Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic has been found dead in his cell at The Hague, where he had been on trial for war crimes since 2002.

Belgrade's B-92 radio said it had heard the news from unofficial sources. A senior European Union diplomat said he believed the report was true and thought the UN war crimes tribunal was preparing a statement.

Serbian officials also had confirmed Milosevic had died, the Associated Press reported.

Milosevic's heart condition and high blood pressure have repeatedly interrupted his trial on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Milosevic was sent to The Hague war crimes court in June 2001, eight months after he was toppled in a popular uprising.

He was widely blamed in the West for the violent break-up of old socialist Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

AAP

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following the death of his right hand man the other day, it's not surprising. Was probably suicide, will wait till morning to find out.

Can't say he will be missed.

It has been confirmed that he is dead. It is not thought that he committed suicide, but that his heart condition was the cause of death. However, nothing is certain yet.

I'm not sure whether it's a good or bad thing that he has died now. there are a lot of people who wanted to see him brought to justice. I think many people on the former Yugolsavian states will have wanted official confirmation of Milosevic's guilt of the crimes he was on trial for. Many will simply be glad that the world is rid of him.

The sad thing is, we look back on the events on the Balkans in the 1990s with horror, but the same things are still going on in many parts of the world - in Zimbabwe, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries, innocent people are being killed and guns are being used as a method of wielding power. For every Milosevic that we're rid of, another seemingly comes along.

__________________
Just what is going off out there?

Got no love for the guy but what's that supposed to mean??

I know you didn't write it Paoli

When Milosevic got into power, didn't he blame everything wrong in the nation on Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians?

Therefore, those nations wanted to exact revenge on the ********. So I guess by violently breaking free, you'd blame Milosevic...

He was responsible for Kosovo as well, wasn't he?

Sounds like an MI6 special

There are actually speeches in the public domain that show him arguing strongly for a united multi-ethnic Yugoslavia. These speeches then are reported "differently" in the "Western" domain.

Not making any defence of SM though a lot more people many closer to "the West" should be on trial at the Hague regarding this affair.

But that's not my point.

It is the " He was widely blamed in the West" bit I am on about.

For a piece aiming to tell the facts, that strikes of biasness and propaganda.

Who are the "West" and when did they become the truth??

So if you are innocent, for example, and the "West" think you are guilty, whose truth should we accept?

Dont't forget Ninjaman that the West 's invasion of Yugoslavia was not a US/UK matter - it was a UN matter, including a host of nations other then UK/US.

Serbia - Croatia - Kosova - and Macedonia made up the state of Yugoslavia, but were all governed from Belgarade in reality.

President Tito before Milosevic ruled Yugoslavia with a fist of iron during the dark days if the "Iron Curtain", standing alone with Romania against the USSR, although both these states were communists, they refused to be part of the USSR block.

Croatia wanted to be independent of Serbia and a war started between Croatia and Yugoslavia (Serbia), and it was inevitable the the Croates would not be beat, the geography in a way dictated that.

Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic adter seeing other states making bids for freedom from Mother Yugoslavia, then persecuted the Muslims in Kosova, to an extent that that outside intervention was needed, and this happened due to a request from Kosova.

Yugoslavia have only ever been a loose federation of nations, and Serbia an aggressive nation have been warlike for centuries, even the Russions would not dare to try and pull the line like Hungry et al.

I would like to know who these people closer to the West are that deserve to be on trial before "

the former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic are".

It does get a bit tiresome hearing gripes about the West/Blair/Bush all the time.

Bush is not a warmoger, niether was Clinton.
Bush was elected on domestic matters, almost an isolationist, who wanted to cut "Medicare" in the US, and a lot of other money saving cuts, in other words he was elected on domestic issues alone, and was only forced into anti terrrorism actions afer the bombing of the "Twin Towers", and as for Clinton he had no choices and probably had other matteres on his mind.

I think the West "bashers" ought to have a look at the rest of the world!!!.

__________________
Ern

Who said it was or wasn't?? I wasn't taking about that.

I should tell you I was working at the UN in New York as a part of a national delegation when the decision for military action was taken anyway!!

I'm sorry, where did anyone say people should be on trial BEFORE Milosevic.

I've never insinuated he shouldn't have been on trial either.

There just should be a whole lot MORE.

Because the break up of a socialist republic is the last thing various entities from the West would like to see.

What is even more tiresome is people who know only what they've been told, acting like they are in full receipt of all information. I'm nowhere near that level either. But I've been privy to knowledge that the whole affair isn't the nice history/georgaphy lesson you've chosen to post.

Where have I bashed the West, Bush or Blair in these posts??

As soon as you saw the words West, your logical response was to think I was talking about Bush or Clinton as if they are the only people that could constitute what is termed the "West".

In fact, I don't put much stock into fighting faces, ideologies are far more pervasive and manipulative

Anyway, you've missed the entire point of my posts.

I was questioning the journalistic principles of the article.

The article didn't really need to be about Milosevic. That's not the issue.

What has all this got to do with anything I posted?

Anyway this is laughable.

For a man so on the ball, maybe you should have noticed that the twin towers were not bombed, planes were flown into them.

Anyway, you lost me when you said Bush is not a warmonger!

Found those WMDs yet??

Who was bashing the West??

I live in the West. It has almost unmeasurable good things going for it.

But I'm not stupid enough to turn a blind eye to the many bad things some of its agents do.

That's not bashing, that's holding people accountable.

Well look at the quote from your post below.
Which people close to the West are you taking about then?
Well with respect, what was the point in making it then?, you wrote it in black and white!
I'm sorry I probably should have said " with" , or "alongside".
I never said you did?
I know - this is what you said in your post, however you did not say who!
Of course this is true, we can only go on what we have been told (although we had the evidence of the tanks coming out of kosova, that we could see with our own eyes).
The press normaly take people to task if lies are told ie, the 45 minute warning.
Never said you did, was making a point that even on this board "Bush Bashing" does exist, I was making a general point.
Fair point, however Bush is thee most powerful man in the world, and it's fair to assume hat he dictates what happens in the West.
This has always been the case - remember Suez the then US presedent made Britain, along with France and Israel leave Egypt or face the pound being dragged down,even though protecting world shipping - the US is historicly "The West"
Ideologies sounds great, but can also be dangerous, Ideologies can and do start wars.
I know that, it could well have been Sadam, Castro or Gaddafe.
The twin towers where bombed by planes being flown into them, "Bombed" is just a short was of descibling that event.
In view of what has been said about various conflicts regarding the West, it was an obsevation that's all, it could have applied to Clinton or Blair.
We have been TOLD not, but should I believ that , but I for one am sure they exist some place in the Vast deserts of Iraq, he did hace chemical weapons, he did use them against "Iran" and against the "marsh Arabs" and the "Kurds", if he used them, he had them.
Lets make Iraq a point here,the UK along with the US and others, with public concent so anything they did was accountable, and have proved so when the press have looked deep into what really did happen
People are accountabe in a democracy, over the Iraq aftermath, there has been a suicide due to this proccess, I doubt would happen in a less open country than the UK.

__________________
Ern