>>I still cannot believe that you think the Dutch are guilty. We don't have enough information to know that they COULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING whether they wanted to or not.
>>
>>
>>Let me give you an example:
>>
>>1. I am hired by UN to protect you. I understand that to be my orders.
>>2. When I show up and we meet, I promise to protect you.
>>3. The UN later calls me and tells me that I can only observe what happens, but not use force to protect you.
>>4. You are attacked, I call the UN to verify my orders and the UN tells me that my latest orders are correct: I cannot act unless I am attacked. Since I am not attacked, I do nothing.
>>5. Am I at fault or is the UN?
>
>
>Legally/technically NO.
>Morally YES.


I take that back. In this case the UN is at fault. But UN is run by thugs and pacifist so, no one there is going to be bothered by it.



>
>>
>>
>>>>Metin, I really think there is a language barrier here.
>>>
>>>Yes, I have a language problem with english. So I forced tell mine... :(
>>>
>>>>
>>>>From my viewpoint, you see it as:
>>>>
>>>>1. The Dutch were complicit (in collusion with the Serbs either by assisting or looking the other way) in the murder of Bosnian Muslims.
>>>
>>>No. Sure, they didn't helped massacre with intentionally. But they're guilty. Because they promised a hard thing which they really can't, bosnians trusted their promise. They didn't keep theirs word. They watched a massacre. So they didn't deserve these medals...
>>>
>>>These medals injured bosnians. But I see you couldn't hear theirs scream...