obyknven Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 New Crimean Prosecutor http://youtu.be/tqHkGaEE7WA She became angry during talk about Maidan violence. Good choice.
Sarex Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) Yeah, and I bet you stormed the White House too. I really don't have time to go hunting for the videos now, but I can try to find them later. Meanwhile, mayhaps you would like to prove proof of said military victories? http://www.historija.ba/d/323-zapocela-vojna-intervencija-nato-a-u-bih/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_O%27Grady#Shootdown Shot down planes during NATO bombings. http://www.scribd.com/doc/25309063/Spisak-Oborenih-NATO-Letilica http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins2000/tim2000-5-1.html http://jrv127.tripod.com/nato.html As for the French troops, well one of the "members" testified in Hag with a voice modulator and a hidden face how we held them as hostages. Bored? What a silly strawman. They left for various reasons, chief of them that they were afraid and they were told to. And I don't recall ever saying that no Serbs died in the aftermath. It was a war after all, and in rural areas where you're less likely to get caught, you will have crimes commited. As for the transcripts..again, don't take things out of context. I did read it, but it provides no real evidence of anything. Do you even know what a strawman argument means? They left because the Croatian army chased them away during operation Storm. Yeah 1000 dead civilians in a week is chump change... As for the transcripts, we are using them in Hag in our countersuit again the Croatian people. So tell me again how they don't provide any real evidence. And Serbs live and work here. I'm living in a tourist town that gets lots of traffic, so there's plenty of Serbs passing trough or staying here all the time. I only recall 2 minor incidents in all these years. Given the massive amounts of propaganda Serbian TV uses, I wouldn't be surprised if similar incident never make it to the news there. As for you.. so the bus never even stopped? Therefore, you cannot even know if your fears were unfounded or not. So what proof do you exactly have? That's like me saying that my friend avoiding traveling trough Serbia proves that Serbs all want to kill us. Oh go and tell those Serbian friends what you told me, if you dare. See if they remain your friends. Do you wonder why the bus didn't stop? Because there was an incident in the previous years where Serbian students were attacked. Edited March 13, 2014 by Sarex "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP
Fighter Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) Right Sector thugs beating and robbing people with impunity as police sits quietly by the side. Will Obama object? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afrXa-qsLfo Edited March 13, 2014 by Fighter 1
213374U Posted March 13, 2014 Author Posted March 13, 2014 Who cares about whether Yanukovich was lawfully dismissed or not? Have you seen his estate? That man is essentially the spider in a web of corruption in the heart of darkness. The amounts of money that have been embezzled from the Ukrainian people can never be returned - even if European countries now have seized the European assets of Yanukovich and his "family" of corrupt kleptocrats. I know I'm usually a law-and-order guy, but if there's one thing I can't stand it's this type of corruption and theft of a nation's resources. With the kinds of sums involved, this has turned into another game entirely - of course the best thing would be to see Yanukovich et compani in front of the ICC. But if an easier solution is that he is hung, drawn and quartered by the Ukrainians, then so be it. Escaping to Russia is really getting away without sufficient punishment in his case. Yanukovich' depletion of monetary reserves might very well plunge Ukraine into the same fiery pit as Greece (or worse), and in the end it will of course be the people, as always, who will suffer for choosing criminals such as him for their leaders. Yanukovich might well have stolen the future of some 45 million Ukrainians, which makes him one of the worst traitors imaginable. I care about setting the record straight. Amounts he embezzled are relevant only in the sense that they should make his due prosecution that much easier. Kicking him out of office NAO by whatever means and possibly summarily executing him as you suggest isn't going to make the money he stole reappear in Ukraine's coffers. Sticking to the feb 21 agreement would have gone a long way towards preserving constitutional stability and preventing secessionist sentiments from being inflamed. As the President is supposed to be the guarantor of constitutional order, removing him without regards for due process is tantamount to abrogating the Constitution—anything goes from that point on. As it stands, the new government lacks both the force and legal legitimacy to effectively deal with separatists, and this is ostensibly a result of the way they have handled things as much as it is of Russia's meddling. In other news, Ukrainian backbencher suggests nuclear re-armament in light of Russia's violation of Ukrainian territorial sovereignty. Yep. I'm sure that's not going to be a tough sell to the same people who are getting their pensions slashed in half. Not at all. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Valsuelm Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 New Crimean Prosecutor http://youtu.be/tqHkGaEE7WA She became angry during talk about Maidan violence. Good choice. I've known and watched a lot of prosecutors. She's the cutest one I've seen. Wish I knew what she was saying. Again Oby. Please stop linking non-English media in this English language forum, without providing an English translation, even if it's of a hot prosecutor. 1
Rostere Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Who cares about whether Yanukovich was lawfully dismissed or not? Have you seen his estate? That man is essentially the spider in a web of corruption in the heart of darkness. The amounts of money that have been embezzled from the Ukrainian people can never be returned - even if European countries now have seized the European assets of Yanukovich and his "family" of corrupt kleptocrats. Problem is that it isn't getting rid of the spider at the heart of the web of corruption- it's swapping the spider out for another one. I've seen Yanukovich's house, but I've also seen, for example, Yulia Tymoshenko's house. And the new government with its new broom has appointed... a bunch of oligarchs (most of whom got to be oligarchs the way everyone in the ex USSR did, via corruption) as regional governors. That isn't a new broom, it's same old same old, jobs for those they think will keep the east quiescent via the old methods of patronage. But we're talking about Yanukovich right now. I haven't uttered a word about who I would see replace him. Of course me and everyone else with some sense in their heads are also sceptical towards Timoshenko. What happens to the previous leader has nothing to do with who you choose as your next one. I'm addressing the fact that things were going to hell very quickly economically in Ukraine during Yanukovich's reign. I haven't defended the new (temporary) government, but at this point almost everything would be better than Yanukovich. Like you say, Ukraine has some serious stability problems due to the political split over Russian alignment. People who self-identify as Russians tend to support similar-thinking leaders because of this, and the other way around of course. This creates a lot of leeway for corruption. Imagine a country roughly split in half along ethnic lines where, say 30% of the population would always support a candidate aligned with one ethnicity and 30% would always support one from the other. Being a post-Communism nation is only the beginning of Ukraine's worries. Ethnic particularism is the perfect fertile soil for corrupt leaders. Although the new government consists of 10% far-right politicians, the government itself is remarkably (everything is relative) free from oligarchs and establishment cronies of all sorts. The people you mention are the recently appointed governors of Donetsk and Dnepropetrovsk (I think). I don't think you correctly assess what is happening there - this is not a "new broom" and nobody ever wanted it to seem like that either - it's the other way around, these appointments were made to appease Russian particularists, the new government are in effect selling these appointments as more of "the old broom" to calm secessionist sentiments. Naturally these oligarchs are the ones who have the most to lose from instability, or being forced to compete in the "pro league" of Russian corrupt kleptocrats if they should secede to Russia. This is a by-effect of the ethnic split of Ukraine and one of the reasons it will be good to "amputate" largely Russian-aligned areas such as Crimea. In the best of worlds, there would be no ethnic particularists, but as long as people succeed in banging that drum you must build democracy from the bottom up starting with giving the different areas of Ukraine sufficient autonomy to ease tension and if that means putting popular kleptocrats into power, so be it. The alternative might be having the secessionists in power there, admitting that independence or secession is a solution. Personally, seeing how Donetsk is the richest part of the Ukraine I don't see how a Donetskian secession could not end up in war. Who cares about whether Yanukovich was lawfully dismissed or not? Have you seen his estate? That man is essentially the spider in a web of corruption in the heart of darkness. The amounts of money that have been embezzled from the Ukrainian people can never be returned - even if European countries now have seized the European assets of Yanukovich and his "family" of corrupt kleptocrats. I know I'm usually a law-and-order guy, but if there's one thing I can't stand it's this type of corruption and theft of a nation's resources. With the kinds of sums involved, this has turned into another game entirely - of course the best thing would be to see Yanukovich et compani in front of the ICC. But if an easier solution is that he is hung, drawn and quartered by the Ukrainians, then so be it. Escaping to Russia is really getting away without sufficient punishment in his case. Yanukovich' depletion of monetary reserves might very well plunge Ukraine into the same fiery pit as Greece (or worse), and in the end it will of course be the people, as always, who will suffer for choosing criminals such as him for their leaders. Yanukovich might well have stolen the future of some 45 million Ukrainians, which makes him one of the worst traitors imaginable. I care about setting the record straight. Amounts he embezzled are relevant only in the sense that they should make his due prosecution that much easier. Kicking him out of office NAO by whatever means and possibly summarily executing him as you suggest isn't going to make the money he stole reappear in Ukraine's coffers. Sticking to the feb 21 agreement would have gone a long way towards preserving constitutional stability and preventing secessionist sentiments from being inflamed. As the President is supposed to be the guarantor of constitutional order, removing him without regards for due process is tantamount to abrogating the Constitution—anything goes from that point on. As it stands, the new government lacks both the force and legal legitimacy to effectively deal with separatists, and this is ostensibly a result of the way they have handled things as much as it is of Russia's meddling. In other news, Ukrainian backbencher suggests nuclear re-armament in light of Russia's violation of Ukrainian territorial sovereignty. Yep. I'm sure that's not going to be a tough sell to the same people who are getting their pensions slashed in half. Not at all. Believe me when I say that I would prefer a much more peaceful solution. In a larger context, pressure from far-right groups and "unconstitutional" (or at least questionable) moves is a harmful influence. Therefore, their sanction will require dire circumstances. But you must agree that extreme circumstances require extreme reactions. Would you lecture George Washington on how he led an "unconstitutional" revolution against the British Crown? Nelson Mandela? There has been an awful lot of "unconstitutional" leaders who have broke the law throughout history who we hold in high esteem today. I would like to compare it with how you use radiation and poisons (focused and under as controlled circumstances as possible) to treat cancer or amputation to prevent gangrene. In most normal circumstances, you would not saw your hand off. But there are extreme situations where you might need to do that in order to save your life. Every problem has it's solution, and when you're already ****ed, chances are the solution won't be pretty. There are two things to weigh in here: one, the potential harmful effects of violating the law. Two, the severity of the current situation. I think we agree on the former, but not on the latter. There are no sacred cows and no unbreakable laws as long as the situation is bad enough. "Well, overkill is my middle name. And my last name. And all of my other names as well!"
Agiel Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) http://www.historija.ba/d/323-zapocela-vojna-intervencija-nato-a-u-bih/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_O%27Grady#Shootdown Shot down planes during NATO bombings. http://www.scribd.com/doc/25309063/Spisak-Oborenih-NATO-Letilica http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins2000/tim2000-5-1.html http://jrv127.tripod.com/nato.html ...and whatever fighters the Serbians dared to launch were swiftly put back into the ground: ...and one MiG-29 shot down by a "peace-loving" Dane no less. Some might find that to be absolutely embarrassing*. *Only jesting. Red Flag exercises have shown the Danes to be no jokes. Edited March 13, 2014 by Agiel Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
Gorgon Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 My memory might be a little rusty, but didn't NATO conduct high risk low altitude runs to try and avoid civilian casualties, seeing as how that would be counter productive to what they were trying to do. I don't support bomber diplomacy on general principle, but those efforts were made. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Sarex Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) We lost 30 planes in the Bosnian war, that was the majority of our air force. The enemy had hundreds. There was no competing with the whole world in the war. as can be seen from the results(it was simply a game of numbers). But we didn't just roll over when they told us to, especially with Kosovo and the NATO bombings. Edited March 13, 2014 by Sarex "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP
Zoraptor Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 But we're talking about Yanukovich right now. I haven't uttered a word about who I would see replace him. Of course me and everyone else with some sense in their heads are also sceptical towards Timoshenko. What happens to the previous leader has nothing to do with who you choose as your next one. I'm addressing the fact that things were going to hell very quickly economically in Ukraine during Yanukovich's reign. Things went to crap economically pretty quickly in Obama's first term as well, and a host of places around the world (PIIGS plus others in the EU included; plus the 120 billion per annum corruption in the EU). That can't really be laid at Yanukovich's door exclusively, and quite probably even majority. Really though, in order for change to be desirable you need to have improvement, else why bother, might as well keep all the dead people alive. (And of course, the main thing about whether his ouster was legal is that the new government is relying on constitutional inviolability to have the Crimean referendum be illegal having not followed it themselves) Being a post-Communism nation is only the beginning of Ukraine's worries. Ethnic particularism is the perfect fertile soil for corrupt leaders. I quite agree, that's why the language law repeal was a big issue. Much like the appointment of oligarchs by the new government it shows that things won't change, it'll be whichever grouping is in power imposing its will on the other. While both are as bad as each other at least the old government was elected, rather than imposed. Although the new government consists of 10% far-right politicians Svoboda were 12% of the electorate, but that makes them ~25% of the new government since it had under 50% electoral support. This is borne out by them having 4/20 ministerial posts, plus prosecutor general. Four parties got more votes than them, 3 of them have no ministerial posts at all (albeit one voluntarily). ..if that means putting popular kleptocrats into power, so be it. The alternative might be having the secessionists in power there, admitting that independence or secession is a solution. Personally, seeing how Donetsk is the richest part of the Ukraine I don't see how a Donetskian secession could not end up in war. I don't think there would necessarily be a war, a civil war would be more likely but that would end as soon as Russia intervened. The Ukrainian army would at best be unreliable if asked to step in to stop secessionism in the east, much as it was when asked to step in to stop secessionism in the west a few weeks ago. I'd just chop the east and south off with a Ginzu knife, probably best for both in the long term. Because there really isn't any apparent scope for improvement at all shown in the actions of the new government, just changing labels on the same old crap.
213374U Posted March 14, 2014 Author Posted March 14, 2014 Believe me when I say that I would prefer a much more peaceful solution. In a larger context, pressure from far-right groups and "unconstitutional" (or at least questionable) moves is a harmful influence. Therefore, their sanction will require dire circumstances. But you must agree that extreme circumstances require extreme reactions. Would you lecture George Washington on how he led an "unconstitutional" revolution against the British Crown? Nelson Mandela? There has been an awful lot of "unconstitutional" leaders who have broke the law throughout history who we hold in high esteem today. I would like to compare it with how you use radiation and poisons (focused and under as controlled circumstances as possible) to treat cancer or amputation to prevent gangrene. In most normal circumstances, you would not saw your hand off. But there are extreme situations where you might need to do that in order to save your life. Every problem has it's solution, and when you're already ****ed, chances are the solution won't be pretty. There are two things to weigh in here: one, the potential harmful effects of violating the law. Two, the severity of the current situation. I think we agree on the former, but not on the latter. There are no sacred cows and no unbreakable laws as long as the situation is bad enough. The difference is that the "proper" revolutionaries you are comparing to shed any pretense of abiding by the then-current laws early on—they were willing and able to back their political statements with force. This is completely different in Ukraine, where a change in the status quo is not going to be accepted by the Russian minority in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, because it is being introduced without any regard for the current constitutional framework that in their view protected them. This is exactly how you set up a tyranny in a country where a Constitution based upon the rule of law and popular sovereignty is in force. In fact, a key issue in the American revolution was precisely the perception that legislation was being introduced that violated colonists' basic rights as English subjects (taxation without parliamentary representation). The funny thing is that, in that case, and as opposed to what happened in Ukraine, these rights weren't codified and no formal violation had occurred (not sure how common law jurisdictions handle that tbh, Enoch or Grom could correct me). But all that is, once more, academic. The bottom line here is that if you are willing to disregard the law of the land, you had better be prepared to crush those who won't be happy about it with force, because law is the instrument humans have provided themselves with to resolve disputes without resorting to force. And sadly for the new government in Ukraine, they simply cannot use force in this situation because the unhappy party, in this case, is Russia. Still, two wrongs don't make a right. I think your amputation analogy is apt here, too, but I'm actually turning it around—Ukraine may end up "amputating" Crimea to pay for the terrible political mismanagement of the "revolution", because it's looking like Russians, both in Crimea and outside, will settle for nothing less. It will be interesting to see the UN bend over and condemn a self-determination referendum that is in accordance with the principle stated in art.1 of the UN Charter... - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
obyknven Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Right Sector go to Eastern Ukraine but has been beaten by locals. http://youtu.be/iNqcwSwnybU 3 people are killed.
licketysplit Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Let the little dictator have Crimea, it's mostly Russian anyway. Then allow Ukrain to join EU.
TrashMan Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 http://www.historija.ba/d/323-zapocela-vojna-intervencija-nato-a-u-bih/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_O%27Grady#Shootdown Shot down planes during NATO bombings. http://www.scribd.com/doc/25309063/Spisak-Oborenih-NATO-Letilica http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins2000/tim2000-5-1.html http://jrv127.tripod.com/nato.html As for the French troops, well one of the "members" testified in Hag with a voice modulator and a hidden face how we held them as hostages. your sources there are highly questionable. A serbian article claiming over 120 aircraft shot down. A rusian article claiming NATO is covering up it's loses. The only thing of any substance is that wikipedia article on the F-16 pilot. I'm "glad" that propaganda is still alive and well in Serbia. Do you even know what a strawman argument means? They left because the Croatian army chased them away during operation Storm. Yeah 1000 dead civilians in a week is chump change... Do you know? As I said before - the civilians left long before the Croatian Army got there. There can be no talk of forced relocation or ethnic clensing. They weren't "chased away" As for the transcripts, we are using them in Hag in our countersuit again the Croatian people. So tell me again how they don't provide any real evidence. You mean the same transcripts that were used during proceedings to prove a planned ethnic clensing? The same charge that was dropped? Ha Oh go and tell those Serbian friends what you told me, if you dare. See if they remain your friends. I have. They still are. Do you wonder why the bus didn't stop? Because there was an incident in the previous years where Serbian students were attacked. And you are telling me Croats or Bosnians were never attacked in Serbia after the war? Please, tell me another joke. You can't really be that naive to think absolutely NO ONE in Serbia was holding a grudge..ever. * YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!
TrashMan Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 B.t.w.: The HV and the special police suffered 174–211 killed or missing, while the ARSK had 560 soldiers killed. Four UN peacekeepers were also killed. The HV captured 4,000 prisoners of war. The number of Serb civilian deaths is disputed—Croatia claims that 214 were killed, while Serbian sources cite 1,192 civilians killed or missing. During and after the offensive, 150,000–200,000 Serbs—or nearly the entire Serb population of the area formerly held by the ARSK—fled and a variety of crimes were committed against the remaining civilians there. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) later tried three Croatian generals charged with war crimes and partaking in a joint criminal enterprise designed to force the Serb population out of Croatia; they were all ultimately acquitted and the tribunal ruling refuted the charges that Operation Storm was planned as a criminal enterprise. As of November 2012, the Croatian judiciary has convicted 2,380 persons for various crimes committed during Operation Storm. ADDITIONALY: At the beginning of the Croatian War of Independence, in 1991–1992, a non-Serb population of more than 220,000 was forcibly removed from Serb-held territories in Croatia, as the RSK was established (while this is true, the whole process started a decade earlier with soft pressure. Croats in the region find getting (and keeping) a job nearly impossible. Smear campaigns were conducted against them) The number of civilian casualties in Operation Storm is disputed. The State Attorney's Office of the Republic of Croatia claims that 214 civilians were killed—156 in 24 instances of war crimes and another 47 as victims of murder—during the battle and in its immediate aftermath. The Croatian Helsinki Committee disputes the claim and reports that 677 civilians were killed during the same period,[213] however their report was rejected by the ICTY, when submitted as evidence, due to unsourced statements and double entries contained in the report.[214] Serbian sources quote 1,192 civilians dead or missing.[215] The ICTY prosecutors set civilian deaths at 324.[216] Order of the RSK Supreme Defence Council to evacuate civilians * YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!
Sarex Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) your sources there are highly questionable. A serbian article claiming over 120 aircraft shot down. A rusian article claiming NATO is covering up it's loses. The only thing of any substance is that wikipedia article on the F-16 pilot. I'm "glad" that propaganda is still alive and well in Serbia. Oh, mine are questionable? Then by all means show me yours... Do you know? As I said before - the civilians left long before the Croatian Army got there. There can be no talk of forced relocation or ethnic clensing. They weren't "chased away" Yes they were. That you claim that 200 thousand Serbs left of their own free will and that 1000 civilians killed in a week is anything but a genocide is ridiculous. You mean the same transcripts that were used during proceedings to prove a planned ethnic clensing? The same charge that was dropped? Ha Do you really know so little? We used them yesterday in our opening statement in Hag, the trial has just begun... I have. They still are. Excuse me if I don't believe you. And you are telling me Croats or Bosnians were never attacked in Serbia after the war? Please, tell me another joke. You can't really be that naive to think absolutely NO ONE in Serbia was holding a grudge..ever. They are holding a grudge, but not anything like the Croats are doing. We have no problems in Bosnia... Edited March 14, 2014 by Sarex "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP
obyknven Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Let the little dictator have Crimea, it's mostly Russian anyway. Then allow Ukrain to join EU. But our "little dictator" don't want Crimea. It's just small military training before big war in Europe. When we give peace to world, stop Cold war - it's IRL test for West... and the West fail it. Today everyone sure - peaceful coexistence with such backwarded (it's truth, for example sexual revolution in Russia happened in 1923 year, West repeat this only in 1968, modern transhumanism is softcore version of Russian cosmism from late XIX century etc) society as Western is just improssible. Today everyone sure - only war can solve this problem. If we succeded in war - humanity can enter into new Era of prosperity and enlightment (softcore path). If we fail... we change world forever... and cleansing Earth from filthy humans (hardcore path). We win anyway, it's more not about our fate, but about what humans chose - be extinct or continue evolutionize in our company. http://youtu.be/rLMn3_SzBiU
obyknven Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 German show about Maidanhttp://youtu.be/iej-kuaN1Mg
Elerond Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Let the little dictator have Crimea, it's mostly Russian anyway. Then allow Ukrain to join EU. I don't think that is necessary good idea, as Ukraine is too poor (like Romania and Bulgaria are rich compared to it) to be effective member. Which means that it would get heavy restrictions or it will lose lot of it population to other member states (especially well educated people, which it need to fix its economy).
TrashMan Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Yes they were. That you claim that 200 thousand Serbs left of their own free will and that 1000 civilians killed in a week is anything but a genocide is ridiculous. Nope. Genocide implies force, targeted killings and deportation on a massive scale, and a rule of fear and terror. The CA didn't force anyone, if anyone was forcing departure it was the YU army. The people left BEFORE the CA came, so how could have the CA driven them out? So let me get this straight: If you and your buddies are heading towards a village and I spread the word around the village that you will kill them all and urge the people to leave (with a gun), then when the people do pack up and you walk into an empty village, you are to blame, not me? Do you really know so little? We used them yesterday in our opening statement in Hag, the trial has just begun... And it will get you nowehere, because the exact same piece of evidence was already used before. And you are telling me Croats or Bosnians were never attacked in Serbia after the war? Please, tell me another joke. You can't really be that naive to think absolutely NO ONE in Serbia was holding a grudge..ever. They are holding a grudge, but not anything like the Croats are doing. We have no problems in Bosnia... Given that you've never been in Croatia and that you apparently never even talked to a Croat, I find your assertions as to the amount of grudge Croats hold rather laughable. * YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!
Sarex Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) Nope. Genocide implies force, targeted killings and deportation on a massive scale, and a rule of fear and terror. The CA didn't force anyone, if anyone was forcing departure it was the YU army. The people left BEFORE the CA came, so how could have the CA driven them out? So let me get this straight: If you and your buddies are heading towards a village and I spread the word around the village that you will kill them all and urge the people to leave (with a gun), then when the people do pack up and you walk into an empty village, you are to blame, not me? Can you really be that simple? If an army is coming, you run away from it. The 1000 who didn't run obviously payed for it. And it will get you nowehere, because the exact same piece of evidence was already used before. Anyone who reads it can clearly see what was the intent of Operation Storm. You obviously haven't read it, as can be seen from you previous post. You just repeat like a parrot what the west said. Given that you've never been in Croatia and that you apparently never even talked to a Croat, I find your assertions as to the amount of grudge Croats hold rather laughable. Did I not just say that I have been to Croatia? Talked to a few Croats, never about the war but I talked to them like a normal person would. Edited March 14, 2014 by Sarex "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP
TrashMan Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 And yes, I very, very much doubt your sources. Some of the serbian information sites list 200-300 aircraft have been shot down. to put things in perspective: 129 helicopters and 24 fixed-wing aircraft have been reported by media to be lost in Iraq since the 2003 invasion till February 2009. 46 of these incidents have been attributed to hostile fire such as anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles. In Afghanistan, up until today: Rotary-wing losses 124 (27 to hostile fire) Fixed-wing losses 38 (*7 to hostile fire while on the ground) Contract aircraft losses 26 (*2 to hostile fire) So in other words, you claim that the US lost more aircraft in the NATO bombings than in did in Iraq and Afghanistan COMBINED. ******** *********** *********** Also: 1999 (Operation Allied Force)March 27 – An F-117 Nighthawk (Serial Number : 82-0806) stealth ground-attack jet was shot down by a Serbian SA-3 surface-to-air missile during the Kosovo War; the pilot (Lieutenant Colonel Dale Zelko) survived and was subsequently rescued.May 1 – An F-16C Fighting Falcon (Serial Number : 88-0550) was shot down by a Yugoslav SA-3 SAM. The aircraft crashes near Šabac, in a rural area of Serbia; the pilot (Lieutenant Colonel David Goldfein) survived and was subsequently rescued. * YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!
TrashMan Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Nope. Genocide implies force, targeted killings and deportation on a massive scale, and a rule of fear and terror. The CA didn't force anyone, if anyone was forcing departure it was the YU army. The people left BEFORE the CA came, so how could have the CA driven them out? So let me get this straight: If you and your buddies are heading towards a village and I spread the word around the village that you will kill them all and urge the people to leave (with a gun), then when the people do pack up and you walk into an empty village, you are to blame, not me? Can you really be that simple? If an army is coming, you run away from it. The 1000 who didn't run obviously payed for it. It's not that simple and it's not correct. Otherwise you'd be seeing a mass exodus any time any army comes into any town. There are two things that can cause a mass exodus - panic (weather the danger is real or inflated) and coercion. And strangely, the CA didn't instigate either. You claim that the people ran away because they were afraid that the CA will be raping, burning and pillaging. The question is - from where does that fear stem from? If the people ran away before the CA came, then there was no town that was cleansed/burned/pillaged since they were vacant. And given the speed of advancement of the CA and the chaotic battlefield, there's no way that other towns/villages would have known and panicked/ran because of that even if that had happened. The speed and organization make it clear that the exodus was planned well in advance. Furthermore, there are signed orders from RSK about it, AND videos of YU and RSK officers ordering such an exodus. And I see you didn't answer my bolded question. Anyone who reads it can clearly see what was the intent of Operation Storm. You obviously haven't read it, as can be seen from you previous post. You just repeat like a parrot what the west said. Oh, and here I though it was you who repeats propaganda like a broken record. Nope, anyone who knows anything about the war can clearly see you are wrong. Did I not just say that I have been to Croatia? Talked to a few Croats, never about the war but I talked to them like a normal person would. Nope. You said you passed trough and the bus didn't stop. * YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!
Sarex Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) It's funny that you think America reported their real losses in Afghanistan or Iraq. I know about their reports in Vietnam, where they lost hundreds of airplanes and claimed to have lost only a couple of dozen. And where did I post a source that claimed 300 shot down planes during NATO bombing, in fact were did I CLAIM that? You didn't even read the links I posted... Edited March 14, 2014 by Sarex "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP
obyknven Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 As i say before - Americans create pro-Putin movements. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/03/11/putin4prez/ Fed up with their nation’s corrupt, mendacious, ineffectual leadership, a group of Americans is seeking to join the Russian Federation. “We are collecting signatures for a national referendum on whether to remain a failed state – an economic basket case run by criminal oligarchs – or to join the Russian Federation under a President with a proven track record of bringing oligarchs to heel,” said Bill Blatsky, head of the Join Russia – Putin for President committee. Referendum proponents point out that the US has deep historic ties with Russia. “Nearly 20% of the United States consists of Alaska, which was historically Russian territory,” Blatsky explains. “Even today, Sarah Palin can look out her window across the Bering Strait, see the glittering lights of Vladivostok, and sigh longingly, wishing she were over there in a civilized country, where an ignorant hick like her wouldn’t stand a chance of getting elected dogcatcher. Why would Americans wish to remain in a nation that would even contemplate putting such a person within a heartbeat of its presidency? By joining the Russian Federation, we would become part of a country with at least a semblance of an educational system.” The Putin for President movement points out that America’s West Coast from San Francisco northward – the coolest part of the USA – is also arguably a historic part of Russia. “It isn’t just Alaska,” Blatsky explained. “There is a reason that the world’s leading marijuana producer, Humboldt County, California, is named after the Russian explorer and marijuana connoisseur Alexander Von Humboldt, who planted the Russian flag on these shores but forgot about it due to short-term memory dysfunction. Unfortunately, I can’t remember what that reason is. And let’s not forget that Bohemian Grove, where America’s criminal oligarchs meet annually to plot their plunder, is on the Russian River. Wouldn’t it be great if Putin sent a battleship up that river and arrested all those guys?”
Recommended Posts