🚀 go-pugleaf

Imo what's needed is a census of the living in Kosovo. Get all the
families and friends in touch with each other. Then see how many are
still on the "missing" list. This will give a top figure for possible
deaths.

If there are people missing but bodies not found -- then look for live
people (in prisions, forests etc) that need to get home.

In the meantime, it does seem that Stratfor etc are misrepresenting
the UN's statements, and their fans are misrepresenting Nato's serious
statements.


Bredon
---



>In Mr. Cohen's appearance on "Face the Nation," /snip/
> he said that 100,000 were missing,
>he also clearly stated that his reports showed that 4,600 Kosovars had
>been executed, a claim that has been confirmed by the forensic trail of
>evidence uncovered by war crimes investigators since June. 
> [ Shea's ] factual claims -- that the Serbs
>had executed 4,000 men -- were cautious. The NATO leaders' rhetoric was
>highly moralistic, but by and large they did not exaggerate the body
>count. The revisionists' claim that we were lied to is simply not
>proven.
>
>Moreover, the revisionists have misinterpreted the Hague tribunal's
>numbers. The tribunal's total figure -- 2,108 bodies uncovered from 195
>sites -- appeared at first to confirm the revisionists' claims. But the
>revisionists failed to notice that there are at least 334 other sites
>that the investigators will turn to in the spring when the ground thaws
>and digging can resume. No one knows how many bodies will be uncovered
>from these remaining sites or whether more sites will be discovered.
>
>The tribunal's current estimate -- from Western intelligence sources,
>eyewitness statements and evidence taken from surviving family members
>-- is that there are 11,334 bodies at 529 sites. Instead of exaggerating
>the case, the British Foreign Ministry's estimate in June of 10,000
>bodies appears, if anything, to understate it.
>
>Whether these 11,334 bodies will be found depends on whether the Serb
>military and the police removed them. Serb forces made substantial
>efforts to cover their tracks. For example, at Izbica, villagers told
>war crimes investigators that they had buried 143 bodies after a Serb
>massacre in early April. Spy satellite images, published in the Western
>press in June, showed these 143 graves. In late June, when tribunal
>investigators reached the village, the bodies had been removed, and
>earthmovers had been used in a crude and unsuccessful attempt to erase
>traces of the site. The real problem in establishing how many people
>actually died in Kosovo is not Western propaganda, but Serb attempts to
>cover the traces of their crimes.
>





On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 21:37:26 GMT, jhmccloskey6076@my-deja.com wrote:
/snip/

>
>At << http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/21igna.html >> we find a
>strong candifate for Unrecovering Natoholic of the Month:
>
>
>Counting Bodies in Kosovo
>  By MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
>
>Where are the bodies in Kosovo?
>
>The question goes to the heart of the rationale for the war itself. Our
>leaders took us into the war, so the argument goes, to stop a European
>state from massacring its own citizens. If the massacres never took
>place, what justification for intervention remains?
>
>This style of revisionism began to surface in September when war crimes
>investigators from Spain began telling reporters that they were finding
>fewer bodies than expected. Juan Lopez Palafox, the chief of the Spanish
>forensic team, told El Pa�s that before he arrived in Kosovo, he had
>been told to prepare for as many as 2,000 autopsies. His team found only
>187 bodies. Other investigators reported that when they had tried to
>find the bodies that the Serbs had supposedly burned at the Trepca mine
>in northeastern Kosovo, they found nothing at all. The Federal Bureau of
>Investigation went in prepared to find thousands of bodies and is
>reported to have found only 200.
>
>By late October, the British conservative weekly The Spectator was
>arguing that the "crude Manicheanism" of Western leaders led them to
>exaggerate the evil of the Serb regime. Hadn't Tony Blair written in an
>Op-Ed article in this newspaper on April 24: "Only NATO has the ability
>to oppose the Serb campaign of ethnic cleansing -- a sustained campaign
>of brutality that has turned Kosovo into a slaughterhouse, with Mr.
>Milosevic's death squads burning, raping and killing."
>
>This was the kind of rhetoric, revisionists argued, that encouraged
>others to make inflated claims about the numbers killed in Kosovo.
>George Friedman, a revisionist who runs Stratfor.com, a private research
>company in Austin, Tex., seized on a statement by Defense Secretary
>William Cohen on May 16 on CBS's "Face the Nation" in which he claimed
>that 100,000 men of military age were missing and unaccounted for.
>
>Revisionists also singled out the comment on June 17 by Geoff Hoon, a
>British Foreign Office minister, that 10,000 people had been massacred.
>Last week, when the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
>Yugoslavia at The Hague announced that it had been able to find only
>2,108 bodies in its five-month investigation in Kosovo, revisionists
>were quick to claim that the West had exaggerated Serb crimes by a
>factor of five.
>
>Actually, the revisionists may have been the ones to get their facts
>wrong.
>
>In Mr. Cohen's appearance on "Face the Nation," his statements were
>actually much more complicated. While he said that 100,000 were missing,
>he also clearly stated that his reports showed that 4,600 Kosovars had
>been executed, a claim that has been confirmed by the forensic trail of
>evidence uncovered by war crimes investigators since June. Yes, Jamie
>Shea, the NATO spokesman, compared Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian
>leader, to Cambodia's Pol Pot, but his factual claims -- that the Serbs
>had executed 4,000 men -- were cautious. The NATO leaders' rhetoric was
>highly moralistic, but by and large they did not exaggerate the body
>count. The revisionists' claim that we were lied to is simply not
>proven.
>
>Moreover, the revisionists have misinterpreted the Hague tribunal's
>numbers. The tribunal's total figure -- 2,108 bodies uncovered from 195
>sites -- appeared at first to confirm the revisionists' claims. But the
>revisionists failed to notice that there are at least 334 other sites
>that the investigators will turn to in the spring when the ground thaws
>and digging can resume. No one knows how many bodies will be uncovered
>from these remaining sites or whether more sites will be discovered.
>
>The tribunal's current estimate -- from Western intelligence sources,
>eyewitness statements and evidence taken from surviving family members
>-- is that there are 11,334 bodies at 529 sites. Instead of exaggerating
>the case, the British Foreign Ministry's estimate in June of 10,000
>bodies appears, if anything, to understate it.
>
>Whether these 11,334 bodies will be found depends on whether the Serb
>military and the police removed them. Serb forces made substantial
>efforts to cover their tracks. For example, at Izbica, villagers told
>war crimes investigators that they had buried 143 bodies after a Serb
>massacre in early April. Spy satellite images, published in the Western
>press in June, showed these 143 graves. In late June, when tribunal
>investigators reached the village, the bodies had been removed, and
>earthmovers had been used in a crude and unsuccessful attempt to erase
>traces of the site. The real problem in establishing how many people
>actually died in Kosovo is not Western propaganda, but Serb attempts to
>cover the traces of their crimes.
>
>But the deeper issues the revisionists raise are not about numbers.
>
>They are about what threshold of atrocity justifies intervention in the
>domestic affairs of other states. Just how bad should human rights
>violations be before we send in the planes and the troops?
>
>The revisionists' case is that the violations must be overwhelming for
>intervention to be justified, especially if intervention requires us to
>bypass the United Nations Security Council and treaty provisions, like
>the NATO charter, that do not authorize offensive operations. The
>revisionists concede that urgent necessity might justify throwing aside
>international legal restraints on the use of force -- but only if the
>crimes are truly flagrant.
>
>There is a distinction between oppression and mass murder, and the core
>of the revisionists' case is that Mr. Milosevic has not crossed that
>line. His opponents in Belgrade, incidentally, make the same argument.
>They grudgingly concede the oppression: from 1989 onward, Mr. Milosevic
>eliminated the institutions of Kosovar self-government provided under
>the 1974 constitution; his police routinely jailed, beat and abused
>Albanian activists; in the summer of 1998, during his battle against the
>Kosovo Liberation Army, his forces drove hundreds of thousands of
>Albanians from their villages.
>
>These actions, both the Western and Belgrade revisionists insist, were
>not examples of ethnic cleansing, just the temporary displacement of
>populations during anti-terrorist sweeps by Serbian forces. The
>revisionists' key claim is that Mr. Milosevic was fighting the K.L.A., a
>terrorist group that was executing his soldiers and policemen. He
>responded in kind, but without genocidal massacre. The descent into
>massacre and ethnic cleansing occurred only after NATO warplanes
>attacked.
>
>So the revisionist case is not merely that our criteria for intervention
>failed to distinguish between oppression and mass murder, but that our
>intervention helped to precipitate the evils our intervention was
>supposed to stop. This is actually a case not against intervention per
>se, but against the way we did it. We went in too late, when Kosovo had
>exploded into uncontrollable civil war, and because we did not deploy
>ground troops, Mr. Milosevic failed to understand that we were serious
>about stopping him.
>
>
>he revisionist case could be turned on its head. They imply that we
>should have waited until the oppression turned into mass murder. But the
>point of interventions is surely to stop that deadly downward spiral
>before it begins.
>
>The true lesson of Kosovo might be that we should have intervened in the
>summer of 1998 -- when the Serb offensive was beginning. We should have
>deployed troops on the Albanian and Macedonian borders and conducted an
>air campaign sufficiently robust to convince Mr. Milosevic that we knew
>where the line was between oppression and massacre, even if he did not.
>Had we done so, had we matched means and ends more adequately, we might
>not be arguing about body counts at all.
>
>Michael Ignatieff is the author of the forthcoming "Virtual War: Kosovo
>and Beyond."
>
>----
>
>  It only remains to wonder exactly where "we" should deploy troops this
>week to solve the problems of 2001.  A pity Mr. Ignatieff doesn't do the
>hard part of his self-appointed prophetic office.  But maybe it is all
>in the book?
>
>== Yours, J. H. McCloskey ==  ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.

---
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809
I. The Law of General Beneficence: (Golden Rule, help the community)
II. The Law of Special Beneficence (Put own family and friends first)
III. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors (Respect and care for elders)
IV. Duties to Children and Posterity (Protect and care for children)
V. The Law of Justice (marriage, property, fair courts)
VI. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity (Tell truth, keep promises)
VII. The Law of Mercy (Be tender-hearted)
VIII. The Law of Magnanimity: (Soul should rule the body)

bredon@no-spam.com wrote:
> 
> Imo what's needed is a census of the living in Kosovo. Get all the
> families and friends in touch with each other. Then see how many are
> still on the "missing" list. This will give a top figure for possible
> deaths.
> 
> If there are people missing but bodies not found -- then look for live
> people (in prisions, forests etc) that need to get home.
> 
> In the meantime, it does seem that Stratfor etc are misrepresenting
> the UN's statements, and their fans are misrepresenting Nato's serious
> statements.
> 
> Bredon

As someone else has pointed out, if we wait long enough maybe there
will be 10,000 or 100,000 dead. 
Its another NATO war crime coming to the fore;
 


     Independent;                            
                            



                                US 'lost count of uranium shells fired
in Kosovo' 

                                By Robert Fisk in Pristina 

                                22 November 1999 

                                American aircraft used so much depleted
uranium
                                ammunition during the Nato bombardment
of Serbia that
                                US officials are now claiming - to the
disbelief of
                                European bomb disposal officers - that
they have no idea
                                how many locations may be contaminated
by the
                                radioactive dust left behind by their
weapons. 

                              
> ---
> 
> >In Mr. Cohen's appearance on "Face the Nation," /snip/
> > he said that 100,000 were missing,
> >he also clearly stated that his reports showed that 4,600 Kosovars had
> >been executed, a claim that has been confirmed by the forensic trail of
> >evidence uncovered by war crimes investigators since June.
> > [ Shea's ] factual claims -- that the Serbs
> >had executed 4,000 men -- were cautious. The NATO leaders' rhetoric was
> >highly moralistic, but by and large they did not exaggerate the body
> >count. The revisionists' claim that we were lied to is simply not
> >proven.
> >
> >Moreover, the revisionists have misinterpreted the Hague tribunal's
> >numbers. The tribunal's total figure -- 2,108 bodies uncovered from 195
> >sites -- appeared at first to confirm the revisionists' claims. But the
> >revisionists failed to notice that there are at least 334 other sites
> >that the investigators will turn to in the spring when the ground thaws
> >and digging can resume. No one knows how many bodies will be uncovered
> >from these remaining sites or whether more sites will be discovered.
> >
> >The tribunal's current estimate -- from Western intelligence sources,
> >eyewitness statements and evidence taken from surviving family members
> >-- is that there are 11,334 bodies at 529 sites. Instead of exaggerating
> >the case, the British Foreign Ministry's estimate in June of 10,000
> >bodies appears, if anything, to understate it.
> >
> >Whether these 11,334 bodies will be found depends on whether the Serb
> >military and the police removed them. Serb forces made substantial
> >efforts to cover their tracks. For example, at Izbica, villagers told
> >war crimes investigators that they had buried 143 bodies after a Serb
> >massacre in early April. Spy satellite images, published in the Western
> >press in June, showed these 143 graves. In late June, when tribunal
> >investigators reached the village, the bodies had been removed, and
> >earthmovers had been used in a crude and unsuccessful attempt to erase
> >traces of the site. The real problem in establishing how many people
> >actually died in Kosovo is not Western propaganda, but Serb attempts to
> >cover the traces of their crimes.
> >
> 
> On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 21:37:26 GMT, jhmccloskey6076@my-deja.com wrote:
> /snip/
> 
> >
> >At << http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/21igna.html >> we find a
> >strong candifate for Unrecovering Natoholic of the Month:
> >
> >
> >Counting Bodies in Kosovo
> >  By MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
> >
> >Where are the bodies in Kosovo?
> >
> >The question goes to the heart of the rationale for the war itself. Our
> >leaders took us into the war, so the argument goes, to stop a European
> >state from massacring its own citizens. If the massacres never took
> >place, what justification for intervention remains?
> >
> >This style of revisionism began to surface in September when war crimes
> >investigators from Spain began telling reporters that they were finding
> >fewer bodies than expected. Juan Lopez Palafox, the chief of the Spanish
> >forensic team, told El Pa�s that before he arrived in Kosovo, he had
> >been told to prepare for as many as 2,000 autopsies. His team found only
> >187 bodies. Other investigators reported that when they had tried to
> >find the bodies that the Serbs had supposedly burned at the Trepca mine
> >in northeastern Kosovo, they found nothing at all. The Federal Bureau of
> >Investigation went in prepared to find thousands of bodies and is
> >reported to have found only 200.
> >
> >By late October, the British conservative weekly The Spectator was
> >arguing that the "crude Manicheanism" of Western leaders led them to
> >exaggerate the evil of the Serb regime. Hadn't Tony Blair written in an
> >Op-Ed article in this newspaper on April 24: "Only NATO has the ability
> >to oppose the Serb campaign of ethnic cleansing -- a sustained campaign
> >of brutality that has turned Kosovo into a slaughterhouse, with Mr.
> >Milosevic's death squads burning, raping and killing."
> >
> >This was the kind of rhetoric, revisionists argued, that encouraged
> >others to make inflated claims about the numbers killed in Kosovo.
> >George Friedman, a revisionist who runs Stratfor.com, a private research
> >company in Austin, Tex., seized on a statement by Defense Secretary
> >William Cohen on May 16 on CBS's "Face the Nation" in which he claimed
> >that 100,000 men of military age were missing and unaccounted for.
> >
> >Revisionists also singled out the comment on June 17 by Geoff Hoon, a
> >British Foreign Office minister, that 10,000 people had been massacred.
> >Last week, when the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
> >Yugoslavia at The Hague announced that it had been able to find only
> >2,108 bodies in its five-month investigation in Kosovo, revisionists
> >were quick to claim that the West had exaggerated Serb crimes by a
> >factor of five.
> >
> >Actually, the revisionists may have been the ones to get their facts
> >wrong.
> >
> >In Mr. Cohen's appearance on "Face the Nation," his statements were
> >actually much more complicated. While he said that 100,000 were missing,
> >he also clearly stated that his reports showed that 4,600 Kosovars had
> >been executed, a claim that has been confirmed by the forensic trail of
> >evidence uncovered by war crimes investigators since June. Yes, Jamie
> >Shea, the NATO spokesman, compared Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian
> >leader, to Cambodia's Pol Pot, but his factual claims -- that the Serbs
> >had executed 4,000 men -- were cautious. The NATO leaders' rhetoric was
> >highly moralistic, but by and large they did not exaggerate the body
> >count. The revisionists' claim that we were lied to is simply not
> >proven.
> >
> >Moreover, the revisionists have misinterpreted the Hague tribunal's
> >numbers. The tribunal's total figure -- 2,108 bodies uncovered from 195
> >sites -- appeared at first to confirm the revisionists' claims. But the
> >revisionists failed to notice that there are at least 334 other sites
> >that the investigators will turn to in the spring when the ground thaws
> >and digging can resume. No one knows how many bodies will be uncovered
> >from these remaining sites or whether more sites will be discovered.
> >
> >The tribunal's current estimate -- from Western intelligence sources,
> >eyewitness statements and evidence taken from surviving family members
> >-- is that there are 11,334 bodies at 529 sites. Instead of exaggerating
> >the case, the British Foreign Ministry's estimate in June of 10,000
> >bodies appears, if anything, to understate it.
> >
> >Whether these 11,334 bodies will be found depends on whether the Serb
> >military and the police removed them. Serb forces made substantial
> >efforts to cover their tracks. For example, at Izbica, villagers told
> >war crimes investigators that they had buried 143 bodies after a Serb
> >massacre in early April. Spy satellite images, published in the Western
> >press in June, showed these 143 graves. In late June, when tribunal
> >investigators reached the village, the bodies had been removed, and
> >earthmovers had been used in a crude and unsuccessful attempt to erase
> >traces of the site. The real problem in establishing how many people
> >actually died in Kosovo is not Western propaganda, but Serb attempts to
> >cover the traces of their crimes.
> >
> >But the deeper issues the revisionists raise are not about numbers.
> >
> >They are about what threshold of atrocity justifies intervention in the
> >domestic affairs of other states. Just how bad should human rights
> >violations be before we send in the planes and the troops?
> >
> >The revisionists' case is that the violations must be overwhelming for
> >intervention to be justified, especially if intervention requires us to
> >bypass the United Nations Security Council and treaty provisions, like
> >the NATO charter, that do not authorize offensive operations. The
> >revisionists concede that urgent necessity might justify throwing aside
> >international legal restraints on the use of force -- but only if the
> >crimes are truly flagrant.
> >
> >There is a distinction between oppression and mass murder, and the core
> >of the revisionists' case is that Mr. Milosevic has not crossed that
> >line. His opponents in Belgrade, incidentally, make the same argument.
> >They grudgingly concede the oppression: from 1989 onward, Mr. Milosevic
> >eliminated the institutions of Kosovar self-government provided under
> >the 1974 constitution; his police routinely jailed, beat and abused
> >Albanian activists; in the summer of 1998, during his battle against the
> >Kosovo Liberation Army, his forces drove hundreds of thousands of
> >Albanians from their villages.
> >
> >These actions, both the Western and Belgrade revisionists insist, were
> >not examples of ethnic cleansing, just the temporary displacement of
> >populations during anti-terrorist sweeps by Serbian forces. The
> >revisionists' key claim is that Mr. Milosevic was fighting the K.L.A., a
> >terrorist group that was executing his soldiers and policemen. He
> >responded in kind, but without genocidal massacre. The descent into
> >massacre and ethnic cleansing occurred only after NATO warplanes
> >attacked.
> >
> >So the revisionist case is not merely that our criteria for intervention
> >failed to distinguish between oppression and mass murder, but that our
> >intervention helped to precipitate the evils our intervention was
> >supposed to stop. This is actually a case not against intervention per
> >se, but against the way we did it. We went in too late, when Kosovo had
> >exploded into uncontrollable civil war, and because we did not deploy
> >ground troops, Mr. Milosevic failed to understand that we were serious
> >about stopping him.
> >
> >
> >he revisionist case could be turned on its head. They imply that we
> >should have waited until the oppression turned into mass murder. But the
> >point of interventions is surely to stop that deadly downward spiral
> >before it begins.
> >
> >The true lesson of Kosovo might be that we should have intervened in the
> >summer of 1998 -- when the Serb offensive was beginning. We should have
> >deployed troops on the Albanian and Macedonian borders and conducted an
> >air campaign sufficiently robust to convince Mr. Milosevic that we knew
> >where the line was between oppression and massacre, even if he did not.
> >Had we done so, had we matched means and ends more adequately, we might
> >not be arguing about body counts at all.
> >
> >Michael Ignatieff is the author of the forthcoming "Virtual War: Kosovo
> >and Beyond."
> >
> >----
> >
> >  It only remains to wonder exactly where "we" should deploy troops this
> >week to solve the problems of 2001.  A pity Mr. Ignatieff doesn't do the
> >hard part of his self-appointed prophetic office.  But maybe it is all
> >in the book?
> >
> >== Yours, J. H. McCloskey ==  ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
> 
> ---
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809
> I. The Law of General Beneficence: (Golden Rule, help the community)
> II. The Law of Special Beneficence (Put own family and friends first)
> III. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors (Respect and care for elders)
> IV. Duties to Children and Posterity (Protect and care for children)
> V. The Law of Justice (marriage, property, fair courts)
> VI. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity (Tell truth, keep promises)
> VII. The Law of Mercy (Be tender-hearted)
> VIII. The Law of Magnanimity: (Soul should rule the body)

In article <819omm$nob$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, jhmccloskey6076@my-deja.com wrote:
>Crystal-Ball Interventionism
>  21 November 1999
>
>At << http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/21igna.html >> we find a
>strong candifate for Unrecovering Natoholic of the Month:

(Not just unrecovering, but having no desire to recover nor realizing
that there's even a disease in the first place.)

I'll correct some of the misleading information in the article.

>The tribunal's current estimate -- from Western intelligence sources,
>eyewitness statements and evidence taken from surviving family members
>-- is that there are 11,334 bodies at 529 sites. Instead of exaggerating
>the case, the British Foreign Ministry's estimate in June of 10,000
>bodies appears, if anything, to understate it.

This is purely circular reasoning, as is clear in this excerpt from
the UN's report on the ICTY press briefing:

   Estimates of 11,000 bodies had been derived from news reports,
   including an estimate by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
   (NATO) of some 10,000 victims.

   http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/1999/19991110.delponte.brf.doc.html

In other words, the "tribunal's current estimate" of 11,334 is NOT THEIR
OWN NUMBER; they've "derived" it by listening to NATO and watching CNN.
It's actually based on the NATO estimate, so obviously it can't be used
as SUPPORT for the NATO estimate or proof that the NATO estimate was
an understatement of the facts.  Unfortunately, that's just what Ignatieff
is trying to make us believe.  One wonders if he knows the facts and is
simply ignoring them since they contradict his desired conclusion.

The fact that the ICTY is still citing this NATO number, despite the
fact that the VERY REASON the press conference was called was to
resolve the disputes over that number, is the clearest evidence since
the Milosevic indictment that the ICTY is not an impartial court.

So if 11,334 is just a rehash of the NATO propaganda figure, what is
the ICTY's actual estimate?  The press release gives this confusing
account first:

   She had received reports of 529 gravesites, including those where
   exposed bodies had been found. As of today, approximately one third
   of those gravesites had been examined, and work had been completed
   at 195 sites. In total, 4,266 bodies had reportedly been buried in
   those sites. To date, 2,108 bodies had been exhumed.

Astute readers will notice that it's not clear whether "those sites"
is meant to refer to just the 195 completed sites (as Ignatieff would
have us assume) or with all 529 sites.  But this was clarified in a
followup question:

   To a series of follow-up questions concerning the findings,
   Mr. Blewitt said more than 500 sites had been associated with the
   4,000 bodies. He had only completed examination of 195. 

In other words, the 4,266 estimate is associated with ALL 529 sites.
This, then, appears to be the ICTY's actual estimate.

Another interesting point: considering the results listed here:

   http://www.stratfor.com/crisis/kosovo/genocidemap.htm

we see that there are a total of 1,345 bodies which were expected but
not found at these sites; presumably these expectations were reflected
in the 4,266 estimate cited by the ICTY.  Therefore, it would seem that
this total needs to be subtracted from the 4,266 estimate to reach an
adjusted maximum (estimate) of 2,921.

Not quite 11,334, is it?  And the "revisionists", as Ignatieff tries
to label them, are right again.  Funny, but it's NATO which has been
revising their estimates all along, from 500,000 to 100,000 to 10,000
to 11,000; the "revisionists" are those who consistently said the body
count would be far below the NATO estimates.  Orwell would appreciate
Ignatieff's use of terminology here.

BTW, if anyone has a complete, unedited transcript of the ICTY press
briefing and all followup questions and answers, I'd like to see
it.  The UN version is a summary--it doesn't contain actual quotes.
Considering that every single account of the briefing I've seen so
far contains misinformation (Ignatieff's article being a prime
example), I'd like to see the original information myself.

- John