's for the clarification. Strategic bombing is the right term for the NATO air support given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameismine (talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On ethnic cleansing

This article lacks the mention of ethnic cleansing and it should be more specific about the place where it was underdone - on the soil of the Republic of Serbian Krajina HolyRomanEmperor 17:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Serbian Krajina was a crime itself. No ethnic cleansing was done on it, because it should have never existed.--Juraj j 09:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the existence of political entities (such as Serbian Krajina) is a 'crime' according to people like yourself, ethnic cleansing did occur and should STRONGLY be mentioned. (If the tables were turned, and an expulsion of 250,000 Croats from Serbia occured during the war, you can bet International media would blast reports of ethnic cleansing until infants in Timbuktu heard about it. Ironically enough, this never occured, and Serbia is still the most diverse of the former Yugoslav republics...) Stop The Lies 01:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Article and USA

Thiis article hardly mentions the role of the US in this operation. United States officials and generals have spoken about this and their constant surveilance of Gotovina's movements. THey bloked certain pathways and HELPED ISOLATE kNIN. They provided logistics and other information ,surveying the scene, 24/7, with Predator planes and the like.

THis sort of information should be added, also the fact that the Us gave the all clear to clean -up Croatian territory and enter Krajina.

What do others think

THE MILJAKINATOR 03:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think if you can find some reliable sources, please be bold and add it to the article! If there is something notable, there's no reason why it shouldn't be in the article. Laughing Man 05:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I also would like it be noted that you should please take care on your selection of words "THE MILJAKINATOR", as your "clean -up Croatian territory and enter Krajina" is quite offensive to be frank. Laughing Man 18:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's sources:

NGO Organization, Member of United Nations: US Officials aided and abetted Croatian General Ante Gotovina

Former Croatian minister confirms CIA's involvement in 1995 military operation

Was the US behind the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia?

US Involvement in Croatian War Crimes?

Feel free to apply them to the article.Stop The Lies 02:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Afrika paprika

User:Afrika paprika keeps removing the fact that this is marked in Serbia as the darkest day in Serb history, commemorating the dead and exiled. Why? I can't see anything in here but bad faith. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've warned him against removing content for POV reasons. -- ChrisO 08:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracy and POV statements

First where does it states that it "led to ethnic cleansing"? Second where is the statements that this action enabled the return of about 250 000 people to their homes and at least twice as much in neighbouring areas? Where are the statements that this military operation also effectively stopped the war both in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia and enabled peacful reintegration of occuppied Croatian teritory in Eastern Slavonia, Croatian Baranya and Eastern Syrmia? And last where is this supposed "krajina region"?

As it is now this article is more like a Serbian POV then a NPOV article as some like to claim here thus it warrants an accuracy dispute tag. Afrika Paprika 13:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it led to ethnic cleansing seems unsourced at first - but it's also not arguable, but almost evident. This action couldn't've enabled the return of about 250,000 people to their homes and at least twice as much in neigbouring areas (750,000 Croat refugees? Where did you get that). Krajina itself had 78,000 Croats and 2,000 Muslims in 1991 - and a minority yet remained through the Serbian occupation. Your "krajina region" mention is not understandable... --HolyRomanEmperor 23:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT A FACT but an opinion...yours at that. There is no such thing as "Krajina" and you enforcing this supposed term is showing your true side. In the occuppied territories by the 1991. census there were over 205 000 Croats living in the so-called "Republic of Serbian Krajina". In zones South and North over 110 000 and in zone East over 92 000. Your diminishing of this number seem transparent. Also we have documents saying and ordering withdrawal of civilians from the Serbian terrorist leaderhip...most of them never even saw Croatian soldiers. Also the radio stations were blocked by the Serbs themselves due to messages from Croatian authorities to stay calm and not to flee, that nothing will happen to them. Afrika Paprika 00:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A Question of Objectivity

Though I absolutely agree that editing or deleting passages is disrespectful, specifically the comments made by User:Afrika_paprika. However this article reads like an extremely one-sided Serbian POV. For one, the majority of the sources is obviously Serbian. I doubt very much you will get a balanced account from either a Serbian or Croatian source - especially if it's official.

Perhaps this article should be graded as pro-Serb biased and User:Afrika_paprika would like to write an article from a different POV. Users would then be able to make their minds up which sounds more believable.

Try reading the entry on this operation in the German-language Wikipedia - it gives a clear and objective view of the topic in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.130.214 (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

BIRN

"In spite of all the controversy, Operation Storm was seen as the event that ended Serbian aggression in both Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Had it not taken place, the Bosnian city of Bihac would have fallen, and more ethnic cleansing by the Serbs would have taken place. Many believe that had it not been for Operation Storm, a Greater Serbia would still exist. "

The following source on "BIRN" is by Brian Gallagher from the propaganda "lobbying" organization, "Croatian Worldwide Association" [2]. Hardly a reliable source. // Laughing Man 22:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On ethnic cleansing 2

I will ad something- biggest diference between ethnic cleansing and this army operation is they simply fled before army even came!!! Ethnik cleansing that Serbs done prevously on that teritory and later in Bosnia, was unther their control and sistematicly true the years and orginased killing under theire goverment like in [srebrenica] masacre.-ivan zg

Oluja was not "ethnic cleansing." Did you actually read the Amnesty article? Nowhere does it say that 200,000 Croatian Serbs were "cleansed;" rather, it says that there were individual crimes committed during and after the operation. ...Which is very different than saying that the entire operation was a concerted effert to terrify and expel all of the Krajina Serbs. Mihovil 01:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International article states [3]: "During and after these military offensives, some 200,000 Croatian Serbs, including the entire Croatian Serb Army, fled to the neighbouring Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina under Bosnian Serb control. In the aftermath of the operations members of the Croatian Army and police murdered, tortured, and forcibly expelled Croatian Serb civilians who had remained in the area as well as members of the withdrawing Croatian Serb armed forces." I don't know how else you would describe the displacement of an ethnic group from a territory. I would appriciate it this reliable source is not removed as it has been previously by the following users:

• Mihovil -- [4] [5]
• Jakov.miljak --[6]
• Afrika paprika -- [7]

Thank you // Laughing Man 06:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you still don't get it. Those 200,000 people left pretty much of their own volition. If you are going to argue that those who remained were ethnically cleansed, that's another matter. But as it stands now, you have cited this source incorrectly and inappropriately. That's why we have been removing it. Mihovil 13:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Of their own volition? Are you out of your mind? I know people who were too scared to visit their home towns in 2006, 11 years after the war. Needless to say, I've reverting - no need for you to delete sources. --estavisti 15:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see anything about "ethnic cleansing"? "some 200,000 Croatian Serbs, including the entire Croatian Serb Army, fled to the neighbouring Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina under Bosnian Serb control" <- This doesn't sound to me like "ethnic cleansing", does it to you? Afrika Paprika 25:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

<------ Great, but that doesn't prove much, and convinces me of absolutely nothing. The propaganda machine in Belgrade had people in a frenzy, telling them that if they stayed, it would be a repeat of NDH. I'm not denying that crimes were committed, but the operation as a whole was not ethnic cleansing. I'm reverting.Mihovil 02:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The propaganda machine? Before the war even started, Serbs were been discriminated against and killed. I suppose the Croats who fled Croatia because they had Serb wives etc were also under the influence of the supposed "Belgrade propaganda machine"? --estavisti 02:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence. Either provide something more reliable than your word, or cite the amnesty article properly. Mihovil 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Like where for example? And what Croats fled because of their Serb wives? I have an uncle who is married to my aunt..he is a Serb...he didn't fled. What the hell are you ranting about? Afrika Paprika 25:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of just repeating "don't remove my reference," why don't you consider the reason I gave for removing it? As I see it, you have distorted what the Amnesty article was saying, and the reference should therefore be removed. I am not interested in some stupid edit war, and I am willing to work out a compromise, but you must be willing to do the same. Ok? Mihovil 22:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with compromsing on this issue, I just think it's unacceptable to remove a "reliable source". I've just disambiguated displacement. // Laughing Man 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but this reliable source is very shortsited. It mentions what it belives to be the reason of he displaceent o all Serbs. It does not look into any hidden agenda which might be behind the leaving of so many serbs, and that was a result of Belgrade's propaganda machine. The source has not been cited correctly.

P.S i still have to get started on that USA bit, i just havent had the time.

THE MILJAKINATOR 03:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Who removed those external links and why? Unless you give me a good enough reason, they're going back where they belong.Stop The Lies 01:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

User "Rts freak" you removed them. Why did you remove them? If you do not give a good enough reason, they are going back. Stop The Lies 01:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I forgot to put a summary of my edit: I replaced the external links Stop The Lies 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Factual Accuracy

Just wondering which facts are disputed so we can try to reach consensus and remove the box: "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed" at the top. If the discussions in this talk page contains all of the disputes, I don't think that box should be there, because many articles have much more significant disputes and do not have the box. (And please no one bring up ethnic cleansing, that is not a 'factual error'. There can be disagreement if ethnic cleansing occured, but that doesn't mean that the "factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed"...and I don't see any mention of it in the article anyway. Stop The Lies 11:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

External Links 2

How convenient for user:161.53.116.99 to put the BBC article (trusted source) at the bottom of the external links (simply because it is sympathetic to the Serb cause), and replace it with two YouTube clips which are very far from being Wikipedia material. Not only do the links contain insulting/derogatory remarks in the comments but the videos themselves are propaganda. One example of propaganda is when a man claims that Croatian forces received no external help. This is widely reported to be false, as Croatia did in fact receive external aid. Feel free to add links, but make sure they comply with Wikipedia standards. Stop The Lies 05:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Intro lines

Stop the Lies, I've reverted the edit concering the number of displaced Bosnians. As you may know, Croatia took the higher number of refugees of Bosnian nationality then any other country in the world since 1992. The number of dispalced Croatians was high, but not nearly as high as this figure. Plus, if they were all Croatians from Bosnia, it would mean about 30% of the Croat population was displaced - much too high, especially since the majority-Croatian parts (south-west Herzegovina) in Bosnia wasn't directly in the war - most of the Croat-Bosnian war was fought in central Bosnia.

Concerning the second subject, the line "majority of them from Krajina proper", I don't have a source, but I find the line logical. The area of Krajina constituted about 80% of Serb-controlled areas in Croatia. By total numbers of population, it is obvious they were from there: the pre-war population of eastern Slavonia was no higher then 80.000 (high number were also Serbs) and this was the second largest area under Serb control. The Spanish Inquisitor 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Krajina had a large Serb population for a long time. Only after 1995 was the Serb population of Krajina lessened due to ethnic cleansing. A source is necessary, or the line will be removed. I do not find it 'logical'. Stop The Lies 08:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

We are talking about the Croatian population of Krajina, not Serb. You know, the one that was ethnically cleansed in 1991... Croats made up about 200-300.000 people who were driven off. I'll find a source stating that Krajina was 30% Croat in 1990 and 2% Croat in 1992. Will that please you? The Spanish Inquisitor 08:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "pleasing" individuals. Wikipedia is about the facts. If you can find a reliable source that claims so then yes, of course it belongs on Wikipedia. I have not seen one yet. Stop The Lies 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Milan Babić indictment (http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/bab-ii031117e.htm):

"The deportation or forcible transfer of thousands of Croat and other non-Serb civilians from the SAO Krajina/RSK. According to the 1991 census the total population of the SAO Krajina/RSK was 286,716. Croats amounted to 78,611 (27, 42%) of the total population. Only 1,932 (0,67%) Muslims were registered at that time. Virtually the whole Croat, Muslims and non-Serb population of the SAO Krajina/RSK was forcibly removed, deported or killed." - I'm modifing the sentance and adding this source. The Spanish Inquisitor 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Refugees from Bosnia

This is a direct quote from the source:

"Attacks against and harassment of Muslim refugees escalated in 1993 but have since subsided. Most of the attacks against Muslim refugees were due to hostility felt against Muslims who fought Bosnian Croat forces in central Bosnia throughout 1993. In early 1994, a rapprochement between Bosnian Croats and Muslims, on the one hand, and the Republics of Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina on the other, decreased tensions between Muslims and Croats in general. In recent months, conciliatory press coverage and government statements have led to a decrease in attacks against Muslim refugees in Croatia. However, following the expulsion of Bosnian Croats and Muslims from their homes in the Bosnian Serb-held city of Banja Luka in August 1995, the Croatian government has reportedly been allowing Croats to enter Croatia but has only accepted a small number of Muslims, most of whom remain on the Croatian-Bosnian border. Also in August 1995, the Croatian government was obstructing deliverance of humanitarian aid to rebel Muslims loyal to Fikret Abdi_, a renegade leader aligned with the Bosnian and Croatian Serbs against Bosnian-government forces in the Biha_ area.

The fighting between Croats and Muslims in central Bosnia in 1993 resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of persons. Many displaced Bosnian Croats came to Croatia as refugees, and some of these refugees attacked Bosnian Muslim refugees currently living in Croatia. The Croatian government did little to protect Bosnian Muslim refugees from attack. Moreover, the anti-Muslim propaganda regularly heard on the state-controlled television and radio throughout 1993 exacerbated tensions between Muslims and Croats in Croatia.

As of March 1995, the Croatian government was providing refuge to 189,000 refugees from Bosnia and 196,000 persons who have been internally displaced as a result of the war in Croatia in 1991 and thereafter."

Therefore, the 189,000 refugees from Bosnia were displaced due to Croat/Muslim tension.

Also, always explain/justify your edits, as I did. Stop The Lies 07:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Like you quoted the article, there WERE Bosnian refugees there. Claiming that there were ALL Croat refugees from the war is silly. After all, the article says these refugees were attacked. How could they have been attacked if there weren't there? In March 1995, the war in Bosnia was still very much active and Bosnian Moslems couldn't have just returned to their homes in the meantime. Like I said, Croatia held the largest number of Bosnian Moslem refugees in the world and you're negating that by misqouting a source. The same way you want me to provide a direct quote for "Krajina proper", find a direct quote for this or remove it. The Spanish Inquisitor 08:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes of course there were Bosnian refugees... wow you are really not understanding me... My edit to the article was saying that those 189,000 refugees from Bosnia came due to CROAT/MUSLIM conflict. AS THIS SOURCE CLEARLY STATES. What part of this don't you understand??? Stop The Lies 08:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

In fact, the 189,000 shouldn't even be in that sentence, because that sentence is talking about reasons Croat authorities gave for Operation Storm, and CROAT/MUSLIM tension couldn't be one of the reasons. Stop The Lies 08:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

OK, it's out of place here, but I'm saying that a large number of these 189.000 came BEFORE 1994 (majority in 1992) - not thanks to Croat/Moslem war. They didn't just show up overnight when the Bosnian-Croat war started, but the inflow of refugees was steady since 1992. The first two areas of Bosnia attacked by Serb forces were Posavina (north) and west Bosnia - from both of which refugees could have only fled over the border to Croatia. In fact, in early 1993 (before Croat/Moslem war) Slovenia had taken some 70.000 Moslem refugees before they closed the borders to Croatia saying they couldn't handle any more. The Spanish Inquisitor 08:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it's besides the point, just remove it.The Spanish Inquisitor 08:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Stop The Lies 08:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Croatia sais this, Croatia claims that

I couldn't escape a feeling that there was a certain cinicism in the centences I edited. There undoubtably was ethnic cleansing of Croats from "Kraina"'s territory yet the fact is stated somewhat half-heartedly and the reader is led to doubt it's credibility. The figures I'm not gonna go into, so I left them under the 'according to Croatia' frase. The same goes for the motivation of Croatia's government in the operation. There is no reason for this to be doubted.