|
Post by faux pas on Mar 6, 2005 0:22:27 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by irac on Mar 6, 2005 9:22:47 GMT 1
faux pas, read the article, is it correct term of phrase to say "disturbing propaganda"? Do you really, and answer honestly, really believe that such a tiny number of Serbian civilians were killed, or are you counting only those inside the borders of Serbia? And isn't it amazing how there isn't the mention of any deaths of Bosnian muslims? Would it open a whole can of worms for this war criminal who benefitted from the mass graves of all sides?
Maybe what the youth of Croatia should know is how tudjman and milosevic agreed to share territory for their own benefits and that both gained, especially, financially, from promoting slaughter.
|
|
|
Post by Three Lions on Mar 6, 2005 10:23:09 GMT 1
What people forget on these boards is that there must have been support from all sides for the formation of Yugoslavia in the first place. If Croatians had always been anti Yugoslavia from 1945 then it would not have lasted 46 years. There is little point in seeking to point the finger now. There must be more flexibility in diplomatic problems now, or this is going to drag on for the next 100 years like the middle east.
|
|
|
Post by faux pas on Mar 7, 2005 2:40:34 GMT 1
...and how do you explain.... and in spite of all that "support" (pressure) from all sides, the peoples there didn't want Yugoslavia and did get rid of it. Not only since 1945, but since 1934: Even the Serb Pribicevic regreted its creation because of its catastophic effects on non-Serbs. How then did it last that long you ask?? Well once a people gains a certain level of independence, their enemy learns better their weak points and if they succeed to surpress it again, their occupation lasts longer - is how things worked for centuries prior to information age...
ps. irac, you ignore the facts and you stick to your prejudices, what can i say then....
|
|
|
Post by Old Guest on Mar 7, 2005 9:20:29 GMT 1
...and how do you explain.... and in spite of all that "support" (pressure) from all sides, the peoples there didn't want Yugoslavia and did get rid of it. Not only since 1945, but since 1934: Even the Serb Pribicevic regreted its creation because of its catastophic effects on non-Serbs. How then did it last that long you ask?? Well once a people gains a certain level of independence, their enemy learns better their weak points and if they succeed to surpress it again, their occupation lasts longer - is how things worked for centuries prior to information age... ps. irac, you ignore the facts and you stick to your prejudices, what can i say then.... Don't get me wrong ... But I am becoming little tired of "repainted history". Yugoslavia as idea of "South Slavens country" originate from Croatia by "Ilire movement" and bishop Strosmeier. Yugoslavia between ww1 and ww2 was much different from Yugoslavia after ww2. And ther is no "continuity" in those two. First one turned into "Royal dictatorhip" legalised true act of "6th Januar Dictatorship". And second was born as reaction on German/Italy supporting regimes which was fed by fear and hate among all nations. Second Yugoslavia breaked after Miloshevic started to look for available methods to return Yugoslavia in "post ww1" enviroment under new circumstances in wider region (looking for new methods to establish same "legal dictatorship"). And Croatian answer first was offer for "confederation" (which Miloshevic refused), and then - independence. There was two views on Croatian independence inside Croatia's political scene since 1970's. One is related to "continuity with Tito's Yugoslavia, and see Croatia more as development of basicaly good idea (freedom for all, but without comunism in it's extremes), and second is related to "continuity with fashistic regime from ww2" (developed outside Croatia for 50 years) and it see Croatia as exclusive one national state in "historical borders". Both entered political scene thanks to war, Miloshevic and other reasons (I explained this many times before) and both are still fighting for "air" on Croatian political scene. Fact it, that from "somewhere between" this two solutions (after Tudmans idea of "peace between fashists and comunists" completly failed), Croatia is west-oriented democracy. But both "radical" options are still politicaly strong, have support in academic and church circles, and both see EU as direct threat for their "construstive claustrophobia" as Croatia path in future. Mr. Hebrang is representative of this "constructive claustrophobic" forces, and he is proud of it. He said - "not telling complete truth isn't lieing - if it is fo nations good", and I think this describes his "authority of truth" very good.
|
|
|
Post by irac on Mar 7, 2005 9:25:26 GMT 1
faux pas, you know that that is a silly thing to say, what prejudices? Well, if wanting to hear the truth spoken and calling people for what they are, then fine. tudjman and his cronies profitted out of the war and had an agreement with milosevic to divide up Bosnia and prevent a muslim state in Europe. Sorry that I'm prejudiced, but I can't hep feeling that when one of these "close associates" of a former dictator start spouting numbers, it smells a little, maybe of a whiff of lies? But maybe it's better to just add to the lies and say that serbs were in fact killed by milosevic (as you posted before) oh wait, let's add to it further, Croats were killed by tudjman? Does that make it all better?
|
|
|
Post by Old Guest on Mar 7, 2005 9:44:03 GMT 1
faux pas, you know that that is a silly thing to say, what prejudices? Well, if wanting to hear the truth spoken and calling people for what they are, then fine. tudjman and his cronies profitted out of the war and had an agreement with milosevic to divide up Bosnia and prevent a muslim state in Europe. Sorry that I'm prejudiced, but I can't hep feeling that when one of these "close associates" of a former dictator start spouting numbers, it smells a little, maybe of a whiff of lies? But maybe it's better to just add to the lies and say that serbs were in fact killed by milosevic (as you posted before) oh wait, let's add to it further, Croats were killed by tudjman? Does that make it all better? Well Irac, I am not saying you are completly wrong. But answering some extremists from extreme standpoint is not good enough. Bosnia is much more complex than this. Bosnia had some internal constitutional mechanisms which was preventing "domination" of any nation over other (this was keeping it alive. And EU removed this mechanisms from it (this was term for elections), leaving clean path for slaughter which was obvious. Said fact is that now even Miloshevic is using this "small mistake" in his defence. Tudjman first reacted giving offer for "weak defense comfederal agreement" to Bosnian muslims (which gained majority on election, after "dominating mechanisms" get removed from constitution), but Muslims didn't believed Miloshevic will dare to attack, because of few reasons - 1. They didn't connected JNA with Miloshevic. 2. They tought that they have too strong supporters in Muslim words for USA to stay "aside" ... After this, UN offered "cantonal Bosnia" using Swizerland as example (most insane idea I ever heard about) leaving space for Croats and Muslims to start fighting for "domination over some cantons". I know it sounds "too dry" and "too political", but this are facts. How Tudjman and Miloshevic reacted under this circumstances is another story. But Bosnian slaughter wasn't proces of their "briliant minds". Because they just wasn't briliant in anything. Now, guilt is shared between two of them. Their guilt is huge (especialy Miloshevics. Tudjman reacted more as "confused duck" in Bosnia, without clear goals, and mostly loosing then winning anything). Bosnia is exclusive product of EU politics, and this is why there is strong attempt for it to be equalised so it can be putted under "same hat" and writen under "Miloshevics and Tudjmans" - exclusive guilt.
|
|
|
Post by EMIZ on Mar 7, 2005 10:09:54 GMT 1
I don't get too involved in these debates; simply because I don't know enough about it, but it seems to me that Bosnia should have been divided very differently, Herzegovina should have been annexed to Croatia, other parts to Serbia, and then Sarajevo and the Muslim dominated areas should have been declared as Bosnia.
The problem is the EU didn't want a Islam state in Europe.
|
|
|
Post by Old Guest on Mar 7, 2005 10:27:06 GMT 1
I don't get too involved in these debates; simply because I don't know enough about it, but it seems to me that Bosnia should have been divided very differently, Herzegovina should have been annexed to Croatia, other parts to Serbia, and then Sarajevo and the Muslim dominated areas should have been declared as Bosnia. The problem is the EU didn't want a Islam state in Europe. I disagree. At that moment EU sow "muslim state" which isn't rigid and too religiously influenced inside Europe as - good option for preventing things which are happening now (muslims declaring their "minority rights" all over Europe. Bosnia was great "shuting their mouth" mechanism for EU. And circumstances at that time was - USA was "biying" peace with muslims on Midle East. So EU was just looking for "compatible solution", but yet not that expensive as Midle East. Destroying legal mechanisms ensured Bosnia will finish in slaughter and this act wasnt "incident of too naive Europeans who wasn't counting on sneaky Balcanians bloodhungers". It was obvious call for USA to "enter region" any pay bills for such country instead of EU. But USA entered scene much after EU made complete mess and failed completly in Bosnia. Dividing Bosnia wasn't solution or necessery. Bosnian constitution was good standpoint for building democracy inside Bosnia. But then it would be impossible for "religious" issues to come on surface so quickly, and such state was looking good on "puzzle map" of future "multicultural and multireligious" EU. EU was just too naive and greedy at that time. They tought Clinton's "as* kis**ng" Muslims on Midle East was part of "political proces" more then him just desperately buying time because USA didn't had any evailable "peaceful" option. I think this is obvious today and doesn't need bunch of "conspiracy theories" to be proved.
|
|
|
Post by Old Guest on Mar 7, 2005 11:33:22 GMT 1
Just little addition ...
It is really not too hard to see EU's standpoint over Muslims on few examples, not just Bosnia.
Few months before it joined EU Slovenia had "referendum" about giving Muslims rights to build religious object/objects in Slovenia. And referendum was accepted by EU. It didn't metter to EU that this referendum was against everything EU is supporting "on surface". Slovenia wasn't called "ksenophobic and nationalistic" and this huge political issue did't influenced it's position in eyes of EU. Same thing you can see in France, even in Netherland religious police supported "rebelion" entered scene after sincle incident. No now we have third example with Turkey. It is clear "compensation" for Bosnian solution, and compromise to USA. Moveing Muslims political (and not just political) influence more on east, and still declaratively support their religios and political rights (as long as they are not asked for) is political phrase inside EU, and nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by Three Lions on Mar 7, 2005 14:17:21 GMT 1
WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH! The EU isn't interested in Muslims at all. If Bosnia was as rich as France then it would have been fast tracked into the EU quicker than Luxembourg. The knowledge of the EU on this web site is paramount to the knowledge of a two year old.
|
|
|
Post by Old Guest on Mar 7, 2005 14:39:02 GMT 1
WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH! The EU isn't interested in Muslims at all. If Bosnia was as rich as France then it would have been fast tracked into the EU quicker than Luxembourg. The knowledge of the EU on this web site is paramount to the knowledge of a two year old. hehehe ... exactly ... Isn't interested at all, until the level of - "accepable discrimination". Please, explain EU to us 2 years old from your cloud. Give some arguments instead of arogancy.
|
|
|
Post by Three Lions on Mar 7, 2005 15:13:34 GMT 1
OK my child the EU is interested in MONEY not Muslims, just as the invasion of Iraq is about money and not whether or not people pray to Allah. Simple enough from my great cloud in the sky.
|
|
|
Post by Old Guest on Mar 7, 2005 15:40:14 GMT 1
OK my child the EU is interested in MONEY not Muslims, just as the invasion of Iraq is about money and not whether or not people pray to Allah. Simple enough from my great cloud in the sky. Yep, they are exctatic in spending 200 mil. dollars per day to have opportunity in excersising closing fires on oilfields together with other "desert funs". Are they mixing "survivor" with politics ony your cloud maybe ?
|
|
|
Post by Old Guest on Mar 7, 2005 16:05:27 GMT 1
OK my child the EU is interested in MONEY not Muslims, just as the invasion of Iraq is about money and not whether or not people pray to Allah. Simple enough from my great cloud in the sky. Can you please explain me that Slovenian referendum case. As I see it, religious objects are big, on land closest possible to town centers ... expensive land. A lot of taxes etc. Plus more money for building it, labour, material etc. Why they refused so much easy money for God's sake ? Why EU did't warned future member about such "bad bussines" aproach, instead of beeing awarded for such obvious discrimination over their citizens, on religious principles. I just don't get it. Maybe perspective from your cloud is more clear, so please help 2 years old in his ignorance.
|
|