ICTY exonerates Milosevic of all charges

[Sarex]

It's always hilarious to read about ex-Yugoslavians mourning the division of Yugoslavia and then immediately lapsing into accusing all the other Yugoslavian ethnic groups of being genocidal murderers while their own side is, of course, completely innocent.

 

Sorry, but if there ever was a conspiracy to Balkanize Yugoslavia those people are the useful idiots who play their parts exactly as planned. Whether Milosevic is innocent or literally Hitler is a complete red herring to the real issue, which is the petty nationalism which made dividing Yugoslavia like kicking in an open door.

 

Throughout human history, we have first banded together families into tribes, allowing for a basic division of labour. Then, from tribes into nations, in which we act altruistically for an abstract group containing people we have never met. Then, from nations into modern countries which are united around commonly held universal ideals, independent of any particular group. Each level of advancement on this ladder has meant crushing the former primary means of identification in order to introduce a new model for social cohesion, which often means bloodshed - yesterday when determining borders of nations, today when we mix groups of people who do not share the commonly held universal ideals necessary to work together.

 

When people regress to tribalism in modern societies we get corruption and nepotism, when people regress to nationalism we get the situation in Yugoslavia.

 

Oh? Take a look at the current political climate in Croatia, also take a look at who 'Ustase' are, then think of the timing when this behavior started (after joining the EU). I think that the only things the Croats regret from their past was the Germans losing WW2.

 

Serbs don't regret the collapse of Yug, they regret it ever being made. After WW1 we were in the unique position to make our own borders, but the idiot of a king we had wanted to make the great Slav kingdom... Had that not happened we would have kept most of what was once Yugoslavia's territory then, Bosnia wouldn't have come in to "creation" and the Croats would more then likely have disappeared.

 

The only thing that Milosevic is guilty of is being indecisive, he should have gone in full force with the Serbian part of the army and gone to Zagreb. By the time the West could have reacted, we would have already taken everything that matters and could have negotiated to return Zagreb and some of today's Croatian territory.

 

But hey, hindsight is 20/20. Now we wait for the next great war to hit the reset button and hope we survive it.

[Rostere]

Oh? Take a look at the current political climate in Croatia

 

You will have to clarify.

 

 

 

also take a look at who 'Ustase' are, then think of the timing when this behavior started (after joining the EU). I think that the only things the Croats regret from their past was the Germans losing WW2.

 

This is very funny. I almost thought about writing about the Ustase name-calling myself. Now, in any heated argument between Croats and Serbs, the Croats will be called "Ustase", just like the Croat is going to call the other guy a "Chetnik". For those of you who don't know, these were militias during WW2 who engaged in genocidal behaviour against different groups of people.

 

Nowadays, it's essentially just a meaningless word you call other people when they hurt your feelings. If they don't agree with you, then they are Ustase/Chetniks, which means they are basically Hitler, which means you have won the argument.

 

I don't mean to say that historical crimes of the real Ustase and Chetniks were imagined, but the way the words are used today are almost exclusively like SJWs call people Nazis, or other people call SJWs Nazis.

 

 

Had that not happened we would have kept most of what was once Yugoslavia's territory then, Bosnia wouldn't have come in to "creation" and the Croats would more then likely have disappeared.

 

What do you mean? Yugoslavia didn't exist when the borders were re-drawn after WW1. Are you referring to the borders of the Kingdom of Serbia?

 

Here's who were living where approximately around that time:

 

 

I don't see how the Croats would have just "disappeared". In fact, that entire line of thinking, wanting to draw your borders to include more than your own people only to wish for other ethnicities to disappear is exactly what you are accusing the Croats of. Would you think about it for one second, please?

 

Bosnia wasn't created after the break-up of Yugoslavia, it existed as early as the 14th century. It's your neighbouring country, don't embarrass yourself by not knowing the history of your surroundings. I don't get why you would want it to be a part of Serbia - Bosnia is only 31% Serbian by ethnicity. If they should desire to be a part of Serbia (or Croatia), let them vote to be so.

 

 

The only thing that Milosevic is guilty of is being indecisive, he should have gone in full force with the Serbian part of the army and gone to Zagreb. By the time the West could have reacted, we would have already taken everything that matters and could have negotiated to return Zagreb and some of today's Croatian territory.

 

But hey, hindsight is 20/20. Now we wait for the next great war to hit the reset button and hope we survive it.

 

Yes. And the people who think like you on the Croat side is waiting so they can take the territory they claim, and so on... Meanwhile Hungary waits for Serbia to cede northern Vojvodina. If you go far enough back in time and cherry-pick, you can justify pretty much anything.

 

Anyway, you should be happy with the current state of affairs. Croatia has mostly lost territory since the province of Croatia was drawn out within Yugoslavia based on ethnic lines in 1939.

[Sarex]

You will have to clarify.

This is very funny. I almost thought about writing about the Ustase name-calling myself. Now, in any heated argument between Croats and Serbs, the Croats will be called "Ustase", just like the Croat is going to call the other guy a "Chetnik". For those of you who don't know, these were militias during WW2 who engaged in genocidal behaviour against different groups of people.

 

Nowadays, it's essentially just a meaningless word you call other people when they hurt your feelings. If they don't agree with you, then they are Ustase/Chetniks, which means they are basically Hitler, which means you have won the argument.

 

I don't mean to say that historical crimes of the real Ustase and Chetniks were imagined, but the way the words are used today are almost exclusively like SJWs call people Nazis, or other people call SJWs Nazis.

So you don't know anything about the current situation then...

 

The Croatian government is rehabilitating people who committed heinous crimes, supporting Thompson (a band that sings Ustasa's sons and anti-Serb songs in general) and not punishing people who wear Ustasa's insignias and defiling war memorials.

 

In Germany people go to jail for shouting "Zig hajl" in the street, let alone the stuff that is happening in Croatia.

 

As far as what the Cetnik's and Ustasa's have done, it's not even comparable. The fact that you are comparing them show how little you know.

 

 

What do you mean? Yugoslavia didn't exist when the borders were re-drawn after WW1. Are you referring to the borders of the Kingdom of Serbia?

 

Here's who were living where approximately around that time:

 

-image-

 

I don't see how the Croats would have just "disappeared". In fact, that entire line of thinking, wanting to draw your borders to include more than your own people only to wish for other ethnicities to disappear is exactly what you are accusing the Croats of. Would you think about it for one second, please?

 

Bosnia wasn't created after the break-up of Yugoslavia, it existed as early as the 14th century. It's your neighbouring country, don't embarrass yourself by not knowing the history of your surroundings. I don't get why you would want it to be a part of Serbia - Bosnia is only 31% Serbian by ethnicity. If they should desire to be a part of Serbia (or Croatia), let them vote to be so.

 

I mean the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs as wikipedia calls it, which is also wrong and funny as it's real name is the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. See what's missing from that name? That's right, Bosnia. Bosnia is an artificial state made up so that Republic of Srpska (again a funny name from wiki...) would not be able to join Serbia. Why do you think Bosnia and Herzegovina is a federal state today, it sure as hell isn't because it was an independent country before? Before the Bosnian War no one in the world thought that Bosnia was ever a independent state, that's simply revisionist history. Bosnia was at best a province that from time to time changed hands. There are no Bosnian people, there are only Serbs and Croats and Serbs and Croats who changed religion during the Ottoman occupation.

 

I didn't say the Croat people would disappear I said that Croatia would have disappeared. They would have been swallowed by one of it's neighboring countries, probably by all of them. After WW1 they were pretty much a non entity.

 

 

Yes. And the people who think like you on the Croat side is waiting so they can take the territory they claim, and so on... Meanwhile Hungary waits for Serbia to cede northern Vojvodina. If you go far enough back in time and cherry-pick, you can justify pretty much anything.

 

Anyway, you should be happy with the current state of affairs. Croatia has mostly lost territory since the province of Croatia was drawn out within Yugoslavia based on ethnic lines in 1939.

Had what I have said happened there would not have been nearly as many casualties, the economy of both Serbia and Croatia would have been comparable to the rest of the Euro countries. But the thing is that Croats always had a complex about Serbs, but that happens when you are on the loosing side of 2 World Wars and when you see a country stick to their religion even after 500 years of Ottoman occupation. So what happened in the Bosnian war was what Croats wanted to happen, it would have been even worse for the civilians if the West have not held them back from going completely overboard. As for Hungary, well it could happen, it happened with Kosovo it happened with Crimea, but I doubt it, Russia is not what it was in 1990.

 

Why should I be happy, had we made a kingdom of Serbia we would have held most of the Adriatic coast all of Bosnia and most of the territory north of Bosnia and Monte Negro would still be part of Serbia. I don't think you know who's side Croatia was during WW1. Besides if you go to the Adriatic coast (south of Croatia) and ask the people there: "Who are you?", they will not say "A Croat".

Edited August 9, 2016 by Sarex

[Rostere]

The Croatian government is rehabilitating people who committed heinous crimes, supporting Thompson (a band that sings Ustasa's sons and anti-Serb songs in general) and not punishing people who wear Ustasa's insignias and defiling war memorials.

 

In Germany people go to jail for shouting "Zig hajl" in the street, let alone the stuff that is happening in Croatia.

 

So, here's the deal: you want people to be persecuted for wearing Ustase insignia, but you dismiss any court which would look into war crimes committed by Karadzic and others as a kangaroo court. How many people in Serbia openly support Karadzic? How should they be persecuted? What do you think Croats and Bosniaks think about them going without punishment? Do you think Croatians who wear Ustase insignia deny the crimes of the Ustase? Are you starting to see your hypocrisy?

 

 

 

As far as what the Cetnik's and Ustasa's have done, it's not even comparable. The fact that you are comparing them show how little you know.

They have a virtually identical ideology based on ethnically cleansing areas where other people live to make place for their own ethnic group. Their main difference is whom they hated the most - the Chetniks hated Muslims the most and Croats not so much, while the Ustase hated Serbs the most and Muslims not so much. One might have been more competent than the other, but they would have killed just as many given the chance.

 

I mean the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs as wikipedia calls it, which is also wrong and funny as it's real name is the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. See what's missing from that name? That's right, Bosnia. Bosnia is an artificial state made up so that Republic of Srpska (again a funny name from wiki...) would not be able to join Serbia. Why do you think Bosnia and Herzegovina is a federal state today, it sure as hell isn't because it was an independent country before? Before the Bosnian War no one in the world thought that Bosnia was ever a independent state, that's simply revisionist history. Bosnia was at best a province that from time to time changed hands. There are no Bosnian people, there are only Serbs and Croats and Serbs and Croats who changed religion during the Ottoman occupation.

 

Uh... Are you sure you are not confusing

 

State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs

 

and

 

Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (interwar Yugoslavia)?

 

It's not odd at all that a Christian state would omit mentioning its Muslim inhabitants in its official name.

 

Bosnia and Serbia have existed for about as long as states who at various points have been parts of other countries. It's very funny that you as a Serbian (a country which has a very short history of independence) should try to dismiss Bosnia as an independent state. A lot of people from countries with longer history of independence and/or unity probably think Serbia is a joke country stitched together from equal parts ethnic cleansing and luck with international treaties, based on the memory of some province which existed before Ottoman conquest of the Balkans.

 

It would be very unlikely that Serbia could reasonably have long-term ended up with a lot more territory than it has currently. Interwar Yugoslavia was lucky as it is to receive Vojvodina from Hungary and keep Kosovo from Albania. The territory that was at play was pretty much the Eastern parts of current Bosnia. I guess if the borders between provinces inside post-WW2 Yugoslavia would have been redrawn differently, Serbia could have hanged on to parts of Bosnia. As things were, a few facts guaranteed Bosnian independence: One, there were more Bosniaks than Serbs (and the Croatians also favoured Bosnian independence) in Bosnia - just plainly absurd and insane that you dismiss this fact with "there are no Bosnians". Two, the Serbian militias were looking to genocide the Bosniaks, with them having no adjacent state of their own. Obviously the non-Serb population in Bosnia would vote for their independence, if only to save their own skins.

 

If you wonder why Serbia couldn't have gotten just the Easternmost parts which have the highest concentration of Serbs, ask yourself why Serbia has not ceded north Vojvodina to Hungary yet. It's the same question.

 

I didn't say the Croat people would disappear I said that Croatia would have disappeared. They would have been swallowed by one of it's neighboring countries, probably by all of them. After WW1 they were pretty much a non entity.

 

LOL. You know, there are a lot of people in larger countries who would say that Serbs are pretty much a non-entity which could just disappear. That is just typical chauvinism on your part. Of course the Croats, and Croatia, would just not disappear. That's not how things work. You know very well how culture, language, and religion can remain even after long occupations.

 

Had what I have said happened there would not have been nearly as many casualties, the economy of both Serbia and Croatia would have been comparable to the rest of the Euro countries. But the thing is that Croats always had a complex about Serbs, but that happens when you are on the loosing side of 2 World Wars and when you see a country stick to their religion even after 500 years of Ottoman occupation. So what happened in the Bosnian war was what Croats wanted to happen, it would have been even worse for the civilians if the West have not held them back from going completely overboard.

 

Ok, so the content of this extremely mature block of text is essentially: "The Croats are jealous of us Serbs because our religion is so awesome, that's why they made us fight the Bosniaks". Way to go.

 

Why should I be happy, had we made a kingdom of Serbia we would have held most of the Adriatic coast all of Bosnia and most of the territory north of Bosnia and Monte Negro would still be part of Serbia. I don't think you know who's side Croatia was during WW1. Besides if you go to the Adriatic coast (south of Croatia) and ask the people there: "Who are you?", they will not say "A Croat".

 

 

I don't get it... I showed you the map from 1920. There are no parts of the Adriatic coast outside Montenegro which are not majority Croatian.

 

Yes, of course people south of Croatia will not say that they are Croatians. South of Croatia is Montenegro. They will say they are Montenegrins. Duh.

[HoonDing]

Kosovo won gold medal

 

 

problem?

[Varana]

There are no Bosnian people, there are only Serbs and Croats and Serbs and Croats who changed religion during the Ottoman occupation.

Nations are constructs, not natural things. Ethnicity is mainly a function of culture. New ethnic groups can separate from others, or people can pass from one to another. Religion is one aspect that may be a deciding factor in this process. It is a question of self-identification, not for others to tell them.

So while there may have been a time when there was no Bosnian people, there is now. The same with Serbs. Or Norwegians, or whatever.

Neither is it necessary that all members of an ethnic group live in the same state. Or a state of their own.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Varana

[Sarex]

So, here's the deal: you want people to be persecuted for wearing Ustase insignia, but you dismiss any court which would look into war crimes committed by Karadzic and others as a kangaroo court. How many people in Serbia openly support Karadzic? How should they be persecuted? What do you think Croats and Bosniaks think about them going without punishment? Do you think Croatians who wear Ustase insignia deny the crimes of the Ustase? Are you starting to see your hypocrisy?

Wait what? I don't get what you tried to say here at all... How did you manage to connect Karadzic to Ustase I have no clue... I mean, no one cares about Karadzic in Serbia, nor has there been any open support for him. Croats who wear the insignia of Ustase are celebrating their crimes. I'm a hypocrite for judging Ustase? Are you out of your mind? Do you know what Ustase have done? Why the **** are you defending people who celebrate them...

 

 

They have a virtually identical ideology based on ethnically cleansing areas where other people live to make place for their own ethnic group. Their main difference is whom they hated the most - the Chetniks hated Muslims the most and Croats not so much, while the Ustase hated Serbs the most and Muslims not so much. One might have been more competent than the other, but they would have killed just as many given the chance.

 

We are talking about the crimes they committed not the ideologies they had, big difference.

 

 

Uh... Are you sure you are not confusing

 

State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs

 

and

 

Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (interwar Yugoslavia)?

 

It's not odd at all that a Christian state would omit mentioning its Muslim inhabitants in its official name.

 

Bosnia and Serbia have existed for about as long as states who at various points have been parts of other countries. It's very funny that you as a Serbian (a country which has a very short history of independence) should try to dismiss Bosnia as an independent state. A lot of people from countries with longer history of independence and/or unity probably think Serbia is a joke country stitched together from equal parts ethnic cleansing and luck with international treaties, based on the memory of some province which existed before Ottoman conquest of the Balkans.

 

It would be very unlikely that Serbia could reasonably have long-term ended up with a lot more territory than it has currently. Interwar Yugoslavia was lucky as it is to receive Vojvodina from Hungary and keep Kosovo from Albania. The territory that was at play was pretty much the Eastern parts of current Bosnia. I guess if the borders between provinces inside post-WW2 Yugoslavia would have been redrawn differently, Serbia could have hanged on to parts of Bosnia. As things were, a few facts guaranteed Bosnian independence: One, there were more Bosniaks than Serbs (and the Croatians also favoured Bosnian independence) in Bosnia - just plainly absurd and insane that you dismiss this fact with "there are no Bosnians". Two, the Serbian militias were looking to genocide the Bosniaks, with them having no adjacent state of their own. Obviously the non-Serb population in Bosnia would vote for their independence, if only to save their own skins.

 

If you wonder why Serbia couldn't have gotten just the Easternmost parts which have the highest concentration of Serbs, ask yourself why Serbia has not ceded north Vojvodina to Hungary yet. It's the same question.

Yeah I did mix them up, Serbian wiki and English have different titles for some reason (Guess Yugoslavia is the most recognized name). Still that is the country that came to be after WW1 when the borders were drawn.

 

Bosnia never existed as an independent country and Serbia/Raska has a long history that predates the Ottoman occupation. How were we lucky to get Vojvodina from Hungary and keep Kosovo from Albania (What does Albania even have to do with Kosovo), please explain?

 

Again there are no Bosnian people and how were the Serb looking to genocide the Muslim?

 

That's some mighty revisionist history you have there...

 

LOL. You know, there are a lot of people in larger countries who would say that Serbs are pretty much a non-entity which could just disappear. That is just typical chauvinism on your part. Of course the Croats, and Croatia, would just not disappear. That's not how things work. You know very well how culture, language, and religion can remain even after long occupations.

Wanna bet? You think that after WW1 where Croatia came out as a loser and then WW2 where they again sided with the loosing side, they would have been left alone? Yeah culture doesn't work like that and besides apart from religion there were minimal differences in our culture and language. The modern "Croatian language" is a recent invention, if you go back in time, their language is much closer to Serbian than it is today. The modern Croatian is again just their complex about us going full throttle.

 

As for people of larger countries thinking that we are a non-entity, well, for someone who thinks that we are a non-entity they sure pay a lot of attention to us...

 

Ok, so the content of this extremely mature block of text is essentially: "The Croats are jealous of us Serbs because our religion is so awesome, that's why they made us fight the Bosniaks". Way to go.

 

You are putting words in my mouth I never said that, I swear you are getting worse than Bruce in this discussion. Muslim and Croatians made us fight them, that is what happens when you attack someone.

 

 

I don't get it... I showed you the map from 1920. There are no parts of the Adriatic coast outside Montenegro which are not majority Croatian.

 

Yes, of course people south of Croatia will not say that they are Croatians. South of Croatia is Montenegro. They will say they are Montenegrins. Duh.

...South of Croatia as in southern Croatia as in coastal Croatia, as in Dalmacia and Split. Those 2 have a vastly different culture then central Croatia and somehow they are still not an independent country, huh, go figure.

 

 

I have to say that this discussion feels like you just read my comment and opened a Wikipedia page to read up on Balkan history. I mean you can't go backwards from today and get why things are how they are in the present. A lot of things happened in Balkans past and no matter who's revision of the history you read, it's easy to figure out who's is blacker.

 

 

 

Kosovo won gold medal

 

-image-

 

problem?

 

 

Why would I have a problem with my country winning a gold medal. But I have to say, those doping allegations need to be investigated, we like our sportsman clean.

 

 

 

 

There are no Bosnian people, there are only Serbs and Croats and Serbs and Croats who changed religion during the Ottoman occupation.

Nations are constructs, not natural things. Ethnicity is mainly a function of culture. New ethnic groups can separate from others, or people can pass from one to another. Religion is one aspect that may be a deciding factor in this process. It is a question of self-identification, not for others to tell them.

So while there may have been a time when there was no Bosnian people, there is now. The same with Serbs. Or Norwegians, or whatever.

Neither is it necessary that all members of an ethnic group live in the same state. Or a state of their own.

 

 

I agree, but the problem with what you are saying is that the creation of the Bosnian people was not a natural thing and was very forced.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Sarex

[Meshugger]

 

There are no Bosnian people, there are only Serbs and Croats and Serbs and Croats who changed religion during the Ottoman occupation.

Nations are constructs, not natural things. Ethnicity is mainly a function of culture. New ethnic groups can separate from others, or people can pass from one to another. Religion is one aspect that may be a deciding factor in this process. It is a question of self-identification, not for others to tell them.

So while there may have been a time when there was no Bosnian people, there is now. The same with Serbs. Or Norwegians, or whatever.

Neither is it necessary that all members of an ethnic group live in the same state. Or a state of their own.

 

 

People make culture not the other way around. Also, i wouldn't compare Bosnia to similar multi-ethnic countries like Switzerland, which was created under significantly different circumstances. 

 

But anyways, the thread has gone exactly as expected. First you have the usual "who was there first/who has most historical claim to the land" and secondly, you have people from other countries trying to lecture the people of Balkan on how horrible their sense of ethnic identity is/was and how it is good to bomb them into submission in their vein sense of LARPing as Tito.

 

As someone who has traveled to the Balkans and talked to the locals, i was surprised on how different they were from each other in terms of customs, looks and behaviour, even if they all have a slavic undertones. No wonder it required oppressive governments like the Austro-Hungarian/Ottoman/Yugoslav to make them to get along with each other.

[BruceVC]

 

 

There are no Bosnian people, there are only Serbs and Croats and Serbs and Croats who changed religion during the Ottoman occupation.

Nations are constructs, not natural things. Ethnicity is mainly a function of culture. New ethnic groups can separate from others, or people can pass from one to another. Religion is one aspect that may be a deciding factor in this process. It is a question of self-identification, not for others to tell them.

So while there may have been a time when there was no Bosnian people, there is now. The same with Serbs. Or Norwegians, or whatever.

Neither is it necessary that all members of an ethnic group live in the same state. Or a state of their own.

 

 

People make culture not the other way around. Also, i wouldn't compare Bosnia to similar multi-ethnic countries like Switzerland, which was created under significantly different circumstances. 

 

But anyways, the thread has gone exactly as expected. First you have the usual "who was there first/who has most historical claim to the land" and secondly, you have people from other countries trying to lecture the people of Balkan on how horrible their sense of ethnic identity is/was and how it is good to bomb them into submission in their vein sense of LARPing as Tito.

 

As someone who has traveled to the Balkans and talked to the locals, i was surprised on how different they were from each other in terms of customs, looks and behaviour, even if they all have a slavic undertones. No wonder it required oppressive governments like the Austro-Hungarian/Ottoman/Yugoslav to make them to get along with each other.

 

And then you have people like yourself feeding and encouraging the false narrative that war crimes weren't committed by Serbia and the NATO bombing was " completely frivolous and unfair "

 

So I guess no one is really being helpful 

 

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

There are no Bosnian people, there are only Serbs and Croats and Serbs and Croats who changed religion during the Ottoman occupation.

Nations are constructs, not natural things. Ethnicity is mainly a function of culture. New ethnic groups can separate from others, or people can pass from one to another. Religion is one aspect that may be a deciding factor in this process. It is a question of self-identification, not for others to tell them.

So while there may have been a time when there was no Bosnian people, there is now. The same with Serbs. Or Norwegians, or whatever.

Neither is it necessary that all members of an ethnic group live in the same state. Or a state of their own.

 

 

People make culture not the other way around. Also, i wouldn't compare Bosnia to similar multi-ethnic countries like Switzerland, which was created under significantly different circumstances. 

 

But anyways, the thread has gone exactly as expected. First you have the usual "who was there first/who has most historical claim to the land" and secondly, you have people from other countries trying to lecture the people of Balkan on how horrible their sense of ethnic identity is/was and how it is good to bomb them into submission in their vein sense of LARPing as Tito.

 

As someone who has traveled to the Balkans and talked to the locals, i was surprised on how different they were from each other in terms of customs, looks and behaviour, even if they all have a slavic undertones. No wonder it required oppressive governments like the Austro-Hungarian/Ottoman/Yugoslav to make them to get along with each other.

 

And then you have people like yourself feeding and encouraging the false narrative that war crimes weren't committed by Serbia and the NATO bombing was " completely frivolous and unfair "

 

So I guess no one is really being helpful 

 

 

Did i struck a nerve? Good. The first step is to realize that in conflicts like the ones in the Balkans that there wasn't any 'good' sides as different groups were fighting for their own interests. For every siege of Dubrovnik there was a bombing of Mostar, for every Krajina there was a Kosovo, so on and so forth. 

[Rostere]

How did you manage to connect Karadzic to Ustase I have no clue...

Both were trying to ethnically cleanse their way to "Greater Serbia"/"Greater Croatia". Tomato, meet potato.

 

I mean, no one cares about Karadzic in Serbia, nor has there been any open support for him.

Would be great if correct I guess, I was only basing what I wrote on what I've heard from various Balkan expatriates I know IRL.

 

Croats who wear the insignia of Ustase are celebrating their crimes. I'm a hypocrite for judging Ustase? Are you out of your mind? Do you know what Ustase have done? Why the **** are you defending people who celebrate them...

No, you are not a hypocrite for judging the Ustase. You are a hypocrite for not judging the Serbian nationalist militias with ideology similar to the Ustase. I'm not defending people who celebrate them. I'm accusing people who seem very aware of the faults of the Ustase ideology, but are unable to see the errors of the same ideology when its proponents are of a different ethnicity.

 

We are talking about the crimes they committed not the ideologies they had, big difference.

Okay. So you mean to judge people purely by their crimes, how many they killed, and not by their motives or their relative means.

 

So, that means you also must agree that Stalin and Mao were worse than Hitler. The Israelis are clearly worse, even several orders of magnitude worse than the Palestinians, by this measure. I could go on - by subscribing to this incredibly simplified and naive worldview, where you do not take intent and ideology into account, you are limiting yourself to the point of making yourself blind.

 

How were we lucky to get Vojvodina from Hungary and keep Kosovo from Albania (What does Albania even have to do with Kosovo), please explain?

 

The answer to your first question is obvious. Vojvodina was very ethnically mixed, and at the time, Serbs were a minority. Vojvodina would never have become a part of Serbia if not for the fact that Austria-Hungary was on the losing side in the war.

 

Similarly, Kosovo contains - and at the previous turn of the century contained - a majority of Albanians. If people would have decided to give areas to the people who live there, Kosovo would have become independent from Serbia or been given to Albania.

 

Again there are no Bosnian people and how were the Serb looking to genocide the Muslim?

 

That's some mighty revisionist history you have there...

 

According to the Yugoslavian census, Bosniaks, or Yugoslavian Muslims, were the third largest group of people in Yugoslavia. Who were these people who answered that they were Muslims or Bosniaks when the census was made?

 

Come on, you are extremely ignorant of the crimes committed in the region by others than the Ustase. The Serbian Chetniks went after the Muslims first during WW2, and then later the army of the Bosnian Serbs, the JNA plus various militia groups did so in the 1990s. Get up to date with the list here. That list obviously does not include every killing of a civilian, but it provides enough examples.

 

Wanna bet? You think that after WW1 where Croatia came out as a loser and then WW2 where they again sided with the loosing side, they would have been left alone?

 

This is stupid. Winning a war does not entitle you to ethnically cleanse the opposition from your lands. Basically, you are saying that Croatia was in the right in the 1990s, because they clearly held their own in that conflict and so could remove Serbs from their lands.

 

Yeah culture doesn't work like that and besides apart from religion there were minimal differences in our culture and language. The modern "Croatian language" is a recent invention, if you go back in time, their language is much closer to Serbian than it is today. The modern Croatian is again just their complex about us going full throttle.

 

Yes, but if they are so similar, why don't they vote to join Serbia? Clearly, if your thesis is correct, all you would have to do is wait for the eventual reunion. I don't think you are making that more likely by accusing all Croatians of being Ustase sympathizers and talking about waiting for the next war, all you are doing is perpetuating the conflict.

 

British English and American English are also virtually identical as languages. But that doesn't mean it gives one people any claim to the lands of the other. Right? It's silly to engage in that type of chauvinism. If they feel they are Croatians, they are Croatians.

 

...South of Croatia as in southern Croatia as in coastal Croatia, as in Dalmacia and Split. Those 2 have a vastly different culture then central Croatia and somehow they are still not an independent country, huh, go figure.

 

Okay. So not "south of Croatia" but "the South of Croatia". In the present. Let us re-examine your claims - it's not very hard, since a lot of maps have been made detailing what groups of people live where.

 

Circa 1998. Circa 2000. Circa 2008. Circa 2010.

 

Nope. No significant numbers of non-Croatians anywhere on any part of the coast of Croatia. Looks like you are talking out of your ass again.

 

You are probably referring to the areas in south and central Croatia which had significant Serbian populations before the war.

 

I have to say that this discussion feels like you just read my comment and opened a Wikipedia page to read up on Balkan history. I mean you can't go backwards from today and get why things are how they are in the present. A lot of things happened in Balkans past and no matter who's revision of the history you read, it's easy to figure out who's is blacker.

 

Sarex gets found out on being confused about factual matters - accuses other person of reading at Wikipedia (shock!!!).

[Sarex]

Both were trying to ethnically cleanse their way to "Greater Serbia"/"Greater Croatia". Tomato, meet potato.

 

The only comparison I see working there, is if you were comparing the leaders of Croatia, the Bosnian Muslims and Karadzic. They were all trying to kill as many of the other as possible. But hey, only 1 was put on trial.

 

Would be great if correct I guess, I was only basing what I wrote on what I've heard from various Balkan expatriates I know IRL.

 

Ok, let me rephrase that, no one I know cares about him, nor is there any public support for him.

 

 

Okay. So you mean to judge people purely by their crimes, how many they killed, and not by their motives or their relative means.

 

So, that means you also must agree that Stalin and Mao were worse than Hitler. The Israelis are clearly worse, even several orders of magnitude worse than the Palestinians, by this measure. I could go on - by subscribing to this incredibly simplified and naive worldview, where you do not take intent and ideology into account, you are limiting yourself to the point of making yourself blind.

 

Yes, they are worse. You are crazy if you think Hitler was worse then Stalin and Mao. The Israelis are trying to cleanse the area of Palestinians, they have weapons of mass destruction while the Palestinians have sticks and rocks. If you read even a little bit of history instead of subscribing to Fox news history you would see why that was the case.

 

 

The answer to your first question is obvious. Vojvodina was very ethnically mixed, and at the time, Serbs were a minority. Vojvodina would never have become a part of Serbia if not for the fact that Austria-Hungary was on the losing side in the war.

 

Similarly, Kosovo contains - and at the previous turn of the century contained - a majority of Albanians. If people would have decided to give areas to the people who live there, Kosovo would have become independent from Serbia or been given to Albania.

  

 

Again you are looking at history backwards... But it doesn't matter as you confirmed what I said, as Austria-Hungary was on the losing side, so was Croatia.

 

You are moving goalposts and strawmanning... Firstly look at the history of Kosovo and you will see that Albania has no connection to it, second, then why did we keep it in your opinion then and not today?

 

 

According to the Yugoslavian census, Bosniaks, or Yugoslavian Muslims, were the third largest group of people in Yugoslavia. Who were these people who answered that they were Muslims or Bosniaks when the census was made?

 

Come on, you are extremely ignorant of the crimes committed in the region by others than the Ustase. The Serbian Chetniks went after the Muslims first during WW2, and then later the army of the Bosnian Serbs, the JNA plus various militia groups did so in the 1990s. Get up to date with the list here. That list obviously does not include every killing of a civilian, but it provides enough examples.

 

They were Serbs and Croats who changed religion during the Ottoman occupation. They changed religion so they would be treated as citizens and not be subject to "Danak u Krvi" (taking children while they are young to train them as elite soliders) and "Pravo Prve Bracne noci" (taking brides on their first wedding night) among the other things they have done.

 

As for what Cetniks have done, no one is denying that, but claim it was on the same scale as Ustase is delusional. As for what for what happened in the 1990, aka Srebrenica, I already talked about that, what the Muslims who were executed have done before they were caught, fully earned them death. Still it was a mistake and crime to kill them in cold blood, they should have been tried and executed.

 

This is stupid. Winning a war does not entitle you to ethnically cleanse the opposition from your lands. Basically, you are saying that Croatia was in the right in the 1990s, because they clearly held their own in that conflict and so could remove Serbs from their lands.

 

I never said they would have been ethically cleansed, but as you said for Vojvodina, so it would have been then.

 

Also they held their own, lol... What war were you reading on? The west rained fire until we moved our troops back. Yeah, they held their own against unarmed civilians.

 

Yes, but if they are so similar, why don't they vote to join Serbia? Clearly, if your thesis is correct, all you would have to do is wait for the eventual reunion. I don't think you are making that more likely by accusing all Croatians of being Ustase sympathizers and talking about waiting for the next war, all you are doing is perpetuating the conflict.

 

British English and American English are also virtually identical as languages. But that doesn't mean it gives one people any claim to the lands of the other. Right? It's silly to engage in that type of chauvinism. If they feel they are Croatians, they are Croatians.

 

Wait, what. They did vote to join Serbia, do you remember us talking about the Kingdom of Serb, Croat and Slovenes (Yugoslavia)? The only reason we fell apart is because the West pressed pressure points and promised backing for the Bosnian war, they wanted to weaken Yugoslavia as they did not need a third side in Europe. If you look at how the Croatian government is behaving today and who is arming them, you will see why I am so pragmatic.

 

Lol, if that were the case Texas would be an independent state and I'm too lazy to look but there were other cases in the US where people wanted to call for Independence in America... Might is right and if you think anything else you are delusional.

 

 

Okay. So not "south of Croatia" but "the South of Croatia". In the present. Let us re-examine your claims - it's not very hard, since a lot of maps have been made detailing what groups of people live where.

 

Circa 1998. Circa 2000. Circa 2008. Circa 2010.

 

Nope. No significant numbers of non-Croatians anywhere on any part of the coast of Croatia. Looks like you are talking out of your ass again.

 

You are probably referring to the areas in south and central Croatia which had significant Serbian populations before the war.

 

I didn't say they would say "I am a Serb." ... They would identify as a Dalmatian people. They pretty much dislike the Croat, if not hate.

 

 

Sarex gets found out on being confused about factual matters - accuses other person of reading at Wikipedia (shock!!!).

 

Were was I confused? I only made a mistake when finding the English versions of names so you could search what I was talking about and I admitted it. Also if you think that what you are talking about are facts, you are delusional.

 

The bigger issue I have, which you ignored is the way you discuss. If you take a look at your post, you are just moving goalposts and attacking strawman, and it can be seen in the rising number of quotes in each of your posts.

[Rostere]

The only comparison I see working there, is if you were comparing the leaders of Croatia, the Bosnian Muslims and Karadzic. They were all trying to kill as many of the other as possible. But hey, only 1 was put on trial.

 

Yes, I mean to compare all movements who acted and intended to remove/kill people of different ethnicities. What do you mean? Lots of people have been put on trial.

 

Yes, they are worse. You are crazy if you think Hitler was worse then Stalin and Mao. The Israelis are trying to cleanse the area of Palestinians, they have weapons of mass destruction while the Palestinians have sticks and rocks. If you read even a little bit of history instead of subscribing to Fox news history you would see why that was the case.

Hitler only killed so few because he didn't win the war. This is what would have happened if he had won instead of Stalin. Seriously, read about it. The effects would be worse by far than anything Stalin tried. All of them are villains in my mind, but Hitler is the worst.

 

I'm not trying to, and I don't want to defend Israel. If you have read what I write on this forum you know that I am very sceptical towards Israel, and especially the American policy towards Israel. But that does not mean that I sympathize with all Palestinians. Hamas is Israel's ace in the sleeve. As long as a potentially genocidal movement is one of the most popular among (non-Israeli) Palestinians, a sensible peace deal can't be made. If a Nelson Mandela or Gandhi-type movement gained traction, Israel's apartheid system would fall apart like a house of cards in a hurricane. Sadly, all Israeli leaders who are not idiots realize this, which is why we get the current situation.

  

But it doesn't matter as you confirmed what I said, as Austria-Hungary was on the losing side, so was Croatia.

Irrelevant. This also means that you concede that every concession forced upon Serbia in losing wars was justified. What is morally right does not change with who wins which wars.

 

Firstly look at the history of Kosovo and you will see that Albania has no connection to it, second, then why did we keep it in your opinion then and not today?

You haven't been paying attention, or you haven't understood anything of what I've written. There are two ways to decide the borders of nations. One, you look at the ethnicity of the inhabitants. Two, you look at the historical borders.

 

Looking at the ethnicity of the inhabitants is your argument for letting Republika Srpska split from Bosnia and join Serbia. By the same argument, Serbia has no right to rule the parts of northern Vojvodina where Hungarians live, nor Kosovo where Albanians live.

 

Looking at historical borders, we could possibly try to argue against splitting Kosovo from Serbia, and definitely against splitting Vojvodina, but that also means we can't divide Bosnia. And since a majority of people in Bosnia do not want to be a part of Serbia, Bosnia stays out of Serbia.

 

You are trying to use one of these principles to add more territory to your "Greater Serbia" and the other to prevent other people from using the same argument as you remove territory from Serbia. This makes you either a hypocrite, or even an idiot, or possibly even both.

 

As for what Cetniks have done, no one is denying that, but claim it was on the same scale as Ustase is delusional. As for what for what happened in the 1990, aka Srebrenica, I already talked about that, what the Muslims who were executed have done before they were caught, fully earned them death. Still it was a mistake and crime to kill them in cold blood, they should have been tried and executed.

I didn't say it was on the "same scale" (whatever that means), and that is not relevant to my argument. I'm saying that their ideologies were virtually the same. The Ustase managed to kill more people, but that is just a historical coincidence. If the Nazis had supported the Chetniks to the same extent they supported the Ustase and vice versa, the Chetniks would have killed more.

 

It's sad that you don't realize that murdering 8000 civilians and dumping them in mass graves is an immoral and despicable act. The Ustase, who thought that they were defending themselves against Serbian territorial encroachment, also did not realize that killing thousands of civilians was immoral. I'm sure they also had their "reasons", real and imagined, just like you, and the Nazis, and everyone else who coincidentally thinks that this kind of behaviour is OK only if their guys are the ones doing it. Think about it, can you give any other examples of justified mass murder of civilians, or is it just when Serbian Good Guys do it that it happens to be justified? You might begin to ask yourself if you are a hypocrite.

 

Besides, Srebnica is just a single example. Serbian military, police and paramilitary units were responsible for every kind of war crime you can imagine. From packing civilians - men, women and children - into buses and blowing them up with bazookas, to throwing people off bridges and cliffs and shooting at them like clay pidgeons, to systematic rape. It's sad that you have to coyly ask me here on this forum "When did the Serbs try to kill Muslims?" as if you didn't know this already. Didn't you learn this in school? You clearly learned about the Ustase, and about crimes against Serbs during the 1990s, so why not about crimes perpetrated by Serbs?

 

Also they held their own, lol... What war were you reading on? The west rained fire until we moved our troops back. Yeah, they held their own against unarmed civilians.

Of course they had superior allies. But so did Serbia in WW1. Who "won" by the virtue of being on the same side as Russia, France, UK and the US. Are Serbia going to give Vojvodina back to Hungary because it also was won in an unfair fight? No, I don't think so. It's not about who wins what in a fight. Don't be a hypocrite, judge everyone by the same standards.

 

If might makes right, do you agree that Austria-Hungary had been justified to annex Serbia if no other countries had gotten involved? Or do you think the Ottoman conquest of Serbia was morally right? Just because you win a war does not mean you are morally entitled to anything.

 

Wait, what. They did vote to join Serbia, do you remember us talking about the Kingdom of Serb, Croat and Slovenes (Yugoslavia)? The only reason we fell apart is because the West pressed pressure points and promised backing for the Bosnian war, they wanted to weaken Yugoslavia as they did not need a third side in Europe.

Yes, the reason you fell apart is because of people like you who think that everything your side ever does is totally justified, while the other side is utterly evil. All the West needed to do was to make sure that a Serbian (in this case) nationalist got to lead multi-ethnic Yugoslavia, and then watch from afar, laugh and crack open the champagne as Yugoslavia (a country with no insignificant clout on the international scene) crumbled into tiny warring irrelevant mini-states. To me it is absurd, repugnant and incomprehensible that you think the murder of 8000 human beings (taking only into account one single massacre) could be justified. Equally absurd it is to you that people who idolize the Ustase think the murder of 400000 (or something similar) could be justified.

 

Do you think Croats were born evil? The sad fact is that if you would have been born a Croat in Croatia, you would probably have been a lot more sympathetic to the Ustase yourself. That is because Croats are probably brainwashed by their school, media and so on with various denials and justifications to their crimes, just like you think the mass murder of 8000 was justified or at worst a necessary evil, nevermind the other war crimes you probably did not get told about in school. Of course the crimes of the Ustase are worse, but the tendencies are the exact same. And this nationalism can be extremely easily exploited, as we have seen. And the most sad and tragic thing is that people like you don't even realize what has happened afterwards.

 

Lol, if that were the case Texas would be an independent state and I'm too lazy to look but there were other cases in the US where people wanted to call for Independence in America... Might is right and if you think anything else you are delusional.

Yes, I 100% think Texas should be able to vote to secede if they wanted to. And I'm sure that there are more people on this forum who agree with me.

 

BTW: "Might is right" = "Ustase were right to kill 400000 Serbs because they had the might to do so" = Sarex fails at thinking.

 

I didn't say they would say "I am a Serb." ... They would identify as a Dalmatian people. They pretty much dislike the Croat, if not hate.

That's funny, anecdotally I know people originally from the Dalmatian coast and they do not regard themselves as "Dalmatians". By the way, Dalmatia contains 20-25% of the Croatian population. I find it absurd that 20-25% "dislike the Croat, if not hate" and yet there are no Dalmatian regionalist parties in the Croat parliament. Hell, there are even Istrian and Slavonic parties, but no Dalmatian ones. This claim of yours is looking more and more like you are being confused again. Are you sure you are referring to a current movement and not a historical one?

[Rostere]

Also if you think that what you are talking about are facts, you are delusional.

Okay. So according to you, what I'm talking about are not facts. On the other hand, your totally non-confused factual tales of Dalmatians south of Croatia who "pretty much dislike the Croat, if not hate", the Bosnian state which never existed (even though the Kingdom of Bosnia briefly conquered Serbia in medieval times), your rhetorical (I hope) inquiries about when exactly any Serbs have tried to kill Bosnian Muslims and so on are totally knowledgeable facts and statements laid forth by a 100% non-confused individual. Got it.

 

I'm not saying every fact I present is absolute and not open to debate or interpretation. But maybe you should stop blurting out very dubious "facts" out your ass yourself before you accuse me of doing so.

 

The bigger issue I have, which you ignored is the way you discuss. If you take a look at your post, you are just moving goalposts and attacking strawman, and it can be seen in the rising number of quotes in each of your posts.

I might be guilty of throwing too much ridicule on throwaway statements you make with little relevance to the core matter at hand just for the lulz, but otherwise nothing of what you write. It's very bad debating style to just say "Strawman!!!!" without pointing to any examples, much less giving a reason for why the given examples are strawmen arguments. I'm not saying I don't have patience with you, but other people reading your posts might think you are an idiot trying to substitute real arguments with name-calling and ****-flinging if you do this. Sadly, "strawman" has become the go-to word for Internet idiots when they don't understand an argument, just like "plot hole" is the go-to phrase of idiot movie reviewers who don't understand movies (you can probably Google "plot hole solaris" or "plot hole stalker" to see what I mean).

 

Me choosing to split my reply into multiple quotes is just a matter of convenience, otherwise it would be unclear which statements I am replying to. I often get irritated at people writing blobs of text with no clear points of reference to the post they are replying to. Deal with it.

[Sarex]

Yes, I mean to compare all movements who acted and intended to remove/kill people of different ethnicities. What do you mean? Lots of people have been put on trial.

 

The leaders of Croatia and Muslim Bosnia were not put on trial and any person that mattered was either acquitted or not put on trial.

 

 

Hitler only killed so few because he didn't win the war. This is what would have happened if he had won instead of Stalin. Seriously, read about it. The effects would be worse by far than anything Stalin tried. All of them are villains in my mind, but Hitler is the worst.

 

I'm not trying to, and I don't want to defend Israel. If you have read what I write on this forum you know that I am very sceptical towards Israel, and especially the American policy towards Israel. But that does not mean that I sympathize with all Palestinians. Hamas is Israel's ace in the sleeve. As long as a potentially genocidal movement is one of the most popular among (non-Israeli) Palestinians, a sensible peace deal can't be made. If a Nelson Mandela or Gandhi-type movement gained traction, Israel's apartheid system would fall apart like a house of cards in a hurricane. Sadly, all Israeli leaders who are not idiots realize this, which is why we get the current situation.

 

History is written by the victors. I know for a fact that the Croatian leaders during WW2 did things far worse than what happened on Hitlers watch, the only issue was that they didn't have the manpower he did or the same efficiency.

 

I mean I treat Israel the same way as colonial Americans, the world did not judge them for exterminating the Indigenous Americans so why would it judge the Israeli. As I said, might is right, whether people like it or not.

 

Irrelevant. This also means that you concede that every concession forced upon Serbia in losing wars was justified. What is morally right does not change with who wins which wars.

 

Yeah, relevant when it supports your argument, but irrelevant when it doesn't. I imagine that most things are that way for you. It doesn't, what's you point? When has morality ever matter in any war?

 

 

You haven't been paying attention, or you haven't understood anything of what I've written. There are two ways to decide the borders of nations. One, you look at the ethnicity of the inhabitants. Two, you look at the historical borders.

 

Looking at the ethnicity of the inhabitants is your argument for letting Republika Srpska split from Bosnia and join Serbia. By the same argument, Serbia has no right to rule the parts of northern Vojvodina where Hungarians live, nor Kosovo where Albanians live.

 

Looking at historical borders, we could possibly try to argue against splitting Kosovo from Serbia, and definitely against splitting Vojvodina, but that also means we can't divide Bosnia. And since a majority of people in Bosnia do not want to be a part of Serbia, Bosnia stays out of Serbia.

 

You are trying to use one of these principles to add more territory to your "Greater Serbia" and the other to prevent other people from using the same argument as you remove territory from Serbia. This makes you either a hypocrite, or even an idiot, or possibly even both.

 

Or 3, you take it from them...

 

We have a historical right to Bosnia too. Whether from the Ottoman Empire or WW1. Vojvodina doesn't have more Hungarians than Serbs, it has a lot of people with dual citizenship, as for Kosovo, well considering that most Serbs were ethnically cleansed from there with the help of the US, yeah there are a lot more Albanians now.

 

I just told you that Bosnia is a recent creation made by the West, what history are you reading? You know that Srebrenica is trying to secede for Republika Srpska? What is your opinion on that?

 

 

I didn't say it was on the "same scale" (whatever that means), and that is not relevant to my argument. I'm saying that their ideologies were virtually the same. The Ustase managed to kill more people, but that is just a historical coincidence. If the Nazis had supported the Chetniks to the same extent they supported the Ustase and vice versa, the Chetniks would have killed more.

 

It's sad that you don't realize that murdering 8000 civilians and dumping them in mass graves is an immoral and despicable act. The Ustase, who thought that they were defending themselves against Serbian territorial encroachment, also did not realize that killing thousands of civilians was immoral. I'm sure they also had their "reasons", real and imagined, just like you, and the Nazis, and everyone else who coincidentally thinks that this kind of behaviour is OK only if their guys are the ones doing it. Think about it, can you give any other examples of justified mass murder of civilians, or is it just when Serbian Good Guys do it that it happens to be justified? You might begin to ask yourself if you are a hypocrite.

 

Besides, Srebnica is just a single example. Serbian military, police and paramilitary units were responsible for every kind of war crime you can imagine. From packing civilians - men, women and children - into buses and blowing them up with bazookas, to throwing people off bridges and cliffs and shooting at them like clay pidgeons, to systematic rape. It's sad that you have to coyly ask me here on this forum "When did the Serbs try to kill Muslims?" as if you didn't know this already. Didn't you learn this in school? You clearly learned about the Ustase, and about crimes against Serbs during the 1990s, so why not about crimes perpetrated by Serbs?

 

The mere fact that you are saying that it's not relevant shows how distorted your argument is. How is it a historical, coincidence... One supported the Nazi regime, the other fought against it. What is a coincidence there? I mean we won WW2 and Cetniks didn't go on to kill people in droves after it, was that a coincidence too?

 

More like 2000 paramilitary soldiers that killed, tortured, raped, desecrated and burned down Serbian villages around Srebrenica for 4 years before they were caught. What territorial encroachment? Their reason was that they hated Serbs, they had no ulterior motives for doing what they did, nor did they ever make any claims to them. As I said, they weren't civilians, all the civilians were evacuated by Ratko Mladic from Srebrenica. Hmmm, how about the American genocide of the indigenous Americans, they seemed to think it was justified and the rest of the world doesn't seem to have any objections to it.

 

Yeah they also ate children... They though us that in the 3rd grade. According to the west every person killed in the war by Serbs is a civilian, that they had a gun in their hand was irrelevant. Must be those American values where every civilian has a gun, that has people confused. I mean yeah, there were civilian casualties and crimes in the war, but there always are. I haven't heard you complain about the civilian casualties in the NATO bombing in 1999.

 

Of course they had superior allies. But so did Serbia in WW1. Who "won" by the virtue of being on the same side as Russia, France, UK and the US. Are Serbia going to give Vojvodina back to Hungary because it also was won in an unfair fight? No, I don't think so. It's not about who wins what in a fight. Don't be a hypocrite, judge everyone by the same standards.

 

If might makes right, do you agree that Austria-Hungary had been justified to annex Serbia if no other countries had gotten involved? Or do you think the Ottoman conquest of Serbia was morally right? Just because you win a war does not mean you are morally entitled to anything.

 

Not a good comparison at all. In WW1 Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia supported Serbia, Germany supported Austria-Hungary. We fought Austria-Hungary with our own power and won the first 2 Allied victories in the war (in a fair-fight(we were even massively outnumbered and out gunned)). While in the case of the Bosnian war, first of it was a Civil war, second they attacked us, third they did not fight with their own power, 4th there was not supposed to be a side/allies in that war, NATO was supposed to stop conflicts and the war. I'm glad you admit that the West was an ally of Croatia.

 

Well in this case they didn't have the might and again who cares about mortality in war. When has mortality ever mattered in a war?

 

Yes, the reason you fell apart is because of people like you who think that everything your side ever does is totally justified, while the other side is utterly evil. All the West needed to do was to make sure that a Serbian (in this case) nationalist got to lead multi-ethnic Yugoslavia, and then watch from afar, laugh and crack open the champagne as Yugoslavia (a country with no insignificant clout on the international scene) crumbled into tiny warring irrelevant mini-states. To me it is absurd, repugnant and incomprehensible that you think the murder of 8000 human beings (taking only into account one single massacre) could be justified. Equally absurd it is to you that people who idolize the Ustase think the murder of 400000 (or something similar) could be justified.

 

Do you think Croats were born evil? The sad fact is that if you would have been born a Croat in Croatia, you would probably have been a lot more sympathetic to the Ustase yourself. That is because Croats are probably brainwashed by their school, media and so on with various denials and justifications to their crimes, just like you think the mass murder of 8000 was justified or at worst a necessary evil, nevermind the other war crimes you probably did not get told about in school. Of course the crimes of the Ustase are worse, but the tendencies are the exact same. And this nationalism can be extremely easily exploited, as we have seen. And the most sad and tragic thing is that people like you don't even realize what has happened afterwards.

 

Nope, all the West needed to do, was promise military support to Tujman and give him a little nudge. Well the west certainly didn't seem to have any issues letting Ratko Mladic take Srebrenica after 4 years of defending it. As for it being justified, well considering what they have done for those 4 years to the Serbian people in the surrounding areas, I can't say I feel sorry for them. What other massacres where there?

 

I doubt I would have supported Ustase, as I do not support the Cetniks either. Yeah we are all brainwashed, only you the high and mighty protector of justice who spouts the same **** as the rest of the people who live under a glass dome and subscribe to Fox news, know the "Truth" and what is right and wrong. Go parrot that BS to Bruce, I think that you and him are on the same wavelength, except I'm pretty sure that he is trolling.

 

 

Yes, I 100% think Texas should be able to vote to secede if they wanted to. And I'm sure that there are more people on this forum who agree with me.

 

BTW: "Might is right" = "Ustase were right to kill 400000 Serbs because they had the might to do so" = Sarex fails at thinking.

 

Yeah, but as might is right who gives a **** for what you and the other people think, that simply isn't going to happen.

 

Google the meaning of the idiom "Might is right" or "Might makes right", because you seem to not understand it.

 

 

That's funny, anecdotally I know people originally from the Dalmatian coast and they do not regard themselves as "Dalmatians". By the way, Dalmatia contains 20-25% of the Croatian population. I find it absurd that 20-25% "dislike the Croat, if not hate" and yet there are no Dalmatian regionalist parties in the Croat parliament. Hell, there are even Istrian and Slavonic parties, but no Dalmatian ones. This claim of yours is looking more and more like you are being confused again. Are you sure you are referring to a current movement and not a historical one?

 

 

Instead of "knowing" people, go there and see for yourself. Historically and presently they have not identified themselves as Croatian, this is widely known in the region. If you knew the language you could google it your self. The Dalmatian people are as culturally different from Croatian, as the Croatian are from Serb. Also the Dalmatian people do not dislike the Serb and that irks the Croat to no end.

 

 

Okay. So according to you, what I'm talking about are not facts. On the other hand, your totally non-confused factual tales of Dalmatians south of Croatia who "pretty much dislike the Croat, if not hate", the Bosnian state which never existed (even though the Kingdom of Bosnia briefly conquered Serbia in medieval times), your rhetorical (I hope) inquiries about when exactly any Serbs have tried to kill Bosnian Muslims and so on are totally knowledgeable facts and statements laid forth by a 100% non-confused individual. Got it.

 

I'm not saying every fact I present is absolute and not open to debate or interpretation. But maybe you should stop blurting out very dubious "facts" out your ass yourself before you accuse me of doing so.

 

I might be guilty of throwing too much ridicule on throwaway statements you make with little relevance to the core matter at hand just for the lulz, but otherwise nothing of what you write. It's very bad debating style to just say "Strawman!!!!" without pointing to any examples, much less giving a reason for why the given examples are strawmen arguments. I'm not saying I don't have patience with you, but other people reading your posts might think you are an idiot trying to substitute real arguments with name-calling and ****-flinging if you do this. Sadly, "strawman" has become the go-to word for Internet idiots when they don't understand an argument, just like "plot hole" is the go-to phrase of idiot movie reviewers who don't understand movies (you can probably Google "plot hole solaris" or "plot hole stalker" to see what I mean).

 

Me choosing to split my reply into multiple quotes is just a matter of convenience, otherwise it would be unclear which statements I am replying to. I often get irritated at people writing blobs of text with no clear points of reference to the post they are replying to. Deal with it.

 

It's funny, because it's pretty easy to see that most of your ideas and facts come from the western media. Your ideologies are sheltered and naive.

 

 

As for examples, all of you post are like that. You are moving the goalpost, I think this one is obvious as every successive post you make, has more quotes and addresses more and more different points. We started this argument as to why I considered the Hague to be a kangaroo court... You are strawmanning every quote I answer by attacking another point.

 

And the moralistic fallacy that is pretty much in every post you made is painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Sarex

[213374U]

Been watching this exchange a bit. So let's recap, then:

 

"Croats would have disappeared"

 

"creation of Bosniaks was not natural"

 

"we have a historical right to Bosnia"

 

"can't feel sorry for Srebrenica"

 

"might makes right"

 

Did I forget anything?

 

The fact that you are here crying about NATO bombings and western kangaroo courts after the stuff you've been posting makes you a world-class hypocrite. Just sayin'.

 

Carry on...

[Sarex]

Been watching this exchange a bit. So let's recap, then:

 

"Croats would have disappeared"

 

"creation of Bosniaks was not natural"

 

"we have a historical right to Bosnia"

 

"can't feel sorry for Srebrenica"

 

"might makes right"

 

Did I forget anything?

 

The fact that you are here crying about NATO bombings and western kangaroo courts after the stuff you've been posting makes you a world-class hypocrite. Just sayin'.

 

Carry on...

 

Golf clap

 

Hypocrite - A person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

 

I don't see it. Especially with you misquoting me and taking things out of context.

 

As for the original topic at hand. You 2 do not see it as laughable that the man who was made out to be the biggest criminal at the turn of the millennia, who was the poster boy for the Wests involvement in the war, was exonerated by hiding the verdict in another mans indictment and the only reason was so that crime could be pinned on that man.

 

Might want to look at a mirror.

[213374U]

Yup. You simply do not have a moral leg to stand on to condemn the west -or anyone else really- for its abuses after what you've posted, sorry. That's textbook hypocrisy right there.

 

Context doesn't change the essence of what you've been saying, and that's basically that any ethnicities in the Balkans are fake (except Serb ofc) and that someone else's crimes justify your own.

 

You know what's laughable? That with my posting history here, you try to paint me now as a western shill, just because I'm not into your crypto-Greater Serbia rubbish.

[Sarex]

Yup. You simply do not have a moral leg to stand on to condemn the west -or anyone else really- for its abuses after what you've posted, sorry. That's textbook hypocrisy right there.

 

Context doesn't change the essence of what you've been saying, and that's basically that any ethnicities in the Balkans are fake (except Serb ofc) and that someone else's crimes justify your own.

 

You know what's laughable? That with my posting history here, you try to paint me now as a western shill, just because I'm not into your crypto-Greater Serbia rubbish.

 

I don't care what you posting history is and who's side you are on, what does that have to do with anything...

 

If you really want to boil down what I said down to one sentence, it's that we would have been much better off without the Kingdom of Serb Croat and Slovenes, that the Bosnian people have not historically existed and that it was a mistake to kill the 2000 in Srebrenica considering that it was set up as a trap and that they should have had a trial no matter what those 2000 have done.

 

Also where did I say that someone else's crimes justify our own?

 

edit: I don't know what's got your panties in a bunch, I wrote pretty much the same things in one of the first iterations of Oby's Ukraine threads in my discussion with Trashman.

edit2: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65450-ukraine-redux/page-7<Here it is. I forgot that I started that discussion because of Bruce...

Edited August 14, 2016 by Sarex

[213374U]

If you really want to boil down what I said down to one sentence, it's that we would have been much better off without the Kingdom of Serb Croat and Slovenes, that the Bosnian people have not historically existed and that it was a mistake to kill the 2000 in Srebrenica considering that it was set up as a trap and that they should have had a trial no matter what those 2000 have done.

 

Also where did I say that someone else's crimes justify our own?

 

 

No, that's not how it would be summed up at all. This is what you actually said:

 

 

More like 2000 paramilitary soldiers that killed, tortured, raped, desecrated and burned down Serbian villages around Srebrenica for 4 years before they were caught. [...] As I said, they weren't civilians, all the civilians were evacuated by Ratko Mladic from Srebrenica.

 

[...]

 

As for it being justified, well considering what they have done for those 4 years to the Serbian people in the surrounding areas, I can't say I feel sorry for them.

And sorry but you're just plain wrong about Bosniaks.

[Sarex]

No, that's not how it would be summed up at all. This is what you actually said:

 

 

More like 2000 paramilitary soldiers that killed, tortured, raped, desecrated and burned down Serbian villages around Srebrenica for 4 years before they were caught. [...] As I said, they weren't civilians, all the civilians were evacuated by Ratko Mladic from Srebrenica.

 

[...]

 

As for it being justified, well considering what they have done for those 4 years to the Serbian people in the surrounding areas, I can't say I feel sorry for them.

And sorry but you're just plain wrong about Bosniaks.

 

 

 

I also said this:

 

As for what Cetniks have done, no one is denying that, but claim it was on the same scale as Ustase is delusional. As for what for what happened in the 1990, aka Srebrenica, I already talked about that, what the Muslims who were executed have done before they were caught, fully earned them death. Still it was a mistake and crime to kill them in cold blood, they should have been tried and executed.

 

That I think that they fully deserved to die is another matter. I still think it's a crime that should be punished.