I have questions:

Do today's Serbs support leaders of Bosnian Serbs of 90-th who are beeing searhed by Hauge Tribunal?

And what are relationships between Serbs and Bosnians in common? Do they feel a kind of opposing to each other? ( and if they are- with whom we may compare it, Israel/Palestina? Armenia/ Turkey? Estonia/Russia?)

They do not exist.

There are Bosnian Serbs who see themselves as Serbs cut off from their nation by the Great Powers.
There are Bosnian Croats who see themselves as Croats cut off from their nation by the Great Powers.
There are Bosnian Serbs who converted to Islam and want to get cash from Iran, Saudi Arabia, and NATO countries.

Bosnia is a Bush-Clinton creation.

The thought of having a mountainous country, a few miles from the sea but without secure access to it, came from Washington. No one, except for some politicians, wanted it.

Its historical background is territorial seizure by Zagreb Axis forces, and the 1941 genocide.

Until then Bosnia was Serbia, with a Serb majority, and an urbanized population of Serbs who had converted to Islam.

Even the literary language of Yugoslavia, Serbo-Croat, had been established by Vuk Karadzic on the basis of the Herzegovinian language.

It is a country that no one wanted, except for a few arrogant jerks in Washington and a few Islamist crazies.

Their alliance created Bosnia. Their falling out will end it.

Ok ( interesting to learn it)
So, I repeat my question concerning Serbs-Cristians and Serbs-Muslims from Bosnia. What are they relationships? Do they so opposing, that while ones celebrate Karadic capture, others rebel against it?
Is there such a people Hercegovinians?

Hercegovina is like Lazio around Rome or Ile-de-France, the area around Paris. It is a traditional administrative unit.

Until the West blessed the breakup of Yugoslavia, people of the three traditional religions intermarrried.

The French and the Brits got economic concessions from Germany. In exchange, they supported smashing Yugoslavia. Then everyone got scared of their neighbors. Muslim crazies began first to write about the good old days of killing Serbs in WW2, and then they began to kill a few Serbs here and there. Wiping out a Serb village here and there. Then the Serbs got drunk--no excuse of course-- and began to retaliate.

One of the worst thing the Serbs did, was to allow the UN in, thinking that they would be neutral. They gave them the airport in Sarajevo, and that was the end.

So now there is fear and hatred, and both sides are right in their fear.

-They do not exist.
Wrong Matt, Bosnia existed even before 10 Century. There is something else what kind of inhabitant had Bosnia on certain time of it history.
----
-There are Bosnian Serbs who see themselves as Serbs cut off from their nation by the Great Powers.
-There are Bosnian Croats who see themselves as Croats cut off from their nation by the Great Powers.
-There are Bosnian Serbs who converted to Islam and want to get cash from Iran, Saudi Arabia, and NATO countries.

Welcome back to reality Matt. I have discussed that for ages. There is no such a nation as Muslims. There is just Bosnians who are ridiculous separated based on religion and not as nationality.
Bosnian-Croats, Bosnian-Serbs and Bosnian-Converted Muslim don’t want to live together then so let be. This issue should be solved peacefully even before Slovenia and Croatia declared to be independent countries. It is Milosevic fault. He didn’t want to follow the rotation rule for Yugoslavia presidency each at that time was Croatia turn. He blocked election of Stjepan Mesic as president of then-Yugoslavia. That’s the reason I always have mention that what Milosevic did to Yugoslavia is a crime, period.
You keep saying NATO, NATO bla bla bla. I am not pro NATO, I am not against resistance against NATO but NATO was too late in play. It was internal disputes Milosevic-Mesic each lead to NATO and NATO was later in Kosovo and not in Croatia and Bosnia.
Bottom line is Yugoslavia should have resolved internal issue but bully Milosevic wanted better to fight against Franjo Tudjman then to have as week and formal Yugoslav president, Stjepan Mesic. Milosevic wanted all for himself.
What happened later, crimes against Krajina etc. is something brutal and intolerable. This need to be addressed but we are talking the cause and initial spark.
----
-Bosnia is a Bush-Clinton creation.

This is childish accuse. Refer what I mention before.
----

Argument against:
Bosnia is the land of Bosnians, who speak the Bosnian language, and who, within ancient borders, were ruled by Tvrko, and then by different conquerors, the Sultan, Kaiser Franz Joseph, Ante Pavelic, Tito, until when, they were finally able to be free, under the leadership of Izetbegovic and with the help of Bosnia's friends in Asia and America

Argument in favor:
Tvrtko was "by the mercy of God King of Serbs, Bosnia and the Seaside and the Western Lands." He was a Nemanjic, a Serbian king of Serbs. "Bosnia and the Seaside and the Western Lands" were possessions worthy of mention, but his main title was king of Serbs. Otherwise he would have been crowned King of Bosnians, Serbia and the Seaside and the Western Lands.

In 1990, very few in Sarajevo wanted independence: Bosnians did not see themselves as a nation. Some saw themselves as Croats, most saw themselves as Yugoslavs. Ambassador Zimmerman had to go prod Izetbegovic into fighting. He made an offer that Izetbegovic could not refuse.