I think I see a part of the problem here Metin. You are viewing this as a single fact:

Dutch soldiers promised to protect Muslims and instead they stood by while Muslims were dragged off to be slaughtered.

Those are not all of the facts and you refuse to see the whole picture. Also, it was not an intentional attack against "Muslims" by the Dutch - and even if they failed to act it was not because the civilians were "Muslim" - it never was - and yet that is what you are attempting to portray.


>>Agreed. The title is biased and misleading. The fault is with the UN mandate, not the troops who had little choice and not enough power to affect the outcome. IfSay the situation was the same, but with Turkish troops under UN mandate instead of Dutch. Would they have fought and died, without enough weapons, support and air power? Or would have doen the same as the Dutch? You cannot put troops in an impossible situation and expect miracles to happen.
>
>We die for promises... If these soldiers didn't have enough brave they could not promise these people and these people could be fight. These soldiers said them "Take off your weapons, we will survive you". That's a clear sentence. Where is biasing and misleading?