Ongoing discussion of Ukraine

[Walsingham]

 

As a lifelong marines and Guard player you have no idea how conflicted this picture makes me feel.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Huge PR disaster for the Serbs though. Pictures of mortar shelling hitting civilians did not look good on TV. I didn't mean to suggest the city was destroyed. Maybe a bit of hyperboly on my part. 

 

Everything was a huge PR disaster in that war because Serbs didn't realize the role of media and lobbying in modern conflicts. The KLA, the croats and the bosnian muslims all hired the best US based PR agencies they could afford well in advance of the respective conflicts. They led their media campaigns for them whitewashing or ignoring the unsavory parts of the war and selling them to the international public as the sole victims. When the war started the Serbian leadership found out the hard way that the media already had their pre-ordained role in the conflict and that they had missed the train to get their side across. Afterwards it became an uphill battle, once negative associations are established in the minds of a chunk of the population it becomes a hole you can't dig yourself out of regardless of what you do.

 

Everyone knows or think they know of the "shelling of Dubrovnik", "Racak massacre" "Srebrenica genocide" because these were designed to be the focal points of the conflict by the media, with clear and defined victim-aggressor roles. A handful of people know of the civillian massacres leading up to Srebrenica, of William Walker's role in staging Racak or of the way the fighting around Dubrovnik was blown out of proportion because the town is beautiful and a very good photo op.

 

My point is not denying the possibility of criminal acts in a war as an individual act or a major military blunder but discrediting the idea that the entire policy was based around the intent to commit war crimes on a massive scale.

[Sarex]

Wish you were here a few threads back, I don't know if you would have laughed or cried.

[Gorgon]

Ohh it's pretty clear that they went into Srebrenica with the intention of putting a whole lot of people in a hole in the ground. But I suppose Karadžić and Mladić and all their ilk are just misunderstood.

 

I don't think anyone believes that there was a furher directive to kill every Albanian either, rather, for all the men of figthing age guilt by suspicion or association would leave them just as dead.

[Zoraptor]

Meh, the problem with the balkans stuff is that it's never even handed in its coverage. Pretty much everyone there was highly unpleasant at various times and places and there were no good guys, that's always true in any civil war- "what's so civil about war anyway?" to quote the great philosopher Axl Rose. But media loves a nice, simple story with identifiable good guys and bad guys and will, as always, hammer the square situation into the round hole when establishing that narrative. The usual response to something like the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Krajina varies from "they voluntarily moved out" (!!!) to "well, they did it first" (which rather ignores the conduct of Croatia during WW2- which is actually quite a nice parallel to Ukraine, to bring things back somewhat to topic, since you have at least some in Croatia lionising the Ustasi much as you have some in Ukraine who think Bandera and the UPA were wonderful) to simply pretending it didn't happen, when the only proper response is to deplore such things whoever is the perpetrator and not let geopolitical stuff trump ethics. And that, ladies and gentlemen, puts me well over my RDI of naivity for the day, and it's still before lunchtime.

 

Oh, and the chopper the Ukrainians lost in Slovyansk is confrimed to have been shot down by small arms fire- so much for them having to have sophisticated missiles supplied by Russia to shoot down helis as claimed last week. I'd be keeping count of how often the pro Kiev propaganda has been wrong, but I ran out of fingers and toes some time ago.

 

Are you sure its not your bias that is talking?

 

Pretty sure. You don't see western politicians talking about revolution and uprising in that manner and he was stating quite plainly that it was planned, we have no reason to doubt him. Now, you can say that an interview with the third most important opposition leader doesn't constitute evidence and you need to hear the same from Yatsenyuk and Klitschko, or that he really meant have a bake sale and do some door knocking instead of "revolution" and "uprising", but I'd be far more confident that that interpretation is your bias than mine is mine, because instead of bake sales and door knocking we got, well, the uprising and revolution which my interpretation supports. Your interpretation has its flush busted by the 2 of reality, mine is the ace of trumps (suit, reality), since I'm into mixing metaphors.

 

If we hadn't got revolution and uprising it'd be open to interpretation, certainly, but less than a year after that interview that is precisely what we did get. Planned for, played for, and got. Quod Erat decidedly non passively Demonstrandum.

[obyknven]

Huge PR disaster for the Serbs though. Pictures of mortar shelling hitting civilians did not look good on TV. I didn't mean to suggest the city was destroyed. Maybe a bit of hyperboly on my part. 

New Russian joke about this.

 

 

Два русских танкиста сидят в парижском кафе, пьют кофе с круассаном вприкуску, рядом "припаркована" колонна российских танков. Мимо идут на Запад армейские колонны.

И один танкист говорит другому:

- Об одном я сожалею - проиграли мы информационную войну.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Ohh it's pretty clear that they went into Srebrenica with the intention of putting a whole lot of people in a hole in the ground. But I suppose Karadžić and Mladić and all their ilk are just misunderstood.

 

I don't think anyone believes that there was a furher directive to kill every Albanian either, rather, for all the men of figthing age guilt by suspicion or association would leave them just as dead.

 

There were albanians in Srebrenica? 

 

Or are you just engaging in creative associations? What of the "dead"there that rose to vote in the subsequent election?

 

Yes, we were so interested in killing every Albanian that we called Associated Press and OSCE observers to watch the conduct of the special forces operation in Racak, whereupon we massacred them all in front of the world's press. Lol. A special brand of naivete is needed to believe that.

 

If the intention of the army was to actually commit genocide;

1) no one would have been able to stop them in time

2) there would be massive and obvious casualties and civillians would die in droves

 

The Hutu's massacred the Tutsi's in Rwanda in several months armed  with little more than machetes. The YNA was armed to the teeth.

 

But you know..stick to your theory.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[BruceVC]

 

Ohh it's pretty clear that they went into Srebrenica with the intention of putting a whole lot of people in a hole in the ground. But I suppose Karadžić and Mladić and all their ilk are just misunderstood.

 

I don't think anyone believes that there was a furher directive to kill every Albanian either, rather, for all the men of figthing age guilt by suspicion or association would leave them just as dead.

 

There were albanians in Srebrenica?

 

Or are you just engaging in creative associations? Yes, we were so interested in killing every Albanian that we called Associated Press to watch the conduct of the special forces operation in Racak, whereupon we massacred them all in front of 

 

Anyway the discussion is pointless, with your baiting attitude. Stick to your version

 

 

Drowsy I want to ask you two questions. We know that in the Bosnian war most people accept that all three sides committed atrocities. But in the Hague being indicted and charged the majority of people are Serbs. So my questions are

 

• Do you accept that Serbia committed war crimes\atrocities
• Do you accept that the Serbs committed the most  war crimes\atrocities

[Walsingham]

I don't know many people who'd hold any young Serb responsible for any atrocities, and even many old ones may not have believed them or been able to do anything about it.

 

The ...distasteful thing about Drowsy is not what he thinks Serbia did in the past. It's what he thinks we should all do in the future.

[BruceVC]

I don't know many people who'd hold any young Serb responsible for any atrocities, and even many old ones may not have believed them or been able to do anything about it.

 

The ...distasteful thing about Drowsy is not what he thinks Serbia did in the past. It's what he thinks we should all do in the future.

 

You see Walsie that has been partly what I have been trying to explain to Sarex and Drowsy about the history of Serbia in the Bosnian war. But they seen conditioned around a certain perspective and aren't prepared to certain historical facts

 

I firmly believe that people who come from a country that has had a checkered or controversial past and history shouldn't try to deny it or make excuses for it. By accepting mistakes of the past its almost a cathartic experience and can be liberating. It allows you to move on and helps to not repeat mistakes. It does not define you or your country going forward

 

In South Africa Apartheid IMO can also be considered a crime against humanity. We dehumanized people based on the colour of there skin for decades and we have whole generations of people that don't know what a normal life is. But we don't deny it, we accept it was a terrible and appalling system of segregation. But I don't feel guilty about it. I believe by accepting what we did wrong as South Africans we have a stronger nation that is rebuilding its confidence and self worth. Of course we still have serious social problems that we need to address. This is one of the reasons I take issues of social justice so seriously. I know how harmful they can be to a country if left to fester or they become acceptable

 

As you also alluded to for me if a country doesn't accept its role in past injustices there is the risk they may repeat them

[obyknven]

East Ukrainian seldefence

 

Border with Russia after Odessa massacre  are opened, Border guards just leave positions. First part of volunteers ( Cossacs ) are arrived to East Ukraine.

 http://youtu.be/xi20JwfkB1c

 

Chechen Leader  has given coup government a 72 hour deadline to stop massacre Russians or he says Chechens will enter Ukraine & clean things up. Allahu Akbar!

http://youtu.be/KSg13y0lfcU

http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/730366

 

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

Drowsy I want to ask you two questions. We know that in the Bosnian war most people accept that all three sides committed atrocities. But in the Hague being indicted and charged the majority of people are Serbs. So my questions are

 

• Do you accept that Serbia committed war crimes\atrocities
• Do you accept that the Serbs committed the most  war crimes\atrocities

 

 

I have a question for you Bruce.

 

• How does one independently and with proof, weigh up the atrocities on a scale and see who committed the most atrocities?

[BruceVC]

 

 

Drowsy I want to ask you two questions. We know that in the Bosnian war most people accept that all three sides committed atrocities. But in the Hague being indicted and charged the majority of people are Serbs. So my questions are

 

• Do you accept that Serbia committed war crimes\atrocities
• Do you accept that the Serbs committed the most  war crimes\atrocities

 

 

I have a question for you Bruce.

 

• How does one independently and with proof, weigh up the atrocities on a scale and see who committed the most atrocities?

 

 

Good question, for me its the number of Serbs who are being charged in the Hague compared to the Croats and Bosniaks. During there trials evidence is presented. The Hague is not a kangaroo court. So for me the obvious response to your question would be " the Serbs committed the most atrocities as they have the most people facing charges"

[Meshugger]

Every single time someone mentions "the balkan war" it is like a Hitler-card has been pulled. This is a part of Europe that was already considered as explosive before the fall of the Austrian-Hungarian empire. So in the grand scope if things, the latest developments was only the most recent conlict. Families and clans have killed one another for that insult one uncle did back in 731 that was unforgivable, but not as unforgivable as that horse deal that cousin was a victim of in 1335. So to try to find some "good guys" and "bad guys" in that soup of hatred is simply laughable. What is even more funny is when people try to pick sides as if history started in 1992, resulting in all kinds of hilarious mental gymnastics when trying to justify what is right. What about 1944? or 1453?

[BruceVC]

Every single time someone mentions "the balkan war" it is like a Hitler-card has been pulled. This is a part of Europe that was already considered as explosive before the fall of the Austrian-Hungarian empire. So in the grand scope if things, the latest developments was only the most recent conlict. Families and clans have killed one another for that insult one uncle did back in 731 that was unforgivable, but not as unforgivable as that horse deal that cousin was a victim of in 1335. So to try to find some "good guys" and "bad guys" in that soup of hatred is simply laughable. What is even more funny is when people try to pick sides as if history started in 1992,   be resulting in all kinds of hilarious mental gymnastics when trying to justify what is right. What about 1944? or 1453?

 

That may be true but what has that has got to do with people who live in a particular area acknowledging what there forefathers did in a particular conflict? Do you not think that part of healing process is acceptance of past injustice ?

[Hiro Protagonist]

Speaking of Hitler. Did you know Hitler was into giving Cleveland Steamers? It was either giving it to Eva Braun or one of his nieces. I read it on Wikipedia.

[Malcador]

I forget what DE thinks we should all do in the future. But dude needs to fall in line.

 

I mean, being a United fan? WTF.

[Meshugger]

 

Every single time someone mentions "the balkan war" it is like a Hitler-card has been pulled. This is a part of Europe that was already considered as explosive before the fall of the Austrian-Hungarian empire. So in the grand scope if things, the latest developments was only the most recent conlict. Families and clans have killed one another for that insult one uncle did back in 731 that was unforgivable, but not as unforgivable as that horse deal that cousin was a victim of in 1335. So to try to find some "good guys" and "bad guys" in that soup of hatred is simply laughable. What is even more funny is when people try to pick sides as if history started in 1992,   be resulting in all kinds of hilarious mental gymnastics when trying to justify what is right. What about 1944? or 1453?

 

That may be true but what has that has got to do with people who live in a particular area acknowledging what there forefathers did in a particular conflict? Do you not think that part of healing process is acceptance of past injustice ?

 

 

Because their very cultures are defined by battles and injustices in the past. It would require a monumental shift in their national identities to accomplish peace that would bring a some sort bright future for that kettle of gunpowder. A modern Gandhi if you may, or small small steps for each generation. Having one court investigating the who did what 20 years ago, and packing the bags and declaring that the dark forces are now destroyed is waaaaay too simple thinking for that part of Europe.

 

I will not post more about this, i can already hear some Croat, Serb or Muslim getting their jimmies rustled.

[Gorgon]

 

Ohh it's pretty clear that they went into Srebrenica with the intention of putting a whole lot of people in a hole in the ground. But I suppose Karadžić and Mladić and all their ilk are just misunderstood.

 

I don't think anyone believes that there was a furher directive to kill every Albanian either, rather, for all the men of figthing age guilt by suspicion or association would leave them just as dead.

 

There were albanians in Srebrenica? 

 

Or are you just engaging in creative associations? What of the "dead"there that rose to vote in the subsequent election?

 

Yes, we were so interested in killing every Albanian that we called Associated Press and OSCE observers to watch the conduct of the special forces operation in Racak, whereupon we massacred them all in front of the world's press. Lol. A special brand of naivete is needed to believe that.

 

If the intention of the army was to actually commit genocide;

1) no one would have been able to stop them in time

2) there would be massive and obvious casualties and civillians would die in droves

 

The Hutu's massacred the Tutsi's in Rwanda in several months armed  with little more than machetes. The YNA was armed to the teeth.

 

But you know..stick to your theory.

 

You know, it's funny how you all accuse the West of propping up a facist regime and spend so much care making apologies for killers because they happened to be on your side, geopolitically speaking. You make me sick.

 

Maybe it doesn't meet the criteria for genocide, so what, they were still atrocities.

[HoonDing]

Chechen Leader  has given coup government a 72 hour deadline to stop massacre Russians or he says Chechens will enter Ukraine & clean things up. Allahu Akbar!

http://youtu.be/KSg13y0lfcU

http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/730366

r00fles

[Hiro Protagonist]

I noticed that tree was still standing at the 2.50-3.00 minute mark. So much ammunition and so much fail.

[Sarex]

Because their very cultures are defined by battles and injustices in the past. It would require a monumental shift in their national identities to accomplish peace that would bring a some sort bright future for that kettle of gunpowder. A modern Gandhi if you may, or small small steps for each generation. Having one court investigating the who did what 20 years ago, and packing the bags and declaring that the dark forces are now destroyed is waaaaay too simple thinking for that part of Europe.

 

I will not post more about this, i can already hear some Croat, Serb or Muslim getting their jimmies rustled.

 

Nah, you don't have to stop on account of me. Though I will say this, trough out most of history and wars Serbia was always on the side of the West, no matter who the enemy was how far he outnumbered us and what the consequences were to be. We never got help until it was too late, we always made a difference and we always lost the most because of it. What have we got to show for it today? Being depicted as the villains in every movie and tv show out there, thus poisoning the minds of future generations with rubbish like Serbs are evil, etc. and to add insult to injury a movement has started to revise the history of WW1, where the Serbs are depicted as the aggressors. With nations like Germany, Japan and Croatia it's forgive and forget, no matter what anyone has done, but Serbia it seems has some sins to repent for until the end of days. I mean ffs, even the Americans who are genocidal with Muslims have for some reason stepped in to protect the interests of Albanians, though that had more to do with that giant military base they plopped in Kosovo.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Sarex

[BruceVC]

 

Because their very cultures are defined by battles and injustices in the past. It would require a monumental shift in their national identities to accomplish peace that would bring a some sort bright future for that kettle of gunpowder. A modern Gandhi if you may, or small small steps for each generation. Having one court investigating the who did what 20 years ago, and packing the bags and declaring that the dark forces are now destroyed is waaaaay too simple thinking for that part of Europe.

 

I will not post more about this, i can already hear some Croat, Serb or Muslim getting their jimmies rustled.

 

Nah, you don't have to stop on account of me. Though I will say this, trough out most of history and wars Serbia was always on the side of the West, no matter who the enemy was how far he outnumbered us and what the consequences were to be. We never got help until it was too late, we always made a difference and we always lost the most because of it. What have we got to show for it today? Being depicted as the villains in every movie and tv show out there, thus poisoning the minds of future generations with rubbish like Serbs are evil, etc. and to add insult to injury a movement has started to revise the history of WW1, where the Serbs are depicted as the aggressors. With nations like Germany, Japan and Croatia it's forgive and forget, no matter what anyone has done, but Serbia it seems has some sins to repent for until the end of days. I mean ffs, even the Americans who are genocidal with Muslims has for some reason stepped in to protect the interests of Albanians, though that had more to do with that giant military base they plopped in Kosovo.

 

 

Despite what you may think I don't, for example, think that the Serbs are evil. Its not a question of good and evil, these are manmade constructs and not applicable in a discussion of the Balkans due to the  complexity of the history. What I  keep trying to get you understand is that accepting your countries part in certain events in its past doesn't make you evil or bad. Its not a judgement on Serbia or on it people. Its makes you honest about your history. But this should be seen as something positive that you can now move forward from and strive to not repeat again

 

I'm not sure why you don't understand what I keep trying to explain, maybe someone else can explain it you in a different way because I am obviously failing

 

And I know this  makes sense because of my history as a South African and Apartheid

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

Ohh it's pretty clear that they went into Srebrenica with the intention of putting a whole lot of people in a hole in the ground. But I suppose Karadžić and Mladić and all their ilk are just misunderstood.

 

I don't think anyone believes that there was a furher directive to kill every Albanian either, rather, for all the men of figthing age guilt by suspicion or association would leave them just as dead.

 

There were albanians in Srebrenica? 

 

Or are you just engaging in creative associations? What of the "dead"there that rose to vote in the subsequent election?

 

Yes, we were so interested in killing every Albanian that we called Associated Press and OSCE observers to watch the conduct of the special forces operation in Racak, whereupon we massacred them all in front of the world's press. Lol. A special brand of naivete is needed to believe that.

 

If the intention of the army was to actually commit genocide;

1) no one would have been able to stop them in time

2) there would be massive and obvious casualties and civillians would die in droves

 

The Hutu's massacred the Tutsi's in Rwanda in several months armed  with little more than machetes. The YNA was armed to the teeth.

 

But you know..stick to your theory.

 

You know, it's funny how you all accuse the West of propping up a facist regime and spend so much care making apologies for killers because they happened to be on your side, geopolitically speaking. You make me sick.

 

Maybe it doesn't meet the criteria for genocide, so what, they were still atrocities.

 

 

You avoid discussion and resort to insults and accusations because you're not familiar with the topic beyond news headlines and not willing to entertain the notion that your version of the events might be wrong. I did not make excuses for anyone but illustrate that the narrative was nowhere near as simple as you believe it to be.

But then, you believe Dubrovnik was flattened, so not only is your knowledge of the topic casual at best, you're relying on memory to discuss events from 20 years ago.

[Gorgon]

Deflecting again. Nice. 

 

I already said Dubrovnic wasn't destroyed. You are the one clinging to one disputed 'massacre' and insinuating that all the depraved **** that happened in that conflic really wasn't.