What's going on in Boston?

[Monte Carlo]

^ I just read Mr. Cohen's article, Bearing in mind that the Guardian is the UK's Number One Libtard newsheet, and I can't be arsed to fisk it, a few points:

 

1. The Washington snipers turned out to be, ahem, Islamist grudge-inspired 'terrorists.' So perhaps he has a point...

 

2. But then again, postal ex-LA cop gunman dude might have been a heavily armed nutcase, but he only had small arms and seemed to know who his target was...

 

So on to point three...

 

Terrorists, even homegrown, homebrewed ones like the Boston specimens, are especially terrifying and render Mr. Cohen's argument for what it is (libtard arse-effluent). These two guys made it patently clear that they would put down IEDs and to hell with the consequences. They might have well been wearing explosive vests. They were completely indiscriminate.

 

So, Mkreku, living in your Scandie bubble, think about this. I live in London. I've had the IRA, animal rights nutters and now AQ-inspired murderers on my doorstep. I know what it's like to have loved ones on public transit systems when bombs go off. You don't.

 

So, sweetie, you and your friend Mr. Cohen are useful idiots.

 

STFU.

 

Thanks

 

MC

[Orogun01]

 

 

Whats interesting is that the father is emphatically denying his sons did this, I feel sorry for him that he is so out of touch with the reality of the situation. I suppose denial is a form of a coping mechanism?

What is interesting is that everyone seems to be drawing up conclusions even though the boys are only suspected  of being the perpetrators, even though putting up the martial law and massive manhunt would suggest that everyone has already made up their minds. 

 

 

I get the whole innocent until proven guilty, but let's be realistic.  The odds of them not being the perpetrators are incredibly low.  Usually people who are framed don't go on a rampage and throw explosives out of car windows during the ensuing manhunt.

 

They also don't put an entire city under martial law just because of a manhunt.

[mkreku]

^ I just read Mr. Cohen's article, Bearing in mind that the Guardian is the UK's Number One Libtard newsheet, and I can't be arsed to fisk it, a few points:

 

1. The Washington snipers turned out to be, ahem, Islamist grudge-inspired 'terrorists.' So perhaps he has a point...

 

2. But then again, postal ex-LA cop gunman dude might have been a heavily armed nutcase, but he only had small arms and seemed to know who his target was...

 

So on to point three...

 

Terrorists, even homegrown, homebrewed ones like the Boston specimens, are especially terrifying and render Mr. Cohen's argument for what it is (libtard arse-effluent). These two guys made it patently clear that they would put down IEDs and to hell with the consequences. They might have well been wearing explosive vests. They were completely indiscriminate.

 

So, Mkreku, living in your Scandie bubble, think about this. I live in London. I've had the IRA, animal rights nutters and now AQ-inspired murderers on my doorstep. I know what it's like to have loved ones on public transit systems when bombs go off. You don't.

 

So, sweetie, you and your friend Mr. Cohen are useful idiots.

 

STFU.

 

Thanks

 

MC

 

Baa baa, said the sheep.

[Calax]

^ I just read Mr. Cohen's article, Bearing in mind that the Guardian is the UK's Number One Libtard newsheet, and I can't be arsed to fisk it, a few points:

 

1. The Washington snipers turned out to be, ahem, Islamist grudge-inspired 'terrorists.' So perhaps he has a point...

 

2. But then again, postal ex-LA cop gunman dude might have been a heavily armed nutcase, but he only had small arms and seemed to know who his target was...

 

So on to point three...

 

Terrorists, even homegrown, homebrewed ones like the Boston specimens, are especially terrifying and render Mr. Cohen's argument for what it is (libtard arse-effluent). These two guys made it patently clear that they would put down IEDs and to hell with the consequences. They might have well been wearing explosive vests. They were completely indiscriminate.

 

So, Mkreku, living in your Scandie bubble, think about this. I live in London. I've had the IRA, animal rights nutters and now AQ-inspired murderers on my doorstep. I know what it's like to have loved ones on public transit systems when bombs go off. You don't.

 

So, sweetie, you and your friend Mr. Cohen are useful idiots.

 

STFU.

 

Thanks

 

MC

Psss, Guess What? That question isn't just being asked by the "libertards" in Scandinavia and London. It was the subject of one of Jon Stewarts monologues on thursday. Almost the exact same idea, although he did it mainly while questioning the legislators on why any regulation on the 2nd amendment is "off the table" but they seriously widened all political branches power in because of terrorism.

 

With 40 years of terrorism deaths in the us barely equaling 1/10th of gun related deaths in a 30 year period.

[Fighter]

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but isn't the FSB special warfare school located in Makhachkala?

 

A lot of security services are there because Dagestan (of which Makhachkala is the capital) is the biggest islamist hotspot nowadays.

 

Also if we indulge such a conspiracy implication, FSB is a domestic agency that specializes on internal matters and all their official training schools such as ones that are publicly known are counter insurgency related. Agencies such as GRU or SVR would conduct foreign operations.

[Malcador]

Not sure homicides - and some suicides that he tossed in there for some reason - and terrorist acts are comparable. Individual crimes provoke less outrage than a crime aimed at 'people' (like bombings and such) isn't that surprising. I suppose it's convenient to take a shot at the US using this.

 

Heh, his comment on Londoners would be funny. If the London Marathon were bombed, I imagine the reaction would be a lot similar, in terms of media blitzing and them locking down urban areas.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Malcador

[obyknven]

Who would win in a fight:

U.S. Police

 

or Chechen Police?

 

 

 

[Monte Carlo]

 

^ I just read Mr. Cohen's article, Bearing in mind that the Guardian is the UK's Number One Libtard newsheet, and I can't be arsed to fisk it, a few points:

 

1. The Washington snipers turned out to be, ahem, Islamist grudge-inspired 'terrorists.' So perhaps he has a point...

 

2. But then again, postal ex-LA cop gunman dude might have been a heavily armed nutcase, but he only had small arms and seemed to know who his target was...

 

So on to point three...

 

Terrorists, even homegrown, homebrewed ones like the Boston specimens, are especially terrifying and render Mr. Cohen's argument for what it is (libtard arse-effluent). These two guys made it patently clear that they would put down IEDs and to hell with the consequences. They might have well been wearing explosive vests. They were completely indiscriminate.

 

So, Mkreku, living in your Scandie bubble, think about this. I live in London. I've had the IRA, animal rights nutters and now AQ-inspired murderers on my doorstep. I know what it's like to have loved ones on public transit systems when bombs go off. You don't.

 

So, sweetie, you and your friend Mr. Cohen are useful idiots.

 

STFU.

 

Thanks

 

MC

 

Baa baa, said the sheep.

 

 

Awesome comeback. Awesome. I am completely pwned.

[Monte Carlo]

And as for John Stewart?

 

Libtards are gonna Libtard.

[Walsingham]

I felt I had to quote some of the BBC's work on this story, as an example of how unbelievably weak their news has got since going 24 hours. My emphases.

 

"The president might be wise to start by asking President Putin. I have no evidence that the "foreign government" asking questions about Tamerlan Tsarnaev was Russia, but that is my strong suspicion.

Whoever it was, they warned the FBI that Tamerlan was a strong supporter of radical Islam. The FBI say they investigated, interviewed him, and found no links with terrorism. This is quite remarkable. Let me repeat it. The FBI had been warned that the man who apparently carried out the first terrorist attack on an American city since 9/11 was a strong supporter of radical Islam.

People will want to know how far they delved, how hard they tried, how seriously they took the information. Some of the criticism will be unfair, based on hindsight - they must get thousands of such warnings every year. Or perhaps they are quite rare. That is another question."

 

Really? I think we've given casual posters on HERE a hard time for making zero effort to substantiate a claim. This is from the BBC's North America editor.

 

Drivel.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

 

Whats interesting is that the father is emphatically denying his sons did this, I feel sorry for him that he is so out of touch with the reality of the situation. I suppose denial is a form of a coping mechanism?

What is interesting is that everyone seems to be drawing up conclusions even though the boys are only suspected  of being the perpetrators, even though putting up the martial law and massive manhunt would suggest that everyone has already made up their minds. 

 

 

I get the whole innocent until proven guilty, but let's be realistic.  The odds of them not being the perpetrators are incredibly low.  Usually people who are framed don't go on a rampage and throw explosives out of car windows during the ensuing manhunt.

 

They also don't put an entire city under martial law just because of a manhunt.

 

 

What is your point, exactly?  Is this just a general criticism of the way law enforcement handled themselves, or are you suggesting something more sinister?  

[Zoraptor]

 Well instead of insulting his post why don't you use the forum to dispute it with the historical facts as you understand it. I for one am interested ?

 

The main points of contention (from a neutral) with the historical parts of Boo's version would be

 

1) A/H wanting to invade Serbia in WW1. It was by no means a done deal, and there is little doubt that their crown prince- a noted moderate- was murdered with the active collusion of some in the Serb government. A modern comparison would be Joe Biden being assassinated by an Iranian in Bahrain with Republican Guard involvement; it may be a pretext, but it was a justifiable pretext.

2) The Serb experience in WW1 is actually rather underplayed, they lost the highest proportion (probably around a fifth, as high as a quarter) of their population in the war of anyone, and by a fair margin. There were also persistent incidents of ethnic atrocities from both A/H and Bulgaria- though their severity is disputed. That is important background.

3) While the conduct of the Croatian 'state' in WW2 was utterly despicable (e.g.)- as was that of the Catholic church who actively encouraged forced conversions and the like and shielded war criminals post war- it was not universally supported by all Croats or all Catholics, much as not all Serbs were resistance heroes. Most prominently, Tito was a croat resister (and Hildegard's grandfather too, iirc). Again, that is important background.

4) The dropping in support for the royalist resistance had less to do with any deal with Stalin and more to do with their ineffectiveness and tendency to use resources to fight Tito rather than the nazis.

 

Overall what you had when Yugo split was a recipe for disaster based on wounds that had never been healed, but only papered over by Tito's strong personality. When the split happened the Serbs simply didn't trust the Croats not to be oppressive (not helped by use of some nationalist imagery and support from Germany, given the experience in WW2) and the Croats understandably didn't want to give up majority Serb areas of their new country. In general you do not hear much of the background stuff because it takes some research, and because it interferes with the standard good guy/ bad guy narrative. As with most things there really aren't any good guys, and in the case of the Balkan Wars barely even any less worse guys. The Serb reaction- even if I'd still blame them most overall- is at least understandable (though not really justifiable) in historical context. I can certainly understand Serb annoyance at always being painted as the bad guys though, both given their history of being genuinely oppressed within living memory, people's general ignorance of that, and that both the Croats and Kosovans expelled large numbers of Serbs without much if any condemnation from the west.

 

Ultimately though, asking a Croat and Serb to give reasoned explanations of the Balkan Wars is extremely unlikely to work productively. Too many recent wounds, too much refusal to admit bad stuff done by their side while listing bad stuff done by the other. Too many eminent truths that are only either eminent or truths to one side.

 

Quite a lot of the Balkan stuff is quite similar to the Chechen and wider Caucasus' experiences- Chechens' experiences under Russian and especially Stalin's deportations provide historical context for their fight and attitude, and the 100ks of South Ossetian refugees- more than their current population by multiples- fleeing the Georgians gives context as to why they don't want to be reintegrated into Georgia.

[Rostere]

Terrorists, even homegrown, homebrewed ones like the Boston specimens, are especially terrifying and render Mr. Cohen's argument for what it is (libtard arse-effluent). These two guys made it patently clear that they would put down IEDs and to hell with the consequences. They might have well been wearing explosive vests. They were completely indiscriminate.

 

So, Mkreku, living in your Scandie bubble, think about this. I live in London. I've had the IRA, animal rights nutters and now AQ-inspired murderers on my doorstep. I know what it's like to have loved ones on public transit systems when bombs go off. You don't.

 

So you're just iterating that terrorists are scary and that you're sure of that? I'm sad to say this, but I don't think your post contains a single constructive argument as to why.

 

Can we please also keep the proper meaning of some certain terms? A terrorist is a person who tries to intimidate and coerce the public opinion through violence. Since we have no idea about what might have been the thought behind these attacks, they should at this time correctly be called "(mass- ?)murderers". I'd actually say it's somewhat unlikely they're "proper" terrorists. The Al Qaeda- linked group they were thought to sympathize with even rejected them. The fact that there was no declaration of who was behind the deed until this day (!), no letter, nothing, speaks most of all. As a rhetorical question, I'm sure you'll also agree that Eric Harris of the Columbine massacre was a psychopath and not a Nazi terrorist. "Terrorist" has become such a meaningless word in the last few years. Let's try to restrict its usage to where it actually applies.

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

 

Whats interesting is that the father is emphatically denying his sons did this, I feel sorry for him that he is so out of touch with the reality of the situation. I suppose denial is a form of a coping mechanism?

What is interesting is that everyone seems to be drawing up conclusions even though the boys are only suspected  of being the perpetrators, even though putting up the martial law and massive manhunt would suggest that everyone has already made up their minds. 

 

 

I get the whole innocent until proven guilty, but let's be realistic.  The odds of them not being the perpetrators are incredibly low.  Usually people who are framed don't go on a rampage and throw explosives out of car windows during the ensuing manhunt.

 

They also don't put an entire city under martial law just because of a manhunt.

 

 

What is your point, exactly?  Is this just a general criticism of the way law enforcement handled themselves, or are you suggesting something more sinister?  

 

Something sinister, this could very well be exasperation on part of Boston's government  due to the severity of the actions committed against them. On the other hand I don't think this is the usual MO for this sort of thing. If they actually suspected terrorism then Homeland security would be involved. 

It just seems a little odd and when paired with the fact that we don't know what evidence they have against the brothers that actually implicates them in the bombing. I mean, this a manhunt and martial law for a suspect of a crime. Plus there is the fact that the FBI previously failed to find terrorist ties.

[Hurlshort]

Orogun, where are you from?  I'm asking because it would help me to understand your perspective of how Boston as a city and Massachusetts as a state are run.  

 

I don't think there is really a usual MO for a situation like this, but instituting a lockdown is not entirely unheard of.  The scope and size of the lockdown was massive, but again this is very much a unique situation.  

 

Regardless, you have one suspect alive and communicating, so there is really no reason to buy into conspiracy theories at this point.  If he comes out and says he was framed (or gets shot by Jack Ruby), then feel free to speculate.  

[BruceVC]

 

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but isn't the FSB special warfare school located in Makhachkala?

 

A lot of security services are there because Dagestan (of which Makhachkala is the capital) is the biggest islamist hotspot nowadays.

 

Also if we indulge such a conspiracy implication, FSB is a domestic agency that specializes on internal matters and all their official training schools such as ones that are publicly known are counter insurgency related. Agencies such as GRU or SVR would conduct foreign operations.

 

 

 

@ Fighter

 

I am enjoying your view, I assume you are Russian? We only generally get  Oby's posts  from a Russian perspective  and his posts range from the unlikely to the unbelievable. Its all conspiracy theories to him, which I don't prescribe to.

[BruceVC]

 

 Well instead of insulting his post why don't you use the forum to dispute it with the historical facts as you understand it. I for one am interested ?

 

The main points of contention (from a neutral) with the historical parts of Boo's version would be

 

1) A/H wanting to invade Serbia in WW1. It was by no means a done deal, and there is little doubt that their crown prince- a noted moderate- was murdered with the active collusion of some in the Serb government. A modern comparison would be Joe Biden being assassinated by an Iranian in Bahrain with Republican Guard involvement; it may be a pretext, but it was a justifiable pretext.

2) The Serb experience in WW1 is actually rather underplayed, they lost the highest proportion (probably around a fifth, as high as a quarter) of their population in the war of anyone, and by a fair margin. There were also persistent incidents of ethnic atrocities from both A/H and Bulgaria- though their severity is disputed. That is important background.

3) While the conduct of the Croatian 'state' in WW2 was utterly despicable (e.g.)- as was that of the Catholic church who actively encouraged forced conversions and the like and shielded war criminals post war- it was not universally supported by all Croats or all Catholics, much as not all Serbs were resistance heroes. Most prominently, Tito was a croat resister (and Hildegard's grandfather too, iirc). Again, that is important background.

4) The dropping in support for the royalist resistance had less to do with any deal with Stalin and more to do with their ineffectiveness and tendency to use resources to fight Tito rather than the nazis.

 

Overall what you had when Yugo split was a recipe for disaster based on wounds that had never been healed, but only papered over by Tito's strong personality. When the split happened the Serbs simply didn't trust the Croats not to be oppressive (not helped by use of some nationalist imagery and support from Germany, given the experience in WW2) and the Croats understandably didn't want to give up majority Serb areas of their new country. In general you do not hear much of the background stuff because it takes some research, and because it interferes with the standard good guy/ bad guy narrative. As with most things there really aren't any good guys, and in the case of the Balkan Wars barely even any less worse guys. The Serb reaction- even if I'd still blame them most overall- is at least understandable (though not really justifiable) in historical context. I can certainly understand Serb annoyance at always being painted as the bad guys though, both given their history of being genuinely oppressed within living memory, people's general ignorance of that, and that both the Croats and Kosovans expelled large numbers of Serbs without much if any condemnation from the west.

 

Ultimately though, asking a Croat and Serb to give reasoned explanations of the Balkan Wars is extremely unlikely to work productively. Too many recent wounds, too much refusal to admit bad stuff done by their side while listing bad stuff done by the other. Too many eminent truths that are only either eminent or truths to one side.

 

Quite a lot of the Balkan stuff is quite similar to the Chechen and wider Caucasus' experiences- Chechens' experiences under Russian and especially Stalin's deportations provide historical context for their fight and attitude, and the 100ks of South Ossetian refugees- more than their current population by multiples- fleeing the Georgians gives context as to why they don't want to be reintegrated into Georgia.

 

 

Wow that was an interesting post. Thanks for giving your perspective, as usual its been fascinating. I think you did a good job of giving a balanced view of the political reality in the Balkans. You did attempt to show the history from all sides.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 Well instead of insulting his post why don't you use the forum to dispute it with the historical facts as you understand it. I for one am interested ?

 

The main points of contention (from a neutral) with the historical parts of Boo's version would be

 

1) A/H wanting to invade Serbia in WW1. It was by no means a done deal, and there is little doubt that their crown prince- a noted moderate- was murdered with the active collusion of some in the Serb government. A modern comparison would be Joe Biden being assassinated by an Iranian in Bahrain with Republican Guard involvement; it may be a pretext, but it was a justifiable pretext.

2) The Serb experience in WW1 is actually rather underplayed, they lost the highest proportion (probably around a fifth, as high as a quarter) of their population in the war of anyone, and by a fair margin. There were also persistent incidents of ethnic atrocities from both A/H and Bulgaria- though their severity is disputed. That is important background.

3) While the conduct of the Croatian 'state' in WW2 was utterly despicable (e.g.)- as was that of the Catholic church who actively encouraged forced conversions and the like and shielded war criminals post war- it was not universally supported by all Croats or all Catholics, much as not all Serbs were resistance heroes. Most prominently, Tito was a croat resister (and Hildegard's grandfather too, iirc). Again, that is important background.

4) The dropping in support for the royalist resistance had less to do with any deal with Stalin and more to do with their ineffectiveness and tendency to use resources to fight Tito rather than the nazis.

 

Overall what you had when Yugo split was a recipe for disaster based on wounds that had never been healed, but only papered over by Tito's strong personality. When the split happened the Serbs simply didn't trust the Croats not to be oppressive (not helped by use of some nationalist imagery and support from Germany, given the experience in WW2) and the Croats understandably didn't want to give up majority Serb areas of their new country. In general you do not hear much of the background stuff because it takes some research, and because it interferes with the standard good guy/ bad guy narrative. As with most things there really aren't any good guys, and in the case of the Balkan Wars barely even any less worse guys. The Serb reaction- even if I'd still blame them most overall- is at least understandable (though not really justifiable) in historical context. I can certainly understand Serb annoyance at always being painted as the bad guys though, both given their history of being genuinely oppressed within living memory, people's general ignorance of that, and that both the Croats and Kosovans expelled large numbers of Serbs without much if any condemnation from the west.

 

Ultimately though, asking a Croat and Serb to give reasoned explanations of the Balkan Wars is extremely unlikely to work productively. Too many recent wounds, too much refusal to admit bad stuff done by their side while listing bad stuff done by the other. Too many eminent truths that are only either eminent or truths to one side.

 

Quite a lot of the Balkan stuff is quite similar to the Chechen and wider Caucasus' experiences- Chechens' experiences under Russian and especially Stalin's deportations provide historical context for their fight and attitude, and the 100ks of South Ossetian refugees- more than their current population by multiples- fleeing the Georgians gives context as to why they don't want to be reintegrated into Georgia.

 

 

Regarding no 1:

The archduke of AH came to Bosnia to oversee military maneuvers on the Bosnian/Serbian border. What is the point of these maneuvers if not to prepare the army for an attack? He was assassinated by a Bosnian serb nationalist who wanted an independent Bosnia. This was a conspiracy in which certain officers of the Serbian government were also a part of. However the highest levels of government did not support this course of action. What would the Serbian government gain by provoking a 10 times larger country into war with it?  That notion is ridiculous, there was no way to win the war even with the decaying state of the AH empire. And there were ways to avoid all out war. AH chose to create an unacceptable ultimatum and even though Serbia accepted all points but one of said ultimatum, AH did not try to negotiate further and instead declared war immediately. Also, the Germans were in favor of war and had a part in egging AH into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Austro-Hungarian_attitude_to_war

 

3. I never said all Croats and catholics fell in line with NDH ideology. But the majority did. Neither were all Serbs resistance heroes of course. The royalist movement was composed mostly of Serbs, while the communists were mixed, although mostly Croat and Serb. You're wrong about Tito. His nationality is an unknown as are many other details of his life. Of course, he wasn't a Serb, so you have a point there. 

Edited April 22, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[Nepenthe]

The fact is, there's about as many different interpretations of what's happened in the Balkans as there are people with any kind of picture to it. You don't really need to look closer than Bysantine history to see that the place has always had a special relationship with violence.

 

I think it's fair to say that the situation is very complex and multilayered. Propaganda paints things as black and white, but even those that are more switched on, like our friend Drowsy, still look at it from a vastly different point of view due to being, obviously, both physically, culturally and mentally closer to the current and past events. Western interventions into the former Yugoslav states and the functioning of the war crimes tribunal hasn't been exactly exemplary, with another fairly strong dose of black and whitening going on there.

 

My only worry is that the situation will never improve as long as the one Volk, one Reich attitude remains. Even among intelligent and educated people.

 

Just my short rationale for the earlier trolling, not trying to be exhaustive here.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Nepenthe

[Drowsy Emperor]

The Byzantine empire wasn't arguably any more violent than any other empire? I don't understand that comment. 

 

The 20th century is a poor guide for passing judgment over the Balkans. There's over a thousand years of additional history which hasn't been any more violent than any other part of the world. In fact, its mostly peaceful - like history in general when you take out the short spans of war and other disasters.

Whenever world power shifts, as it did with the fall of the USSR the Balkans are affected because every world power has a stake in them and its own interests.

 

Besides, one could easily argue that Europe is the one with a special relation to violence, given that some of the worst crimes and the two worst wars in history happened there - by nations that boasted of their own enlightenment and progressiveness. Almost everything that happened in the Balkans pales in comparison. And that was a mere sixty years ago - there are still living people who remember it. 

 

The current state of peace in Europe is an exception that has yet to prove its long term viability.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[Nepenthe]

The Byzantine empire wasn't arguably any more violent than any other empire? I don't understand that comment. 

 

The 20th century is a poor guide for passing judgment over the Balkans. There's over a thousand years of additional history which hasn't been any more violent than any other part of the world. In fact, its mostly peaceful - like history in general when you take out the short spans of war and other disasters.

Whenever world power shifts, as it did with the fall of the USSR the Balkans are affected because every world power has a stake in them and its own interests.

 

Besides, one could easily argue that Europe is the one with a special relation to violence, given that some of the worst crimes and the two worst wars in history happened there - by nations that boasted of their own enlightenment and progressiveness. Almost everything that happened in the Balkans pales in comparison. And that was a mere sixty years ago - there are still living people who remember it. 

 

The current state of peace in Europe is an exception that has yet to prove its long term viability.

The point I was trying to make was that the area's always been a buffer zone between East and West, and thus subject to basically millennia of conflict.

 

Theoretically Finland is a similar zone, just considerably less inhabited and more peaceful in the past 65 years.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

The Byzantine empire wasn't arguably any more violent than any other empire? I don't understand that comment. 

 

The 20th century is a poor guide for passing judgment over the Balkans. There's over a thousand years of additional history which hasn't been any more violent than any other part of the world. In fact, its mostly peaceful - like history in general when you take out the short spans of war and other disasters.

Whenever world power shifts, as it did with the fall of the USSR the Balkans are affected because every world power has a stake in them and its own interests.

 

Besides, one could easily argue that Europe is the one with a special relation to violence, given that some of the worst crimes and the two worst wars in history happened there - by nations that boasted of their own enlightenment and progressiveness. Almost everything that happened in the Balkans pales in comparison. And that was a mere sixty years ago - there are still living people who remember it. 

 

The current state of peace in Europe is an exception that has yet to prove its long term viability.

The point I was trying to make was that the area's always been a buffer zone between East and West, and thus subject to basically millennia of conflict.

 

 

In that you're correct. 

 

WAAAAGH!

[mkreku]

 

So you're just iterating that terrorists are scary and that you're sure of that? I'm sad to say this, but I don't think your post contains a single constructive argument as to why.

 

Not. One. Single. Argument.

 

Which is why I chose to "pwn" him instead. What's the point of discussing something with a sheep that regurgitates right wing drivel without an ounce of critical thinking?

[Malcador]

 

In that you're correct. 

 

WAAAAGH!

 

 

Hm, well Scandinavians might work as Eldar, now who plays the other races ?

[Rostere]

 

 

So you're just iterating that terrorists are scary and that you're sure of that? I'm sad to say this, but I don't think your post contains a single constructive argument as to why.

 

Not. One. Single. Argument.

 

Which is why I chose to "pwn" him instead. What's the point of discussing something with a sheep that regurgitates right wing drivel without an ounce of critical thinking?

 

 

I don't know, I'd rather discuss such things politely. Even though I don't agree with most of the political stuff Monte Carlo writes (and I think our chief disagreement is on the subject of bikini chainmails), I think many of his posts are rather fun to read, and he has a unique perspective, so I'd rather see him continuing the discussion. Of course without posts like "I KNOWS THIS; STFU".

 

It might be that he does not really want to contribute to the discussion, but I think that if you are still interested in it (?), you should not return that attitude. If we all act like the well- mannered gentlemen/ladies we would like to see on the board ourselves, we will definitely encourage the rest to do so as well. I'm sure nobody here would really want the general level of discussion to degrade into the equivalent of angry children throwing dog poo at each other in the kindergarten sandbox, if they think about it.

 

(Yes, I also sometimes reply with just "wat" or "lolwut". That is a pretty safe indicator that I don't have the time to continue that certain discussion)