Do you Serbs regret ideas of Milosovic? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Do you Serbs regret ideas of Milosovic?

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-30-2011, 12:01 AM
What is your point of view after all this years?

Tito with all his flaws was still able to keep the union and the constitution in 74 gave people many rights.

Milosovic believed in the Serbian identity only and wasn't able to understand minorities rights, wars erupted, thousands died and union dissolved. He had many supporters between Serbs.

Do you think things should have been done differently? Do you regret what happened, or you still think he is a good leader? Or do you think the union was going to dissolve any way after death of Tito?

Please reply.


Edit July 2014: Because of what is happening now in the world I am starting to look at this conflict differently so I am re-opening it for further debate to understand because I am confused now very much..

vucina
10-30-2011, 12:23 AM
What is your point of view after all this years?

Tito with all his flaws was still able to keep the union and the constitution in 74 gave people many rights.

Milosovic believed in the Serbian identity only and wasn't able to understand minorities rights, wars erupted, thousands died and union dissolved. He had many supporters between Serbs.

Do you think things should have been done differently? Do you regret what happened, or you still think he is a good leader? Or do you think the union was going to dissolve any way after death of Tito?

Please reply.

Where are you from sweetheart?

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 03:05 AM
What is your point of view after all this years?

Tito with all his flaws was still able to keep the union and the constitution in 74 gave people many rights.

Milosovic believed in the Serbian identity only and wasn't able to understand minorities rights, wars erupted, thousands died and union dissolved. He had many supporters between Serbs.

Do you think things should have been done differently? Do you regret what happened, or you still think he is a good leader? Or do you think the union was going to dissolve any way after death of Tito?

Please reply.

I think you should first read his 1989 speech in Kosovo Polje. http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~bip/docs/kosovo_polje/kosovo_polje.html

Then read what the Western media says about his 1989 speech.

It's like night and day.

What you think you know about that region is nothing but a mishmash of lies, distortions, half-truths, and some truth.

Don't get me wrong: there were people and politicians on all sides in those conflicts (of course Serbs among them) who espoused disgusting ideologies, but Milosevic was not one of them.

shiaben
10-30-2011, 04:08 AM
I personally admire and support Tito for uniting a region historically known for having hostile tensions for many centuries. But the unfortunate news was that it was bound to fail since cultural identities prevail over social and economic mutuality. His idea of cross-functional teams was quite an amazing one when he was in power. I don't know how this man even managed to glue this area together.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 04:20 AM
I personally admire and support Tito for uniting a region historically known for having hostile tensions for many centuries. But the unfortunate news was that it was bound to fail since cultural identities prevail over social and economic mutuality. His idea of cross-functional teams was quite an amazing one when he was in power. I don't know how this man even managed to glue this area together.

Tito burnished a nice surface on the country as a whole. It was constructed on an edifice of lies. You cannot lie about history with a slogan like "Brotherhood and unity," then think that brainwashing schoolchildren will make people forget what happened.

It's a good lesson to everyone: indoctrinating schoolkids and ruling with an iron fist doesn't stop people from passing down personal memories within their own home, from generation to generation.

My view of Tito is rather dim as my grandfather was imprisoned for 7 years in an Alcatraz-like place called Goli Otok. And that was for saying something he wasn't supposed to say.

shiaben
10-30-2011, 04:31 AM
Tito burnished a nice surface on the country as a whole. It was constructed on an edifice of lies. You cannot lie about history with a slogan like "Brotherhood and unity," then think that brainwashing schoolchildren will make people forget what happened.

It's a good lesson to everyone: indoctrinating schoolkids and ruling with an iron fist doesn't stop people from passing down personal memories within their own home, from generation to generation.

My view of Tito is rather dim as my grandfather was imprisoned for 7 years in an Alcatraz-like place called Goli Otok. And that was for saying something he wasn't supposed to say.

Well, these types of nations, have plenty of pros and cons. I have family that hate the USSR and I have family that love the USSR (of course of the ones that lived during that time). When it comes to Yugoslavia, the same story, I've met and spoke with people that either hated it, loved it, or were simply satisfied (wasn't bad, wasn't great either, just satisfactory). So for people that are liberal and aggressive, these environments are certainly a threat. It limits their capabilities. But for those that are more simple minded, peaceful, hard working, and conservative, it's probably more ideal for them. They just want their basic needs met (family, food, home, school, work, basic survival).

As for Milosevic (in reference to the operator), I think some Serbs will probably admire him because of patriotic reasons, while others will despise him for being a dictator. But of course today since he's old news, I think some people probably won't care talking about him.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 04:59 AM
Well, these types of nations, have plenty of pros and cons. I have family that hate the USSR and I have family that love the USSR (of course of the ones that lived during that time). When it comes to Yugoslavia, the same story, I've met and spoke with people that either hated it, loved it, or were simply satisfied (wasn't bad, wasn't great either, just satisfactory). So for people that are liberal and aggressive, these environments are certainly a threat. It limits their capabilities. But for those that are more simple minded, peaceful, hard working, and conservative, it's probably more ideal for them. They just want their basic needs met (family, food, home, school, work, basic survival).

As for Milosevic (in reference to the operator), I think some Serbs will probably admire him because of patriotic reasons, while others will despise him for being a dictator. But of course today since he's old news, I think some people probably won't care talking about him.

I would agree with what you say in the first part. My grandfather was a communist and WWII resistance fighter. He was also a medical doctor. During the period when Tito's relations with Stalin were cooling, my grandfather stated privately to a colleague that it was not right that relations with the USSR (i.e. Russia) be suspended so easily, especially given the role the USSR had in setting up communist Yugoslavia and liberating the area from the Nazis. That was sufficient to end up in prison, I guess.

I think Milosevic had very little support in 2000, because he was perceived at best as incompetent and at worst as a Western spy. Almost nobody in Serbia, other than the far left liberals, perceived him as a racist, rabid nationalist, or dictator. That's because, compared to many other people at the time and particularly his political opponents in Serbia and abroad (Seselj, Djindjic, Draskovic, etc.), Milosevic was actually quite a moderate. He was cast in the same socialist mold as his wife, Mira Markovic, which meant elevation of socialist PC ideals over crude nationalism. He was in many ways a relic of socialism after most of Eastern Europe had turned to capitalism and Eurointegrationist politics.

Milosevic started regaining some support until his death because his defense at The Hague was seen by many Serbs - including myself - as well as outsiders, as a refutation of the Western media/historical narrative. He didn't try to merely save his own skin by claiming ignorance, lack of control, or shifting the blame to a subordinate. He actively worked to present the other side of the story, to cast doubt on the evidence presented by the prosecutors, and to undo a false picture. Whether he succeeded or not is not yet clear, but anybody who reads the transcripts of his ICTY trial will see that he was not the person he was portrayed as being and that the history of the destruction of Yugoslavia was very different from the pabulum fed to the masses by Western and Islamic media outlets.

I am sure that you, as an Iranian (I suppose), are well aware of the power of media demonization. Overlook facts, take up false and idle reports, inflate figures, cover up history, and outright lie, etc. It's yellow journalism. If you read the contemporary Greek/Russian/Chinese media on the destruction of Yugoslavia, it will seem that Milosevic was a peacemaker trying to combat madmen on the opposing side.

Time Violation
10-30-2011, 08:56 AM
Don't get me wrong: there were people and politicians on all sides in those conflicts (of course Serbs among them) who espoused disgusting ideologies, but Milosevic was not one of them.

:lol:

I think Milosevic had very little support in 2000, because he was perceived at best as incompetent and at worst as a Western spy. Almost nobody in Serbia, other than the far left liberals, perceived him as a racist, rabid nationalist, or dictator. That's because, compared to many other people at the time and particularly his political opponents in Serbia and abroad (Seselj, Djindjic, Draskovic, etc.), Milosevic was actually quite a moderate. He was cast in the same socialist mold as his wife, Mira Markovic, which meant elevation of socialist PC ideals over crude nationalism.

:lol:

If you read the contemporary Greek/Russian/Chinese media on the destruction of Yugoslavia, it will seem that Milosevic was a peacemaker trying to combat madmen on the opposing side.

:haha:

Blimey, that was a funny read. :)

What is your point of view after all this years?

Tito with all his flaws was still able to keep the union and the constitution in 74 gave people many rights.

Milosovic believed in the Serbian identity only and wasn't able to understand minorities rights, wars erupted, thousands died and union dissolved. He had many supporters between Serbs.

Do you think things should have been done differently? Do you regret what happened, or you still think he is a good leader? Or do you think the union was going to dissolve any way after death of Tito?

Please reply.

He was no leader, more like a wrong man in a wrong place in a wrong time. Of course the union was going to dissolve as soon as the US $$$ dried up, however they didn't have to burn the house down. Of course, it wasn't his fault exclusively, but he had his share in it.

I've never voted for him nor approved what he did, same goes for lots of others here, so in a way we are all victims of the wrong politics that was implemented here.

Getta
10-30-2011, 03:09 PM
If you read the contemporary Greek/Russian/Chinese media on the destruction of Yugoslavia, it will seem that Milosevic was a peacemaker trying to combat madmen on the opposing side.

could not be more wrong. truth is that there were extreme-far-right Orthodox Christian Greek lunatics (including Archbishop Serafeim) who supported Serb war criminals. also, extreme-far-right Orthodox Christian Greek lunatic volunteers participated in Srebrenica massacre. but, the vast majority of Greek population do feel ashamed, humiliated and guilty for what those extreme-far-right Orthodox Christian lunatic Greeks have done.

Greeks were truly objected and completely opposed to NATO bombardment of Serbia and the intervention of NATO in the Balkans. opinion polls conducted in the middle of April 1999 showed Greeks to be 98% against the bombing. meanwhile the Greek government supported the NATO action...

Lopez
10-30-2011, 05:13 PM
Campaign thread

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-30-2011, 05:26 PM
If you read the contemporary Greek/Russian/Chinese media on the destruction of Yugoslavia, it will seem that Milosevic was a peacemaker trying to combat madmen on the opposing side.

But I notice that most of Milosovic supporters are people who can't say neglecting minorities rights was part of the problem. Many of them have right wing religious ideas.
Do those people still like Milosovic and still think things went totally okay, and the problem was from outsiders like a conspiracy, or they are revising their ideas now?
Whom they think are responsible for the killings that happened?
I feel the problem is so complicated and I want to understand every party feelings before having a conclusion. I am currently reading history of Balkan and I want to understand people and not just read history books.

Vida
10-30-2011, 05:27 PM
I dont regret any ideas I had about him.

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-30-2011, 05:28 PM
I dont regret any ideas I had about him.

What were your ideas about him?

Vida
10-30-2011, 05:32 PM
What were your ideas about him?

bad ones. mostly that he was a crazy fck.

Vida
10-30-2011, 05:34 PM
But I notice that most of Milosovic supporters are people who can't say neglecting minorities rights was part of the problem. Many of them have right wing religious ideas.
Do those people still like Milosovic and still think things went totally okay, and the problem was from outsiders like a conspiracy, or they are revising their ideas now?
Whom they think are responsible for the killings that happened?
I feel the problem is so complicated and I want to understand every party feelings before having a conclusion. I am currently reading history of Balkan and I want to understand people and not just read history books.

this isnt quite true. for many years, sloba ruled with the support from leftists, mostly nostalgic communist pensioners who did nothing else but watch state propaganda.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 05:37 PM
could not be more wrong. truth is that there were extreme-far-right Orthodox Christian Greek lunatics (including Archbishop Serafeim) who supported Serb war criminals. also, extreme-far-right Orthodox Christian Greek lunatic volunteers participated in Srebrenica massacre. but, the vast majority of Greek population do feel ashamed, humiliated and guilty for what those extreme-far-right Orthodox Christian lunatic Greeks have done.

Greeks were truly objected and completely opposed to NATO bombardment of Serbia and the intervention of NATO in the Balkans. opinion polls conducted in the middle of April 1999 showed Greeks to be 98% against the bombing. meanwhile the Greek government supported the NATO action...

Your post is contradictory. If mainstream Greek views were in line with the first part of your post, they would hardly be 98% opposed to the bombing. The bombing campaign was constructed on a false image of the conflicts, in which there was a predatory invading genocidal aggressor on one side and innocent helpless victims on the other. That picture was misleading and false and I suspect that that was the perspective embraced by many, if not most, Greeks. From my experience with Greek Americans, admittedly limited, their views are also not generally in line with the first part of your post.

From wikipedia:

Several polls were conducted, of which revealed that 99.5% of the Greek population were completely opposed to the bombing, with 85% believing Nato's motives were strategic and not humanitarian.[25] 69% wanted Bill Clinton tried for war crimes, while 52% opposed the admittance of Kosovo Albanian refugees to Greece

Takis Michas is the main figure in the Greeks-as-Srebrenica-perpetrators story. While I understand that perspective a bit, I think it is absurd to consider it without taking into account that probably 10-100 times as many Muslim volunteers (as Greek volunteers) were brought into Bosnia by Izetbegovic to hack off heads and other body parts of Serbs and Croats. I am not one of those people who would elevate Srebrenica above any other atrocity of the war, because I realize full well that it has been thoroughly propagandized and abused as a political instrument, and am therefore suspect of much of what has been said on the matter. And frankly I am more scandalized by a number of other atrocities (perpetrated by Serbs, Croats, Muslims, and Albanians) that happened in those conflicts.

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-30-2011, 05:39 PM
bad ones. mostly that he was a crazy fck.

Did all of your family have bad ideas about him? Was going against him hard? Like it was hard for you to admit it in all places cause most people supported him? Was there a definite opposition within Serbs that thought his ideas were dangerous?

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-30-2011, 05:45 PM
this isnt quite true. for many years, sloba ruled with the support from leftists, mostly nostalgic communist pensioners who did nothing else but watch state propaganda.

Did they support him when he wanted to change the constitution?

Vida
10-30-2011, 05:45 PM
Did all of your family have bad ideas about him? Was going against him hard? Like it was hard for you to admit it in all places cause most people supported him? Was there a definite opposition within Serbs that thought his ideas were dangerous?

me, my family and all my friends were against him as were all informed people. who supported him were blind pensioners, some peasants (also blind), and social rejects.

numerically, majority was against him (at least after 92, when it became clear what was going on with him), but he inherited the crocked system from the past and manipulated it very effectively that it was very difficult to overthrow him. it was finally done in 2000 after a massive demonstrations.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 05:47 PM
But I notice that most of Milosovic supporters are people who can't say neglecting minorities rights was part of the problem. Many of them have right wing religious ideas.
Do those people still like Milosovic and still think things went totally okay, and the problem was from outsiders like a conspiracy, or they are revising their ideas now?
Whom they think are responsible for the killings that happened?
I feel the problem is so complicated and I want to understand every party feelings before having a conclusion. I am currently reading history of Balkan and I want to understand people and not just read history books.

First, Milosevic was not supported by far right wing religious people. Those people had a monarchist orientation. Karadzic was more in line with them. Milosevic was a leftist, an atheist, and considered a traitor by many of those people.

Look at an ethnic map of Serbia and you will see that most if not all of the minorities are exactly where they were before 1991. Slovaks, Hungarians, Vlachs, Bulgarians, Muslims, Croats, and Albanians.

This map is from 1940 (just before WWII):

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/MAPS/Ethnic-groups/map-Nazi-1940.jpg

This is a map from 2002:

http://global-atlas.jrc.it/maps/PUBLIC/Serbia_Ethnic_Map_A4.jpg

As you can see, the only major change was the expulsion of Germans as punishment for WWII collaboration, which happened at the end of the war and was done by the Communists under Tito, not by Milosevic or any Serb leader before him.

As for who was responsible for most of the killings, I believe it was local police and captains, as well as paramilitaries, and their subordinates. When a conflict like this breaks out between former neighbors, especially those who may have had grudges from the past, the bloodshed can be awful. Most Westerners try to see this through the lens of WWII history, where German soldiers and SS under political command perpetrate crimes. That is completely the wrong way to look at this because the mentality of the people is very different, very individualistic, very tending towards factiousness and rebellion.

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-30-2011, 05:50 PM
I think it is absurd to consider it without taking into account that probably 10-100 times as many Muslim volunteers (as Greek volunteers) were brought into Bosnia by Izetbegovic to hack off heads and other body parts of Serbs and Croats.

From what I understand Izetbegovic didn't have support within Bosnians till nationalist ideas from the other side appeared. He was a no body in 70s that didn't find support for his Islamic nationalist ideas.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 05:54 PM
From what I understand Izetbegovic didn't have support within Bosnians till nationalist ideas from the other side appeared. He was a no body in 70s that didn't find support for his Islamic nationalist ideas.

The waves of nationalism were as follows:

1.) Croatian spring in the 1970s.

2.) Albanians in Kosovo in the mid 1980s (when they had autonomy, they wanted a republic).

3.) Serbs in Kosovo and more generally in the late 1980s.

4.) Bosnian Muslims in the early 1990s.

It is true that Izetbegovic was not supported initially by Muslims as much as a much better option. This man was called Fikret Abdic, who was the legally elected head of the Muslims. Izetbegovic did a political maneuver to sideline Abdic and take his place.

Abdic was a tolerant man who dealt well with both Serbs and Croats and ruled a small enclave in Velika Kladusa during the war. He was allied with the Serbs and Croats and an enemy of the Izetbegovic Muslims during the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fikret_Abdić

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-30-2011, 05:57 PM
As for who was responsible for most of the killings, I believe it was local police and captains, as well as paramilitaries, and their subordinates. When a conflict like this breaks out between former neighbors, especially those who may have had grudges from the past, the bloodshed can be awful. Most Westerners try to see this through the lens of WWII history, where German soldiers and SS under political command perpetrate crimes. That is completely the wrong way to look at this because the mentality of the people is very different, very individualistic, very tending towards factiousness and rebellion.

What is the origin of the grudge between neighbors?

shiaben
10-30-2011, 05:58 PM
Cleopatra, you have to be very specific about Milosevic. Are you referring to "regrets" in terms of govt. influence in Serbia?
In which Vida, Aloimeh, and everyone else have already answered. Or are you referring to Milosevic in terms of war?
(against the neighboring nations).

I never understood why Montenegro separated from Serbia after a long stay. I don't know if this was U.S. influence pressuring them
to become a nation to make Serbia smaller, or if they really wanted to become sovereign. They did recognize Kosovo, so for this reason,
I'm going to assume could have been outside political pressure, unless of course Montenegrins themselves thought their land would take
a hit if they remain with Serbia because of economic problems of the time.

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-30-2011, 06:02 PM
The waves of nationalism were as follows:

1.) Croatian spring in the 1970s.

[/URL]

I read that Croatian spring was due to unfairness towards Croats and that they were supported by left progressives against the majority of communists, then Tito allowed the 74 constitution which was more progressive.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 06:03 PM
Cleopatra, you have to be very specific about Milosevic. Are you referring to "regrets" in terms of govt. influence in Serbia?
In which Vida, Aloimeh, and everyone else have already answered. Or are you referring to Milosevic in terms of war?
(against the neighboring nations).

I never understood why Montenegro separated from Serbia after a long stay. I don't know if this was U.S. influence pressuring them
to become a nation to make Serbia smaller, or if they really wanted to become sovereign. They did recognize Kosovo, so for this reason,
I'm going to assume could have been outside political pressure, unless of course Montenegrins themselves thought their land would take
a hit if they remain with Serbia because of economic problems of the time.

Historically most Montenegrins considered themselves Serbs and only a small minority considered themselves a separate ethnic group. Milo Djukanovic, who drove the independence of Montenegro, was far more nationalistic than Milosevic in the 1990s and called for tougher measures and more warfare.

So the Montenegrin flip-flop is purely a result of politics. They thought they could get by better with tourism and Western cash than in a union with Serbia. Unfortunately, they continue with this policy even while continuing to take advantage of benefits offered (in the past and still now) by Serbia.

Vida
10-30-2011, 06:05 PM
Cleopatra, you have to be very specific about Milosevic. Are you referring to "regrets" in terms of govt. influence in Serbia?
In which Vida, Aloimeh, and everyone else have already answered. Or are you referring to Milosevic in terms of war?
(against the neighboring nations).

I never understood why Montenegro separated from Serbia after a long stay. I don't know if this was U.S. influence pressuring them
to become a nation to make Serbia smaller, or if they really wanted to become sovereign. They did recognize Kosovo, so for this reason,
I'm going to assume could have been outside political pressure, unless of course Montenegrins themselves thought their land would take
a hit if they remain with Serbia because of economic problems of the time.

montenegro separated from 'serbia and montenegro' because that way their govermant could have continued their criminal ventures without being overly bothered.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 06:06 PM
What is the origin of the grudge between neighbors?

Primarily the events of WWII. There are many documentaries I could upload for you if you are interested in any particular theater of war.

To give you an example, in 1992 local Serbs in Visegrad murdered hundreds of Bosnian Muslim civilians.
In this same town in 1942 about 6000 Serb civilians were murdered by Muslim and Croat fascists on the banks of the Drina River.

Another example, in 1992 on Mt. Majevica near Tuzla local Serbs killed about 60 Muslim civilians.
During WWII more than 500 Serbs were killed by Muslims at the same location.

That's just two examples, probably the ones that best illustrate the aspect of local revenge. There are many, many others.

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-30-2011, 06:10 PM
Cleopatra, you have to be very specific about Milosevic. Are you referring to "regrets" in terms of govt. influence in Serbia?
In which Vida, Aloimeh, and everyone else have already answered. Or are you referring to Milosevic in terms of war?
(against the neighboring nations).



I mean in general. What do they think of that time, and do they believe the war was going to happen any way. Or that Milosovic and others had influence in creating hate and violence. Like, was there a possibility of preventing hate and violence with other leaders and ideas? Was there a definite political and social opposition who was telling people to adopt more tolerant ideas, do they regret not joining it now?

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 06:13 PM
I read that Croatian spring was due to unfairness towards Croats and that they were supported by left progressives against the majority of communists, then Tito allowed the 74 constitution which was more progressive.

I don't know what Croats were yapping about, but they always thought Yugoslavia was "keeping them down." They were the primary drivers of Yugoslav disintegration before WWII and after WWII.

A proper reflection of history indicates quite the opposite, i.e. that Yugoslavia helped the Croats gain territory and political sovereignty.

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-30-2011, 06:15 PM
Primarily the events of WWII. There are many documentaries I could upload for you if you are interested in any particular theater of war.

But what exactly happened that it was so easy to kill your neighbor. Were relations totally nonexistent between people before that time. What triggered violence?

I see you edited the post to add 2 incidents. I want to understand why the grudge didn't fade out after many years, and how the relations between people were between ww2 and 90s? Why did violence erupted again in 90s?

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 06:17 PM
I mean in general. What do they think of that time, and do they believe the war was going to happen any way. Or that Milosovic and others had influence in creating hate and violence. Like, was there a possibility of preventing hate and violence with other leaders and ideas? Was there a definite political and social opposition who was telling people to adopt more tolerant ideas, do they regret not joining it now?

You should read "Bridge on the Drina" and "Black Lamb and Grey Falcon." They will give you a proper perspective of the hatred that bubbles beneath the surface in that particular region, particularly Bosnia and Croatia.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Milosevic had a minimal influence in creating or propagating hatred. The hatred existed before and especially after WWII and could only be suppressed by force, a la Tito. When the rule of law broke down during wartime, people took "justice" into their own hands and started avenging grudges from WWII and even before.

The fault for all of this lies with the fact that Tito and his band of Croat-Slovene communists decided to fabricate history. They invented "Brotherhood and Unity," thinking that people would really buy into it. Those who aligned with the Nazis - primarily Croats, but also Muslims and Albanians - were never denazified, so they remained fixed in their former attitudes.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 06:24 PM
But what exactly happened that it was so easy to kill your neighbor. Were relations totally nonexistent between people before that time. What triggered violence?

There was an anti-Serb hostility among Croats dating to the 1800s. It stems from different social statuses of the two groups in the Austro-Hungarian empire. Serbs were free farmers and military men, directly under the control of the Austrian Emperor. Croats were mostly serfs of the Hungarians.

Ante Starcevic was the father of the rabidly anti-Serb ideology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ante_Starčević He is also the father of modern Croatian nationalism.

The Roman Catholic church was also extremely hostile to the Orthodox Church, especially after the Vatican-Yugoslav Concordat failed. Thus, Catholic priests often inspired massacres and conducted them. Even nuns murdered Serb children. Both priests and nuns were involved in the concentration camps and killed people in them.

Those factors coupled with the German/Italian invasion of 1941 set the groundwork for a fascist Croatian state which attempted to exterminate every last Serb, Jew, and Gypsy they could get their hands on.

Muslims in Bosnia either embraced a Croat ethnicity ("Muslim Croats") or were coerced into doing so. They thus collaborated extensively with the Croat anti-Serb campaign, massacring Serbs and assisting in deportations to Jasenovac and other death camps in Croatia and Bosnia.

Also, Muslims were bitter because of the agricultural reform that took place in 1919 after WWI. Muslim landowners who controlled most of the land lost this property and it was given to the people living on it, who were mostly Serb farmers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Kosovo Albanians are quite apart from the Croat-Muslim situation. They merely wanted Kosovo for themselves and killed and expelled Serbs during the war. Albanians and Serbs never had great relations and always lived parallel existences, probably due to the language difference.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 06:26 PM
But what exactly happened that it was so easy to kill your neighbor. Were relations totally nonexistent between people before that time. What triggered violence?

I see you edited the post to add 2 incidents. I want to understand why the grudge didn't fade out after many years, and how the relations between people were between ww2 and 90s? Why did violence erupted again in 90s?

Well, as I said, the perpetrators of WWII were never really punished. Nobody answered for all those murders.

There are cavernous pits throughout Croatia and Bosnia called "jame" (pronounced ya-meh) which contain the skeletons of tens of thousands of Serbs (and thousands of Jews). They are particularly dense in what is called Herzegovina, Lika, Banija, Kordun, and western Bosnia.

The Communists did not allow the Serbs to even exhume their victims from these pits. Instead, they covered them with cement plugs while the beasts who did the killings roamed free and some even became communist politicians in those municipalities.

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-30-2011, 06:26 PM
You should read "Bridge on the Drina" and "Black Lamb and Grey Falcon." They will give you a proper perspective of the hatred that bubbles beneath the surface in that particular region, particularly Bosnia and Croatia.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Milosevic had a minimal influence in creating or propagating hatred. The hatred existed before and especially after WWII and could only be suppressed by force, a la Tito. When the rule of law broke down during wartime, people took "justice" into their own hands and started avenging grudges from WWII and even before.

The fault for all of this lies with the fact that Tito and his band of Croat-Slovene communists decided to fabricate history. They invented "Brotherhood and Unity," thinking that people would really buy into it. Those who aligned with the Nazis - primarily Croats, but also Muslims and Albanians - were never denazified, so they remained fixed in their former attitudes.

The thing that I don't understand is that in this situation there is no third option, it's either separation or equal rights for all with forgetting the past. Why did Milosovic and his supporters tried to keep the union when they think they can't live with others.

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-30-2011, 06:35 PM
Well, as I said, the perpetrators of WWII were never really punished. Nobody answered for all those murders.

There are cavernous pits throughout Croatia and Bosnia called "jame" (pronounced ya-meh) which contain the skeletons of tens of thousands of Serbs (and thousands of Jews). They are particularly dense in what is called Herzegovina, Lika, Banija, Kordun, and western Bosnia.

The Communists did not allow the Serbs to even exhume their victims from these pits. Instead, they covered them with cement plugs while the beasts who did the killings roamed free and some even became communist politicians in those municipalities.

That is awful and ending ww2 was so important to leaders that they neglected the grief of victims families.
But in 90s people who did the massacres in ww2 were already dead and making revenge massacres wasn't going to help.
I will order this book, it seems deep http://www.amazon.com/Bridge-Drina-Phoenix-Fiction/dp/0226020452 but I also want to read the other side.

shiaben
10-30-2011, 06:39 PM
Thank you guys about Montenegro*

Here is kind of how I see it:

1. Slovenia and Croatia, wanted to separate from the start because they were the more wealthier of the nations of former Yugoslavia. From the inception to its death, most of these people did not want to share their lands resources with their neighbors. They only wanted the lands for themselves. I guess in some sense they were greedy and accused poorer nations like Bosnia, Serbia, and Macedonia etc. of leeching off of them. While wealth was important to these two, so was cultural nationalism that had always existed in these regions.

2. Albanians of Kosovo, Kosovo separated more for cultural reasons than economic ones. The Albanians of Kosovo were waiting for an excuse and Slovenia and Croatia, inspired and provoked them to take action ASAP. These guys were nationalist to the point where they even hated not just Serbs, but Bosnians and other minorities in these lands.

3. Bosnia. I believe most Bosnians had this in mind: "What's the point of Yugoslavia anymore, Slovenia, Croatia, etc. have already split. They don't want to be a part of it. And this system and its economy are going to drop ASAP. We might as well separate too". So when this happened, Bosnians, Serbians, and even Croatians, were quick to react. They realized what was at stake (the lands).

So pretty much I would say at heart, Croatia, Slovenia, and Kosovo, were the perpetrators that never wanted to stick it out. Whereas Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, only reacted to nationalism/separation because they saw what was coming.

I'm sure though, even if Croatia, Slovenia, and Kosovo, wouldn't have sent in their resignation, I'm more than sure the war was imminent (if not), then somehow, someway, the collapse of Yugoslavia would have happened (because of cultural reasons primarily and economic reasons as a secondary motive).

With all said and done. Hopefully there is a way that these people and even their minorities (like Hungarians, Gypsies, Turks, Goranis etc.) can all live in peace.

Vida
10-30-2011, 06:51 PM
slovenia broke away because of the yugoslavian regime which stopped working in their favor (in most part because milosevic, who wanted more power, took it over). economically, slovenia had all the interest in the world to stay in yugoslavia, where their main market was.

croatia broke away because their ever long dream was to be an independent nation. similar with kosovo.

macedonia saw their chance to be independent and serbia/yugoslavia had nothing against it.

bosnia was ripped apart by various factions.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 06:54 PM
Thank you guys about Montenegro*

Here is kind of how I see it:

1. Slovenia and Croatia, wanted to separate from the start because they were the more wealthier of the nations of former Yugoslavia. From the inception to its death, most of these people did not want to share their lands resources with their neighbors. They only wanted the lands for themselves. I guess in some sense they were greedy and accused poorer nations like Bosnia, Serbia, and Macedonia etc. of leeching off of them. While wealth was important to these two, so was cultural nationalism that had always existed in these regions.

You should read about the creation of Yugoslavia. In 1918, Croats and Slovenes requested to unify with Serbia. That was because if they hadn't they would be paying war reparations to the victors of WWI and would have been annexed by Italy, Hungary, and Austria.

If you look at the Slovenian case, their 2nd largest city - Maribor - is in Slovenia only because of their union with Serbia. The majority of people in Maribor in 1918 were German speakers who were pressured out or expelled. Same thing happened in 1945, when Tito sent Serbs to conquer Trieste from Italy (for Slovenia), but after thousands of lives lost had to return it to Italy (and quite rightly, I might add). With Croatia, it's a similar story. Istria, Rijeka (Fiume), Zadar (Zara), etc. would have gone to Italy if it weren't for Yugoslavia. It is precisely because Serbia accepted Croatia and deprived Italy of Dalmatia that the Italian fascists got so much support as "liberators" of the "unredeemed lands" that should have gone to Italy.

Read about the foibe, where Slovene and Croat communists stole territory from Italy by wiping out the Italians in these areas, despite the fact that in WWII Croatia was a rabid ally of Hitler and Mussolini: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foibe_killings

2. Albanians of Kosovo, Kosovo separated more for cultural reasons than economic ones. The Albanians of Kosovo were waiting for an excuse and Slovenia and Croatia, inspired and provoked them to take action ASAP. These guys were nationalist to the point where they even hated not just Serbs, but Bosnians and other minorities in these lands.

Basically correct. They've wiped Gypsies and Jews out of Kosovo, as well as Vitina Croats and Goranis, who are Serbian-speaking Muslims. Slovenia was coordinating everything with the Albanians. The 1974 constitution which gave Kosovo autonomy was written by a Slovenian schoolteacher named Edvard Kardelj. Slovenia was also sending them weapons starting in 1995 onwards to 1999, so even after their independence Slovenia was promoting the disintegration of Serbia.

3. Bosnia. I believe most Bosnians had this in mind: "What's the point of Yugoslavia anymore, Slovenia, Croatia, etc. have already split. They don't want to be a part of it. And this system and its economy are going to drop ASAP. We might as well separate too". So when this happened, Bosnians, Serbians, and even Croatians, were quick to react. They realized what was at stake (the lands).

Bosnia until the 1960s had Serbs as the largest ethnic group. That situation changed in favor of the Muslims due to Serb migration into Serbia (especially Belgrade), Muslim migration into Bosnia from poor areas of Serbia (Sandzak), and the higher Muslim birthrate. With under 50% of the population, it was suicidal for the Muslims to think they could create a unitary state dominated by them when their Christian neighbors were vehemently opposed to Muslim rule. The Croats played the Muslims well, knowing that they needed their demographic weight to tear Bosnia away from Yugoslavia, but then turning on them in 1993 to stake out their own land.

So pretty much I would say at heart, Croatia, Slovenia, and Kosovo, were the perpetrators that never wanted to stick it out. Whereas Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, only reacted to nationalism/separation because they saw what was coming.

Serbs, Bosnian Muslims, and Macedonians (in the order) were the biggest losers/victims of the breakup of Yugoslavia. They lost territory and lives (Serbs and Bosnian Muslims), or in the case of the Macedonians are dealing with an Albanian demographic timebomb headed the same way as Kosovo.

I'm sure though, even if Croatia, Slovenia, and Kosovo, wouldn't have sent in their resignation, I'm more than sure the war was imminent (if not), then somehow, someway, the collapse of Yugoslavia would have happened (because of cultural reasons primarily and economic reasons as a secondary motive).

With all said and done. Hopefully there is a way that these people and even their minorities (like Hungarians, Gypsies, Turks, Goranis etc.) can all live in peace.

I hope so too. But the machinations of Turkey, Germany, the US, the UK, and the Vatican continue, with Russia tagging along, so the Balkans will continue to see warfare and bloodshed, I am afraid.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 07:00 PM
That is awful and ending ww2 was so important to leaders that they neglected the grief of victims families.
But in 90s people who did the massacres in ww2 were already dead and making revenge massacres wasn't going to help.
I will order this book, it seems deep http://www.amazon.com/Bridge-Drina-Phoenix-Fiction/dp/0226020452 but I also want to read the other side.

I agree with this. Unfortunately, innocent people were murdered in the 1990s because the perpetrators of mass murder during WWII were never punished.

Here are a few documentaries.

1.) The role of the Catholic church in extermination and forced conversion of Serbs to Roman Catholicism:

pWGyTPu6UDE

hQqObZm-Y8I

AtTve5zRcmA

CWhps86LwRw

rDITXh9Ef2c

QSs5tcxvGok

2.) The cavernous killing pits of Croatia and Bosnia:

e7zHJNLa3uc

048z0OslONw

a8jPWTi6llU

1I5NSqHXuqw

niNmcsdWhJI

ooaQujkN0oE

3.) The extermination of Serb and Jewish children in Croatian camps specially built for children:

WX9CqWKiU_A

C_WNtsyenBg

2-f2FHtT4_c

hz6BNydXa8I

SkNH5CJTL9A

Getta
10-30-2011, 08:01 PM
If mainstream Greek views were in line with the first part of your post, they would hardly be 98% opposed to the bombing.

Milosevic's monstrous deeds could not break the strong personal, cultural and historical bonds and friendship between Serbs and Greeks.

From my experience with Greek Americans, admittedly limited, their views are also not generally in line with the first part of your post.

massive disparity between the Greek subculture in the States and the Greek culture in homeland Greece.

in other words, Greek Americans are not Greeks.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 08:11 PM
Milosevic's monstrous deeds could not break the strong personal, cultural and historical bonds and friendship between Serbs and Greeks.



massive disparity between the Greek subculture in the States and the Greek culture in homeland Greece.

in other words, Greek Americans are not Greeks.

1.) You are massively wrong on Milosevic and his deeds. Milosevic was no more monstrous than Albright or Clinton in my book. And that's where I'm ending this discussion for my part.

2.) And you are wrong about diasporas in general and the Greek diaspora in particular. It's like saying that the Jewish diaspora was not Jewish because they did not live in Israel for 2000 years. Like hell they weren't!

Time Violation
10-30-2011, 09:31 PM
Why did Milosovic and his supporters tried to keep the union when they think they can't live with others.

Aye, that is the mystery. I don't think even he himself knew exactly what he was trying to achieve. Trying to show everybody that he is the boss or something, but no clear plan whatsoever. I think Vida put it most succinctly:

mostly that he was a crazy fck.

shiaben
10-30-2011, 09:35 PM
Some diaspora are similar to mainland people. You can see this in all cultures. Yes, there's a likelihood that Greeks in the U.S. or Australia have additional values than mainland Greeks, but this doesn't mean that they've lost 100% all their original Greek culture and values.

Take for example. There are Poles born in Germany, that may have a dislike of Germans as equally as Poles born in Poland. Yet at the same time there could be Poles born in Poland who love Germans as equally as another group of Poles born in Germany.

Culture, religion, politics, language, and other institutions can still travel with you.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 09:39 PM
Some diaspora are similar to mainland people. You can see this in all cultures. Yes, there's a likelihood that Greeks in the U.S. or Australia have additional values than mainland Greeks, but this doesn't mean that they've lost 100% all their original Greek culture and values.

Take for example. There are Poles born in Germany, that may have a dislike of Germans as equally as Poles born in Poland. Yet at the same time there could be Poles born in Poland who love Germans as equally as another group of Poles born in Germany.

Culture, religion, politics, language, and other institutions can still travel with you.

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better.

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-30-2011, 10:17 PM
I am sorry for asking many questions, I am trying to feel the Serbian society in late 80s and 90s.

When violence erupted in 90s. Did church and leaders tell people to stop it? Were most people happy, shocked, or apologists? What was the reaction in media, in universities, what did famous writers say? Whom they blamed?

Time Violation
10-30-2011, 10:32 PM
Medias were all controlled by Milosevic, so they were saying whatever they were ordered to. I don't remember there was some kind of uniform message from the church, anyway, in Serbia nobody cares what the church says.

vucina
10-30-2011, 10:32 PM
Stop clowning Cleo.

Aloimeh
10-30-2011, 10:34 PM
I am sorry for asking many questions, I am trying to feel the Serbian society in late 80s and 90s.

When violence erupted in 90s. Did church and leaders tell people to stop it? Were most people happy, shocked, or apologists? What was the reaction in media, in universities, what did famous writers say? Whom they blamed?

The issue I have here is that you only ask about Serbs. What about Croats, Albanians Bosnian Muslims, Slovenes, or international politicians and media outlets?

I mean, this kind of tone is what leads so many Serbs to bridle at any political discussion, because it's far from a level playing field, and you're approaching the history with a firmly entrenched position that the Serbs (Serb politicians, society, intellectuals, church, etc.) have some special explanation they owe to others.

No one has explained to us why Yugoslavia had to be destroyed and why its destruction was so encouraged by Western and Islamic powers.

No one has explained to us why WWII genocide against the Serbian people has been dismissed and systematically covered up. There have been no reparations, compensations, or anything from the political inheritor of the responsibility for that genocide, which is Croatia and to some degree Croatia's mentors, the Holy See and Germany. People know about the Holocaust and Armenian genocide. Do they know about the genocide of the Serbs in the NDH? No, most do not.

No one has explained to us why only Serbia - of all ex-Yu republics - had to have a part of it (Kosovo) torn away, yet when Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia protested the secession of those countries from Yugoslavia, their pleas and demands were met with silence, ridicule, lies, accusations, expulsions, bombs, and mass murder.

No one has explained to us why Western media resorted to grotesque lies and propaganda a la 250,000 dead Muslims in Bosnia, "death camps," Dubrovnik razed to the ground out of sheer malice, 100,000 killed Kosovo Albanian men, Kosovo Albanians being disposed of in acid vats at the Trepca mine, and 60,000 ***** Muslim women. Those were total forgeries and lies and completely pointless, since the wars were bad enough as it is.

No one has explained to us why the Jewish community in the West was so vehemently in bed with the propagandists, avidly supporting erstwhile WWII Nazi collaborators (who had murdered their own people, as well as the Serbs, in death camps like Jasenovac) in their bids for independent Serbenfrei states, even while Israel hypocritically continued ethnically discriminatory policies in the occupied territories that went far beyond any policy of Milosevic.

You know, we're still waiting for answers to our own questions. And it isn't "Milosevic."

@Sweet Cleopatra
10-30-2011, 10:58 PM
The issue I have here is that you only ask about Serbs. What about Croats, Albanians Bosnian Muslims, Slovenes, or international politicians and media outlets?

I mean, this kind of tone is what leads so many Serbs to bridle at any political discussion, because it's far from a level playing field, and you're approaching the history with a firmly entrenched position that the Serbs (Serb politicians, society, intellectuals, church, etc.) have some special explanation they owe to others.

No one has explained to us why Yugoslavia had to be destroyed and why its destruction was so encouraged by Western and Islamic powers.

No one has explained to us why WWII genocide against the Serbian people has been dismissed and systematically covered up. There have been no reparations, compensations, or anything from the political inheritor of the responsibility for that genocide, which is Croatia and to some degree Croatia's mentors, the Holy See and Germany. People know about the Holocaust and Armenian genocide. Do they know about the genocide of the Serbs in the NDH? No, most do not.

No one has explained to us why only Serbia - of all ex-Yu republics - had to have a part of it (Kosovo) torn away, yet when Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia protested the secession of those countries from Yugoslavia, their pleas and demands were met with silence, ridicule, lies, accusations, expulsions, bombs, and mass murder.

No one has explained to us why Western media resorted to grotesque lies and propaganda a la 250,000 dead Muslims in Bosnia, "death camps," Dubrovnik razed to the ground out of sheer malice, 100,000 killed Kosovo Albanian men, Kosovo Albanians being disposed of in acid vats at the Trepca mine, and 60,000 ***** Muslim women. Those were total forgeries and lies and completely pointless, since the wars were bad enough as it is.

No one has explained to us why the Jewish community in the West was so vehemently in bed with the propagandists, avidly supporting erstwhile WWII Nazi collaborators (who had murdered their own people, as well as the Serbs, in death camps like Jasenovac) in their bids for independent Serbenfrei states, even while Israel hypocritically continued ethnically discriminatory policies in the occupied territories that went far beyond any policy of Milosevic.

You know, we're still waiting for answers to our own questions. And it isn't "Milosevic."

I am asking Serbs not cause I condemn them, I never generalize any way to say Serbs are good or bad. I just want to understand the Serbian society at that time, and to feel myself a Serbian in 90s. I am just starting to read about Balkan history and I know when things are complicated, I have to feel all sides before reaching conclusions. Serbs in the forum are many, so I decided to start with asking Serbs in the forum.

Time Violation
10-30-2011, 11:53 PM
I am asking Serbs not cause I condemn them, I never generalize any way to say Serbs are good or bad. I just want to understand the Serbian society at that time, and to feel myself a Serbian in 90s. I am just starting to read about Balkan history and I know when things are complicated, I have to feel all sides before reaching conclusions. Serbs in the forum are many, so I decided to start with asking Serbs in the forum.

Well, imagine living with average salary of $6 per month (1993) or $50-70 (1994-96, 98-2000), standing in line to get flour, sugar, bread, oil, medicines, imagine paying 2$ for 1l of shitty gasoline that will most likely kill your engine, imagine banks refusing to give any of the money you might had saved in them, and you will feel yourself a Serbian of the 90s :lol:

merryploughbhoy
11-01-2011, 04:04 AM
This is a subject I want to investigate... Have any Croatian's or Serbs seen the documentary 'the weight of chains' and if so is it a fair and balanced view on the conflict. I worked with a Croatian who was in the war, he hated it, didnt want the war but said it was just the way it was, he said the people of the old Yugoslavia were much better off, the economy was stronger before joining the euro... I don't know much about it or the politics but from the way I see it I'd say the Croatians were more the good guys in the war as they stood their ground and defended their land, not invade others. But like I said I'm not 100% sure, just seems that way to me.

shiaben
11-01-2011, 04:09 AM
Be very careful when throwing around "good guys" and "bad guys" because even if your opinion was hypothetically right, people here will get angry because these issues bring up a lot of painful memories.

merryploughbhoy
11-01-2011, 04:20 AM
No one has explained to us why Western media resorted to grotesque lies and propaganda a la 250,000 dead Muslims in Bosnia, "death camps," Dubrovnik razed to the ground out of sheer malice, 100,000 killed Kosovo Albanian men, Kosovo Albanians being disposed of in acid vats at the Trepca mine, and 60,000 ***** Muslim women. Those were total forgeries and lies and completely pointless, since the wars were bad enough as it is.



We know that these were lies, A Croatian who fought against Serbia told me that this never happened and he was their fighting against them, so even he admits there was propaganda coming out from corrupt western media. I don't know about the fight between Croatia and Serbia, I'm pretty neutral between them but would probaly back Croatia if I had to choose, but I support both of them against these albanians invading there land from the south, they can fuck off back into turkey and asia, Yugoslavia had enough problems without them coming to leech.

merryploughbhoy
11-01-2011, 04:24 AM
Be very careful when throwing around "good guys" and "bad guys" because even if your opinion was hypothetically right, people here will get angry because these issues bring up a lot of painful memories.

I know, i said i don't really know much about the conflict, I don't want to sound like i'm lecturing people from these lands about who is right and wrong, they known better than anyone, theres always two sides to each story though...

Aloimeh
11-01-2011, 04:30 AM
This is a subject I want to investigate... Have any Croatian's or Serbs seen the documentary 'the weight of chains' and if so is it a fair and balanced view on the conflict. I worked with a Croatian who was in the war, he hated it, didnt want the war but said it was just the way it was, he said the people of the old Yugoslavia were much better off, the economy was stronger before joining the euro... I don't know much about it or the politics but from the way I see it I'd say the Croatians were more the good guys in the war as they stood their ground and defended their land, not invade others. But like I said I'm not 100% sure, just seems that way to me.

Serbs have been present in Croatia since the 1300s and a major presence since the 1500s. Before WWII they were a full 1/4 of the population of Croatia (all parts, particularly Slavonia and Dalmatia). Today they are 4%. It is these kinds of facts that you were not told by the media because they were inconvenient. So the conflict in Croatia was one between Croats and the native Serbs minority (which had support from Serbia, naturally). In that sense, it was very much a civil war, except rather than political ideologies being the division (as in Spain), it was religion (as in Northern Ireland) and ethnicity (as in Georgia).

Aloimeh
11-01-2011, 04:39 AM
This is a subject I want to investigate... Have any Croatian's or Serbs seen the documentary 'the weight of chains' and if so is it a fair and balanced view on the conflict. I worked with a Croatian who was in the war, he hated it, didnt want the war but said it was just the way it was, he said the people of the old Yugoslavia were much better off, the economy was stronger before joining the euro... I don't know much about it or the politics but from the way I see it I'd say the Croatians were more the good guys in the war as they stood their ground and defended their land, not invade others. But like I said I'm not 100% sure, just seems that way to me.

"Yugoslavia - The Avoidable War" gives a generally leftist perspective but has A LOT of information which would be useful to anyone who wants to know more. I believe it's a Western production. It's basically night and day from what the media told you.

I've never watched Malagurski's movie.

merryploughbhoy
11-01-2011, 04:52 AM
Serbs have been present in Croatia since the 1300s and a major presence since the 1500s. Before WWII they were a full 1/4 of the population of Croatia (all parts, particularly Slavonia and Dalmatia). Today they are 4%. It is these kinds of facts that you were not told by the media because they were inconvenient. So the conflict in Croatia was one between Croats and the native Serbs minority (which had support from Serbia, naturally). In that sense, it was very much a civil war, except rather than political ideologies being the division (as in Spain), it was religion (as in Northern Ireland) and ethnicity (as in Georgia).

Thats the exact thought I had and why I said i was'nt sure, I knew that there could be heavy distortion in the way we are led to believe from the outside, For me I understand how these things go and the false picture that gets painted to people on the outside - Ireland and the way the british would make you believe that they are keeping peace when infact they have simply invaded and colonised (as many nations have seen and been victims of the savagery of their empire)

merryploughbhoy
11-01-2011, 04:57 AM
"Yugoslavia - The Avoidable War" gives a generally leftist perspective but has A LOT of information which would be useful to anyone who wants to know more. I believe it's a Western production. It's basically night and day from what the media told you.

I've never watched Malagurski's movie.

I'll find that and watch it. One thing I don't want to do is stumble on some documentary and make an assumption based on one biased view point because I know how twisted and far from the truth people can make these conflicts sound.

Getta
11-01-2011, 05:13 AM
We know that these were lies, A Croatian who fought against Serbia told me that this never happened and he was their fighting against them, so even he admits there was propaganda coming out from corrupt western media. I don't know about the fight between Croatia and Serbia, I'm pretty neutral between them but would probaly back Croatia if I had to choose, but I support both of them against these albanians invading there land from the south, they can fuck off back into turkey and asia, Yugoslavia had enough problems without them coming to leech.

don't talk bullshit unless you have your facts to back you up.

modern day Albanians are a mix of Illyrians (and maybe other prehistoric Balkan people, such as Dacians or Thracians), Vlachs, Greeks, Slavic people and Turks.
in other words, Albanians are Europeans, not Asians. drill what i said into your brain. is that clear?

actually, many areas in the Balkans have mixed population. blame the Byzantine (East Roman) Empire and the Ottoman Empire. i, for instance, am an Athenian of Greek ancestry, Albanian ancestry (Albanians settled in the Peloponnese in the early 15th century) and distant Slavic ancestry (South Slavs settled in the Peloponnese in the 8th century). and, i consider myself very lucky to be mixed. :D

Getta
11-01-2011, 05:14 AM
good night, aloimeh

Aloimeh
11-01-2011, 05:26 AM
don't talk bullshit unless you have your facts to back you up.

modern day Albanians are a mix of Illyrians (and maybe other prehistoric Balkan people, such as Dacians or Thracians), Vlachs, Greeks, Slavic people and Turks.
in other words, Albanians are Europeans, not Asians. drill what i said into your brain. is that clear?

actually, many areas in the Balkans have mixed population. blame the Byzantine (East Roman) Empire and the Ottoman Empire. i, for instance, am an Athenian of Greek ancestry, Albanian ancestry (Albanians settled in the Peloponnese in the early 15th century) and distant Slavic ancestry (South Slavs settled in the Peloponnese in the 8th century). and, i consider myself very lucky to be mixed. :D

This is a product of the grotesque lack of knowledge people have on these issues based on mixing up ethnicity, race, and religion. Many people don't understand the difference between Bosnian Muslims, Albanians, and Turks, which is in many ways quite substantial.

The Illyrian theory is just that, a theory. It comes from the same kitchen of politically-useful theories as the Fallmerayer hypothesis which claims that Greeks are not "really" Greeks (i.e. descended of the ancients) and are more like a Slavic-Turkish mishmash. Which is nonsense, because there is strong diachronic continuity in the Greek people. They even resemble the figures depicted in their art.

The Illyrian theory was propped up by Austrian propagandists to try to cut off Montenegro and Serbia from the Adriatic. Recent linguistic evidence indicates that the Albanians probably originate from considerably further north and east, in present day eastern Serbia or Romania. The influence of Latin - and particularly Balkan Romance (becoming Romanian) rather than western Dalmatian - and the relative lack of Greek influence, strongly suggests that they are not autochthonous to the area of present-day Albania and may have looser connections to the Illyrians than to the Dacians or even Thracians.

Aloimeh
11-01-2011, 05:42 AM
good night, aloimeh

Hmm, my sense is that the tone of this was not altogether friendly. Oh well.

Aloimeh
11-01-2011, 05:45 AM
Thats the exact thought I had and why I said i was'nt sure, I knew that there could be heavy distortion in the way we are led to believe from the outside, For me I understand how these things go and the false picture that gets painted to people on the outside - Ireland and the way the british would make you believe that they are keeping peace when infact they have simply invaded and colonised (as many nations have seen and been victims of the savagery of their empire)

It takes a while to pick up the pieces and make sense of the region. It's pretty complex, but there are definitely more complex regions (probably Indochina, African Great Lakes and the Caucasus at least). For instance, very few Westerners know that most Bosnian Muslims are descended of medieval Serbs and Croats who converted to Islam. They seem to think they are a medieval ethnic group that originated uniquely from Bosnia, when they are nothing of the sort. And, in this view, Serbs and Croats are somehow "invaders" into Bosnia even though they lived there for centuries before any Muslim (Turkish or otherwise) had set foot into Bosnia. The "Bosnian" Muslims of Serbia have nothing to do with Bosnia and their ancestors before the arrival of the Turks were Serbs.

shiaben
11-01-2011, 11:36 PM
It takes a while to pick up the pieces and make sense of the region. It's pretty complex, but there are definitely more complex regions (probably Indochina, African Great Lakes and the Caucasus at least). For instance, very few Westerners know that most Bosnian Muslims are descended of medieval Serbs and Croats who converted to Islam. They seem to think they are a medieval ethnic group that originated uniquely from Bosnia, when they are nothing of the sort. And, in this view, Serbs and Croats are somehow "invaders" into Bosnia even though they lived there for centuries before any Muslim (Turkish or otherwise) had set foot into Bosnia. The "Bosnian" Muslims of Serbia have nothing to do with Bosnia and their ancestors before the arrival of the Turks were Serbs.

They actually do though. Their ancestors weren't strictly Catholics or Orthodox converting to Islam, the majority of their ancestors were Bogomils. As far as I know, the last monarch of Bosnia was neither a Catholic or an Orthodox, he was a Bogomil (Tvrtko I). Prijezda I the first ban was born Roman Catholic, but I don't remember any place mentioning that he was an ethnic Croat either.

Time Violation
11-01-2011, 11:43 PM
^^Also the first Serbian king who was crowned, got his crown from the Pope, but people here conveniently choose to ignore that :lol: Anyway, I think the argument "they were Serbs 700 years ago" is kinda lame. They don't think they are Serbs now, and who cares what someone's grandfather 700 years ago was? Going along that line, Italy could claim the whole Balkan on account they were ruling it before the Slavs and Muslims :p

Aloimeh
11-02-2011, 12:09 AM
They actually do though. Their ancestors weren't strictly Catholics or Orthodox converting to Islam, the majority of their ancestors were Bogomils. As far as I know, the last monarch of Bosnia was neither a Catholic or an Orthodox, he was a Bogomil (Tvrtko I). Prijezda I the first ban was born Roman Catholic, but I don't remember any place mentioning that he was an ethnic Croat either.

Prijezda was born into Catholicism and converted to Bogomilism. Tvrtko I was Orthodox and was crowned in Mileseva monstery in Serbia, which was always Orthodox. Regardless, conversion of religion doesn't change ethnicity. French Cathars and Huguenots were just as French as the Catholics.

^^Also the first Serbian king who was crowned, got his crown from the Pope, but people here conveniently choose to ignore that :lol: Anyway, I think the argument "they were Serbs 700 years ago" is kinda lame. They don't think they are Serbs now, and who cares what someone's grandfather 700 years ago was? Going along that line, Italy could claim the whole Balkan on account they were ruling it before the Slavs and Muslims :p

I agree that it's irrelevant now. They clearly feel themselves to be a different ethnic group, and that's OK. But I think it's important that people know that they are no more native to Bosnia than the Serbs or Croats. And therefore they are no more entitled to it than the Serbs and Croats. All three ethnic groups should have an equal right to live on that land, not as a national minority, but as their common nation state.

shiaben
11-02-2011, 12:27 AM
I agree all three should be entitled to live in that land. The only problem is "Republika Srpska" is kind of no different than the Kosovo situation. It prevents Bosnia from functioning as a normal nation.

I think they should get rid of this entity, and allow the country to be united. Obviously it's too little too late for the original inhabitants to return, but I think if the entity was removed, people of all backgrounds would feel more united.

But as long as this entity continues to exist, it would promote separatism and the Bosnia dilemma would never be resolved.

Aloimeh
11-02-2011, 12:34 AM
I agree all three should be entitled to live in that land. The only problem is "Republika Srpska" is kind of no different than the Kosovo situation. It prevents Bosnia from functioning as a normal nation.

I think they should get rid of this entity, and allow the country to be united. Obviously it's too little too late for the original inhabitants to return, but I think if the entity was removed, people of all backgrounds would feel more united.

But as long as this entity continues to exist, it would promote separatism and the Bosnia dilemma would never be resolved.

That is incorrect. Republika Srpska is the guarantee to one of the communities that it will not again be the subject of genocide (as in WWII) or apartheid rule (as under the Ottomans) or Islamic machinations as envisioned by Izetbegovic.

The Muslims only recently (the 1960s) became a plurality, but in 1992 they acted as if they were a 80% majority. They are not, nor have they ever been that.

The Croat community deserves a similar entity.

There was a chance to make a unitary Bosnia, but that was lost in 1991 or 1992 when the Muslims decided that they were entitled to a nation state of their own and that Serbs and Croats who were unhappy about that could leave and "go home" (i.e. to Serbia or Croatia). The Muslims made a lot of statements and speeches about how they were going to be multiethnic, etc. but the history speaks otherwise. They engaged in ethnic cleansing just like the other two communities (of about 150,000 Croats and 400,000 Serbs).

Neither the Serbs nor the Croats were happy with Muslim intentions. The Serbs took up arms against the Muslims immediately. The Croats waited a year (they needed the Muslim vote to rip away from Yugoslavia), and then basically did the same as the Serbs in 1993.

vucina
11-02-2011, 12:48 AM
I agree all three should be entitled to live in that land. The only problem is "Republika Srpska" is kind of no different than the Kosovo situation. It prevents Bosnia from functioning as a normal nation.

I think they should get rid of this entity, and allow the country to be united. Obviously it's too little too late for the original inhabitants to return, but I think if the entity was removed, people of all backgrounds would feel more united.

But as long as this entity continues to exist, it would promote separatism and the Bosnia dilemma would never be resolved.

That would do the trick. But do you know what would be even better?
If muslims would **** off to Turkey or Iran, Bosnia would be a fully functioning state, peace and harmony would abound.

shiaben
11-02-2011, 12:49 AM
History doesn't show that though. It shows Croatia and Serbia invading Bosnia to take it over completely. Not just after 1991 but even back during the days of monarchs (Hungary and Byzantine even fought for these lands and people).

The ethnic cleansing in Bosnia did not come before the wars. I believe they were a result of invasions on Bosnia which forced all 3 ethnic groups to scatter. Otherwise today there would be hundreds of thousands of Serbs remaining in Croatia, an additional hundreds of thousands of Serbs and Croatians remaining in Bosnia, and hundreds of thousands of Muslims remaining in Serbia.

There doesn't seem to be suggestive evidence that prior to 1991 that the 55-60% Bosnian population wanted to boot out the 40-45% total population of Croats and Serbs. This would be very suicidal and they would have never attempted such a thing.

Remember, there were considerable amounts of Orthodox Bosnians/Bosnian Serbs, and other none Bosniak minorities that fought against the Serbian invasion. You can read about them in news articles and documentaries.

shiaben
11-02-2011, 12:54 AM
That would do the trick. But do you know what would be even better?
If muslims would **** off to Turkey or Iran, Bosnia would be a fully functioning state, peace and harmony would abound.

The situation would remain the same except Croatia and Serbia would be bigger, and the amount of dead Croats and Serbs would clearly be higher since it would be a two sided civil war like the times where Hungary backed Croatia and the Byzantines backed Serbia.

The thing is you can't deport a group that is indigenous to this region. Bosnians are not Turks. They are Southern Slavs. Just because they have many faiths, does not make them foreigners.

This went off topic but from the looks of it, it seems like Republika Srpska will either remain in the state it is for an indefinite amount of time and Kosovo will remain in its own state or quite possibly become a nation if international politics changes.

vucina
11-02-2011, 12:59 AM
The situation would remain the same except Croatia and Serbia would be bigger, and the amount of dead Croats and Serbs would clearly be higher since it would be a two sided civil war like the times where Hungary backed Croatia and the Byzantines backed Serbia.

The thing is you can't deport a group that is indigenous to this region. Bosnians are not Turks. They are Southern Slavs. Just because they have many faiths, does not make them foreigners.

We can certainly try. Contrary to your opinion, there were many huge population transfers in history. Poland-Germany, Tukey-Greece, India-Pakistan...
When it's us or them, I choose us.

Aloimeh
11-02-2011, 01:03 AM
History doesn't show that though. It shows Croatia and Serbia invading Bosnia to take it over completely. Not just after 1991 but even back during the days of monarchs (Hungary and Byzantine even fought for these lands and people).

The ethnic cleansing in Bosnia did not come before the wars. I believe they were a result of invasions on Bosnia which forced all 3 ethnic groups to scatter. Otherwise today there would be hundreds of thousands of Serbs remaining in Croatia, an additional hundreds of thousands of Serbs and Croatians remaining in Bosnia, and hundreds of thousands of Muslims remaining in Serbia.

There doesn't seem to be suggestive evidence that prior to 1991 that the 55-60% Bosnian population wanted to boot out the 40-45% total population of Croats and Serbs. This would be very suicidal and they would have never attempted such a thing.

Remember, there were considerable amounts of Orthodox Bosnians/Bosnian Serbs, and other none Bosniak minorities that fought against the Serbian invasion. You can read about them in news articles and documentaries.

It actually does show that to be the case. Serbs were the majority of the population on approximately 2/3 of Bosnia's territory. That's because they were agricultural pastoralists or farmers while Muslims had privileges to live in cities as landlords or artisans. Croats were somewhere in between in terms of their urbanization. So that fact that the Serbs held 70% of Bosnia at one point doesn't imply that they conquered most of that territory from people who were previously the majority on it (some they did, most they did not).

The ethnic cleansing was a spontaneous result and strategy of a conflict where nobody could trust their own neighbor. To preemptively prevent them from waging guerrila war, they expelled most and killed some.

The ethnic cleansing by Serbs and Croats was more *visible* than by Muslims because they did it over larger tracts of territory (e.g. villages or towns that were mixed or heavily Muslim surrounded by predominantly Serb or Croat villages). Muslims engaged in silent ethnic cleansing of towns and cities, whereby 15% or 20% (or 40% in the odd case) of Croats or Serbs or both were simply driven to flee due to the reign of terror Muslim warlords conducted from within.

Serbia hasn't expelled Muslims - as a state policy - since the 1800s. In the 1990s there were no expulsions of Muslims out of Serbia. There were two incidents of massacre perpetrated by a Bosnian Serb warlord against Serbian Muslims (Sjeverin and Strpci), and in one case he invaded Serbia and seized passengers off a bus and in the other he attacked a train going between Belgrade and Montenegro (passing through Bosnia) and took off more passengers.

Bosnian Muslims were never 55% or 60%. It's the Bosnian Christians who are 55-60% (together). The Muslims are 45-50%. They are not a majority. Which makes their attempt to hijack control over all of Bosnia the more insane and unfeasible.

There were a few Serbs in Sarajevo primarily who fought for the Muslims. Most did not. There were also Muslims who fought with Serbs (e.g. Fikret Abdic was allied with them). It proves nothing. The vast majority of each community was engaged in war with the other community.

vucina
11-02-2011, 01:05 AM
Just to clarify something. Serbs would be perfectly happy if left alone, to have this autonomy. But it's the Muslims who are not satisfied and want all of it for themselves. We simply won't accept to be democratically voted out of existence by a muslim majority.

Aloimeh
11-02-2011, 01:09 AM
Shiaben: I would also advise you to look a bit more into the events of early 1992 (if you are interested of course). The first acts of violence were not by Serbs, but by Muslims and Croats against Serbs.

March 1, there was the assassination of the Serb wedding guest in Sarajevo.

March 26, there was the massacre in Sijekovac (around Bosanski Brod), in which dozens (the number is very hard to get precisely because it is so sensitive) of Serb civilians and POWs were murdered by Croat-Muslim units crossing over from Croatia.

Only on March 31-April 1 did the Serbs begin organized violence at Bijeljina, and even in that case the violence was provoked by a Muslim on a horse trying to throw a bomb into a cafe (his name was Alija Gusalic).

Mjau!
11-02-2011, 02:45 AM
I think you should first read his 1989 speech in Kosovo Polje. http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~bip/docs/kosovo_polje/kosovo_polje.html

Then read what the Western media says about his 1989 speech.

It's like night and day.

What you think you know about that region is nothing but a mishmash of lies, distortions, half-truths, and some truth.

Don't get me wrong: there were people and politicians on all sides in those conflicts (of course Serbs among them) who espoused disgusting ideologies, but Milosevic was not one of them.

I don't know anything about Yugoslavia, but the western media always lie and omit information. They are more than just incompetent.

Commander Data
11-03-2011, 09:37 AM
the western media always lie and omit information. They are more than just incompetent.

fixed

FormerRafaFan
11-03-2011, 10:36 AM
Well.. after all these years, the serbians still support a war criminal and mass murderer in Mladic.. they fucking hid him and protected him for years! The only reason they gave him up now was because of their wish to join the EU. It's the same about gays.. the only reason they got that discrimination law was because EU demanded they protected their minorities if they wanted to join, obviously they hadn't done a good job in the past with that. Gays are still killed in Serbia today.. I read that 60 % of serbs condone homosexuality, and 1/3 thinks it's ok to interrupt LGBT events using violence.

vucina
11-03-2011, 10:49 AM
Well.. after all these years, the serbians still support a war criminal and mass murderer in Mladic.. they fucking hid him and protected him for years! The only reason they gave him up now was because of their wish to join the EU. It's the same about gays.. the only reason they got that discrimination law was because EU demanded they protected their minorities if they wanted to join, obviously they hadn't done a good job in the past with that. Gays are still killed in Serbia today.. I read that 60 % of serbs condone homosexuality, and 1/3 thinks it's ok to interrupt LGBT events using violence.

condemn?
And support for joining the EU is bellow 50% in Serbia.

Time Violation
11-03-2011, 11:07 AM
Well.. after all these years, the serbians still support a war criminal and mass murderer in Mladic.. they fucking hid him and protected him for years! The only reason they gave him up now was because of their wish to join the EU. It's the same about gays.. the only reason they got that discrimination law was because EU demanded they protected their minorities if they wanted to join, obviously they hadn't done a good job in the past with that. Gays are still killed in Serbia today.. I read that 60 % of serbs condone homosexuality, and 1/3 thinks it's ok to interrupt LGBT events using violence.

Shut your yap.... most of people here couldn't care less about Mladic, and nobody is "still killing gays".

vucina
11-03-2011, 11:22 AM
Shut your yap.... most of people here couldn't care less about Mladic, and nobody is "still killing gays".

bullshit

nadejda
11-03-2011, 11:42 AM
Well.. after all these years, the serbians still support a war criminal and mass murderer in Mladic.. they fucking hid him and protected him for years! The only reason they gave him up now was because of their wish to join the EU. It's the same about gays.. the only reason they got that discrimination law was because EU demanded they protected their minorities if they wanted to join, obviously they hadn't done a good job in the past with that. Gays are still killed in Serbia today.. I read that 60 % of serbs condone homosexuality, and 1/3 thinks it's ok to interrupt LGBT events using violence.

:lol::lol:

How old are you? 12?

Time Violation
11-03-2011, 12:36 PM
bullshit

It's the truth, not my problem if you can't handle it :shrug: Djokovic's Wimbledon celebration in Belgrade attracted 10x more people than any of the Mladic support rallies. And tennis is not even the most popular sport here ;)

vucina
11-03-2011, 01:26 PM
It's the truth, not my problem if you can't handle it :shrug: Djokovic's Wimbledon celebration in Belgrade attracted 10x more people than any of the Mladic support rallies. And tennis is not even the most popular sport here ;)

What does one have to do with the other? I support Mladic and I wasn't at the rally. Waste of time that was.
Every poll says Mladic is a hero for Serbs.

Aloimeh
11-03-2011, 01:40 PM
Well.. after all these years, the serbians still support a war criminal and mass murderer in Mladic.. they fucking hid him and protected him for years! The only reason they gave him up now was because of their wish to join the EU. It's the same about gays.. the only reason they got that discrimination law was because EU demanded they protected their minorities if they wanted to join, obviously they hadn't done a good job in the past with that. Gays are still killed in Serbia today.. I read that 60 % of serbs condone homosexuality, and 1/3 thinks it's ok to interrupt LGBT events using violence.

Yeah, most of them aren't dupes who can't put two and two together (like you). Western war criminals and their Balkan (and North African and Middle Eastern) war criminal pets roam free, giving talks, signing book deals, etc. And then any politician or general who fought on the Serb side is a war criminal?

Please...let's set aside Mladic. The ICTY NATO court has indicted every key Serb politician and military personnel from the 1990s. Their only evidence in most cases is "he should have known" or "he had command responsibility," by which argument Tony Blair is a war criminal for every case in which a random British soldier abused or killed an Iraqi, and not only Tony Blair, but every single British politician in his government and the entire leadership of the British army.

Regardless of Mladic's real (very possibly) or supposed war criminality, he was key to the Bosnian Serbs defending themselves from a combined neo-fascist Islamist assault by Bosnian Muslim and Croat forces working in tandem with the Croatian army.

And Mladic was not hidden by "them" (i.e. the Serbian people). He was hidden by his family in Serbia and his friends in the army.

And what do gays have to do with Milosevic?

Serbian society is never going to be accepting of homosexuality because people there are stubborn and resist cultural and social brainwashing by the media, unlike the state of affairs in the West.

And I agree that all those moves by Tadic were for political gain. Most of the Serbian people were not in favor of gay parades and do support Mladic. And most of them (today, at least, if not several years ago) DO NOT want to join the EU, which is collapsing as we speak anyway.

Getta
11-03-2011, 01:52 PM
fortunately in Greece tolerance toward homosexuality has been increasing with time.

and, there aren't any Europeans more resistant to brainwashing by the media than Greeks.

Aloimeh
11-03-2011, 01:55 PM
fortunately in Greece tolerance toward homosexuality has been increasing with time.

and, there aren't any Europeans more resistant to brainwashing by the media than Greeks.

I said "state of affairs in the West" of which Greece is only a part in the tangential, political, sense. I'm talking about the idiots in the British Isles, Scandinavia, France, Benelux, etc. who think that because it's printed in the Guardian, Le Monde, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, or some other rag, it must be true and swallowed whole as such.

Doesn't surprise me that Greeks would be resistant to media brainwashing, either.

With Papandreou's bombshell I'll be interested in seeing what direction Greece takes.

Time Violation
11-03-2011, 02:57 PM
What does one have to do with the other? I support Mladic and I wasn't at the rally. Waste of time that was.
Every poll says Mladic is a hero for Serbs.

Sure, he's a hero, but then again there was also Manchester vs Sunderland, and after that Big Brother I guess, people obviously picked their priorities.

Getta
11-03-2011, 03:29 PM
With Papandreou's bombshell I'll be interested in seeing what direction Greece takes.

if you're really interested in "going Greek", here's Kathimerini (http://www.ekathimerini.com/). it's a center-right newspaper, yet the best Greek newspaper.

yes, i'm a leftist, but not left-wing biased.

Aloimeh
11-04-2011, 02:57 AM
if you're really interested in "going Greek", here's Kathimerini (http://www.ekathimerini.com/). it's a center-right newspaper, yet the best Greek newspaper.

yes, i'm a leftist, but not left-wing biased.

Strange to say, other than b92 and Pecat (which I read to scandalize myself and bemoan what's going on in Serbia) I really only read English source media, by which I mean the BBC, Guardian, NYT (to see what the mainstream lies are) and then I read sites like Antiwar, Grayfalcon, Eastern European Forum, Chronicles, etc. to get a more realistic picture. I tried Russia Today but just couldn't get hooked, they're still a little amateur.

I'm not surprised you're a leftist. What's your thinking on Papandreou's moves?

Machiavelli
11-04-2011, 12:26 PM
Wow,What a thread...

Entertainment ''de luxe''

EKSTREMISTA
11-18-2011, 11:11 AM
This is a subject I want to investigate... Have any Croatian's or Serbs seen the documentary 'the weight of chains' and if so is it a fair and balanced view on the conflict.

Lets just quote some of the foreign viewers(Croats included)

July 19, 2011 11:38 PM
the saucer people said...

Weight Of Chains is one of the best ever documentaries I have seen on how and why the destruction of the sovereign country of Yugoslavia happened. The "demonisation" of the Serbian people is one of the worst outrages of recent years and this documentary in some small way goes to readdress the balance and explains clearly and concisely how NATO and the IMF and the EU militarily and economically devastated the Balkan region.
I live in the UK and my only connection to the people of the former Yugoslavia is the love of their films so I have no bias either way but I know and injustice when I see one and the Serbian people are as much the victims as any one else.
It is interesting how the blueprint for the Balkan wars is now being used by the power elite in Libya. The same large-scale indiscriminate NATO bombings of civilians, the same alignment of military special operations personnel, western intelligence operatives and extremist Islamic groups (KLA in the Balkans and now Al Qaeda-Libyan Islamic Pary) as well as the assassinations and propaganda/media demonisation.

The raw truth revealed, smashing the lies the West propagated, and a message of reconciliation that Yugoslavia tragically forgot., 6 February 2011
gokimokig from Canada

Finally a fresh look at a complex situation., 2 July 2011
david griffin (david@utopiated.net) from UK Midlands
Apart from a 5 part BBC series - nothing has tackled this issue in the depth it demands till now apart from this Documentary. Ignore the handful of reviewers who claim it's "Serb propaganda" - that's just idiotic - in fact this is one of the best produced and written documentaries I've seen on contemporary geopolitical monkey-business to date! The interview snatches are all from erudite commentators, the chronology is unravelled in a comprehensive manner and footage they've amassed really adds a human quality to things. The footage of elderly Serb and Croat neighbours being forced to pack-up and leave after living together without and issue is heart-wrenching (and definitely not staged before someone suggests this).

Excellent Exposition, 24 May 2011
hrvoje4
Though not 100% an objective documentary, it comes pretty darn close.
Despite its socialist leanings (think the very informative, but leftist-socialist biased Global Research) AND the slightly heavier pro-Serb leanings, it is a very good film. This coming from a Croat.

WHY you must see this one despite some radical views by other reviewers , a real MUST !, 4 September 2011
gonzofaratro from Switzerland
Ignore the radical reviewers, there is a lot of solid information here, so solid that Croats and Bosnians "wasted" 2 hours of their life to watch this films and try to convince you not to see it.

An informative and heavily researched insight into a story of Western colonisation, war and the power of propaganda., 21 September 2011
Author: Aussie Viewer

Author: Volim Dobar Film from Croatia
This is a Serbian documentary but anybody who watches it from the area of former Yugoslavia will learn that everything is not black and white and it never is.

A revelation of the hidden truths of the downtrodden., 21 October 2011
mgak1

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/The_Weight_of_Chains.jpg

Caesar1844
01-22-2013, 10:31 PM
Bump.

Found this thread because of a side discussion in General Messages. One of the Serbian posters couldn't understand why Croatian and Bosnian posters wouldn't support Djokovic. Obviously it was pointed out that it's because of the war and stuff like Srebrenica etc. meaning that most Balkan nations still are very hostile to Serbia.

Then (this was the bit that surprised me) one of the Serbian posters said that Srebrenica was "no big deal" and that UN/US figures saying that Serbs committed 90-95% of all atrocities during the war are "lies".

I was just wondering whether this is a common opinion amongst Serbians? If so it would explain why guys like Ratko Mladic still get treated like heroes. I presume that most Serbian posters here are pretty young - what do your parents tell you about the war? Do you think that genocide / ethnic cleansing is no big deal?

nick the greek
01-22-2013, 11:38 PM
Bump.

Found this thread because of a side discussion in General Messages. One of the Serbian posters couldn't understand why Croatian and Bosnian posters wouldn't support Djokovic. Obviously it was pointed out that it's because of the war and stuff like Srebrenica etc. meaning that most Balkan nations still are very hostile to Serbia.

Then (this was the bit that surprised me) one of the Serbian posters said that Srebrenica was "no big deal" and that UN/US figures saying that Serbs committed 90-95% of all atrocities during the war are "lies".

I was just wondering whether this is a common opinion amongst Serbians? If so it would explain why guys like Ratko Mladic still get treated like heroes. I presume that most Serbian posters here are pretty young - what do your parents tell you about the war? Do you think that genocide / ethnic cleansing is no big deal?
Where are you from?Obviously, you know nothing what was going on in former Yugoslavia and about history of that region.So, you better educate yourself before expressing stupid views.

Caesar1844
01-22-2013, 11:45 PM
Where are you from?Obviously, you know nothing what was going on in former Yugoslavia and about history of that region.So, you better educate yourself before expressing stupid views.
I'm not expressing any views. I'm just asking Serbians what their views are.

Your defensiveness is rather telling.

ssin
01-22-2013, 11:58 PM
I'm just asking Serbians what their views are.

asking Serbians, you will get different answers. Serbians are not one many-headed dragon, but a group of individuals sharing the same space, language and not many other things.

Serbian parliament adopted a resolution apologizing for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, caught and delivered Mladic, Karadzic, Milosevic, not one of them was left here, so that's the official stance.

Serbian politics from 1990s was the main generator of war and atrocities, it is accepted as a fact. There are many Serbs though who believe the Serbs should not be collectively designated as the only group to be blamed. It's some kind of defensive attitude, it is not easy to live with the huge burden left by evil and incompetent leaders such as Milosvic who was a dictator by all accounts, although he allowed some more or less irregular and unfair elections during his time.

Your question, if it is in good faith, that is, if you are not an evil troll, deserves much more space, time and discussion than this sports forum can provide, I am afraid.

edit: and btw, I have Bosnian and Croat friends and many of them, not all of them of course, support Djokovic. I travel to Bosnia and Croatia several times a year, for business, weddings etc. And believe it or not, there are tons of Serbians who can't stand Djokovic or just don't care about tennis at all.

Caesar1844
01-23-2013, 02:32 AM
asking Serbians, you will get different answers. Serbians are not one many-headed dragon, but a group of individuals sharing the same space, language and not many other things.
Understood.

Serbian parliament adopted a resolution apologizing for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, caught and delivered Mladic, Karadzic, Milosevic, not one of them was left here, so that's the official stance.
Well, yeah, that's the official stance. But let's be honest, it's not like they went out of their way to catch Mladic and Karadzic. The guys were living in Belgrade for over a decade. I guess as someone who doesn't live in Serbia, I'm a bit curious about what the actual stance is within the country (hence my questions). Do Mladic and Karadzic have a lot of support? Or not really?

Serbian politics from 1990s was the main generator of war and atrocities, it is accepted as a fact. There are many Serbs though who believe the Serbs should not be collectively designated as the only group to be blamed. It's some kind of defensive attitude, it is not easy to live with the huge burden left by evil and incompetent leaders such as Milosvic who was a dictator by all accounts, although he allowed some more or less irregular and unfair elections during his time.
Fair comments.

As for whether I am trolling, the reason I bumped this thread is more about me wanting to know more than trying to blame people. I have to admit that some comments from Serbs about the war and some of the leaders had shocked me and I wanted to see if they were a common view, and if so, why.

buddyholly
01-23-2013, 04:05 AM
Where are you from?Obviously, you know nothing what was going on in former Yugoslavia and about history of that region.So, you better educate yourself before expressing stupid views.
The guy asks for information and you tell him to get some information before expressing stupid views.
The only stupid views I see are yours.

ssin
01-23-2013, 09:42 AM
Understood.

Do Mladic and Karadzic have a lot of support? Or not really?


Not really, during their arrests almost no one protested in Serbia but a handful of members of far right organizations. This was the best time to show support and it didn't happen.

The support has been vocal and often used by football and other hooligans to annoy others. if a kid want to annoy someone on internet this is the best and easiest way, just say something about supporting Mladic etc.

in these times of economic crisis most people are just trying to make the ends meet.

Of course what happened was quite recent and it is still a source of frustrations for both Serbians and their neighbors.

Time Violation
01-23-2013, 11:50 AM
Well, yeah, that's the official stance. But let's be honest, it's not like they went out of their way to catch Mladic and Karadzic. The guys were living in Belgrade for over a decade. I guess as someone who doesn't live in Serbia, I'm a bit curious about what the actual stance is within the country (hence my questions). Do Mladic and Karadzic have a lot of support? Or not really?

My best guess is they have a fair number of arm-chair supporters. A lot of people for example will say they are heroes, yet when they were arrested, nobody could care less :lol: The thing is, people have too much on their mind making ends meet day in day out, the question of "heroes" is very low on their list of priorities, if it's there at all.

Mr. Oracle
01-23-2013, 01:04 PM
Understood.


Well, yeah, that's the official stance. But let's be honest, it's not like they went out of their way to catch Mladic and Karadzic. The guys were living in Belgrade for over a decade. I guess as someone who doesn't live in Serbia, I'm a bit curious about what the actual stance is within the country (hence my questions). Do Mladic and Karadzic have a lot of support? Or not really?


Fair comments.

As for whether I am trolling, the reason I bumped this thread is more about me wanting to know more than trying to blame people. I have to admit that some comments from Serbs about the war and some of the leaders had shocked me and I wanted to see if they were a common view, and if so, why.

Hey Caesar, better to fight for your own home and lands than be a greedy imperialist pig and go overseas to fight wars for oil and wealth. That said, many believe that Milosevic (at least get the spelling right), was more of an opportunist than a patriot. You know the political kind that changes positions very easily? Sound familiar? Can't help but think this thread is a great way to troll serbs, to thin their ranks here a bit. Call me paranoid. Personally, I would never give you a straight answer on who we view as heroes or demons because you cannot understand. If you're really interested though, do some research and learn about history, reading various sources. Don't ask these questions on a tennis forum. How "ridiculously" naive.

bokehlicious
01-23-2013, 01:06 PM
The support has been vocal and often used by football and other hooligans to annoy others.

Indeed... :o :tape:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/11/27/1354025166018/Partizan-Belgrade-fans-wa-008.jpg

Time Violation
01-23-2013, 01:06 PM
Don't ask these questions on a tennis forum. How "ridiculously" naive.

Don't be a snob

nick the greek
01-23-2013, 01:35 PM
Bump.

Found this thread because of a side discussion in General Messages. One of the Serbian posters couldn't understand why Croatian and Bosnian posters wouldn't support Djokovic. Obviously it was pointed out that it's because of the war and stuff like Srebrenica etc. meaning that most Balkan nations still are very hostile to Serbia.

Then (this was the bit that surprised me) one of the Serbian posters said that Srebrenica was "no big deal" and that UN/US figures saying that Serbs committed 90-95% of all atrocities during the war are "lies".

I was just wondering whether this is a common opinion amongst Serbians? If so it would explain why guys like Ratko Mladic still get treated like heroes. I presume that most Serbian posters here are pretty young - what do your parents tell you about the war? Do you think that genocide / ethnic cleansing is no big deal?

The guy asks for information and you tell him to get some information before expressing stupid views.
The only stupid views I see are yours.
Obviously, you either can't read, you're blind or not very smart.
He did expressed views(in bold) and he heard them from anti Serb western media.Why didn't he ask himself do young Bosnian/Croat poster think genocide/ethnic cleansing is no big deal?Does he know about Naser Orlic and what he did to Serbs before Srebrenica or has he heard about Oluja(classic case of ethnic cleansing done by Croats)?Does he know about death camp for Serbs,Jews and Gipsies called Jasenovac from WWII held by NDH(Independent State of Croatia) a fascist state who was Hitler's alllies?
Like I said, be informed(from the right sources)educate yourself and than express views.

Caesar1844
01-23-2013, 02:37 PM
Obviously, you either can't read, you're blind or not very smart.
He did expressed views(in bold) and he heard them from anti Serb western media.Why didn't he ask himself do young Bosnian/Croat poster think genocide/ethnic cleansing is no big deal?Does he know about Naser Orlic and what he did to Serbs before Srebrenica or has he heard about Oluja(classic case of ethnic cleansing done by Croats)?Does he know about death camp for Serbs,Jews and Gipsies called Jasenovac from WWII held by NDH(Independent State of Croatia) a fascist state who was Hitler's alllies?
Like I said, be informed(from the right sources)educate yourself and than express views.
I did not hear them from Western media. A Serbian poster in General Messages said Srebrenica was no big deal, and that the UN/US were lying when they reported that Serbs were responsible for 90% of atrocities during the war. I came here to see if that was a common view held by Serbs.

Time Violation and ssin have been very helpful and provided me with some frank, educational answers. They corrected a couple of perceptions I had, gave me their own personal perspectives on the matter without insulting me for my ignorance, and actually interested me in finding out a bit more about the topic.

I wish I could say the same about you and Mr Oracle, who assumed I am too biased or too ignorant to understand.

nick the greek
01-23-2013, 03:40 PM
I did not hear them from Western media. A Serbian poster in General Messages said Srebrenica was no big deal, and that the UN/US were lying when they reported that Serbs were responsible for 90% of atrocities during the war. I came here to see if that was a common view held by Serbs.

Time Violation and ssin have been very helpful and provided me with some frank, educational answers. They corrected a couple of perceptions I had, gave me their own personal perspectives on the matter without insulting me for my ignorance, and actually interested me in finding out a bit more about the topic.

I wish I could say the same about you and Mr Oracle, who assumed I am too biased or too ignorant to understand.
They were lying.
I did the same but, but you didn't like what I said(the truth).

Time Violation
01-23-2013, 04:00 PM
I wish I could say the same about you and Mr Oracle, who assumed I am too biased or too ignorant to understand.

Mr Oracle is an expat if I am not mistaken, and one usually takes expats' opinion with a grain of salt. In case of expats who left Serbia 20+ years ago, the grain may be the size of a small car :p

Trollicki
01-23-2013, 05:03 PM
^ Expats and diaspora folk indeed tend to have more extreme opinions on this issue. As a diaspora kid myself, I agree with what ssin and Time Violation said.

buddyholly
01-23-2013, 05:46 PM
Like I said, be informed(from the right sources)educate yourself and than express views.

Anyone who can write a sentence like that is not worth my time.

nick the greek
01-23-2013, 06:46 PM
Anyone who can write a sentence like that is not worth my time.
Get off your high horse clown.You're just a hateful mug.:wavey:

abraxas21
01-23-2013, 07:12 PM
lol, BH banned. what did he do this time?

Time Violation
01-23-2013, 07:34 PM
lol, BH banned. what did he do this time?

He did a bit of trolling here, somebody probably took it the wrong way and reported. It was totally uncalled for/didn't contribute anything to the thread, but probably didn't need to be banned either, simply cleaning up the thread of spam would suffice.

tripwires
01-23-2013, 08:31 PM
He did a bit of trolling here, somebody probably took it the wrong way and reported. It was totally uncalled for/didn't contribute anything to the thread, but probably didn't need to be banned either, simply cleaning up the thread of spam would suffice.

That's too reasonable for MTF moderators.

Caesar1844
01-23-2013, 10:05 PM
They were lying.
I did the same but, but you didn't like what I said(the truth).
You threw a bunch of catchphrases at me and didn't really explain any of them, then told me I was too ignorant to understand the explanations. So, educate me. Why do you think the UN figures are lies? What is your opinion on Srebrenica and people like Mladic, and why do you hold those opinions?

You've told me to educate myself on the issue. Well, I have in fact done a bit of reading. I realise that there were atrocities on both sides and Naser Oric was a pretty unpleasant dude, but it's really confusing to me how you can equate his crimes to to the Srebrenica massacre. I mean, torturing and killing 11 captured soldiers is pretty evil but it sort of pales in comparison to the massacre of over 8,000 men and children.

I'm not trying to paint Serbs as bad people because it would be hard to find too many countries (including my own) that haven't done some horrible things during wartime. But I am struggling to understand why people like yourself try to justify it. If I'm uninformed on the matter, then please enlighten me.

nick the greek
01-23-2013, 10:50 PM
You threw a bunch of catchphrases at me and didn't really explain any of them, then told me I was too ignorant to understand the explanations. So, educate me. Why do you think the UN figures are lies? What is your opinion on Srebrenica and people like Mladic, and why do you hold those opinions?

You've told me to educate myself on the issue. Well, I have in fact done a bit of reading. I realise that there were atrocities on both sides and Naser Oric was a pretty unpleasant dude, but it's really confusing to me how you can equate his crimes to to the Srebrenica massacre. I mean, torturing and killing 11 captured soldiers is pretty evil but it sort of pales in comparison to the massacre of over 8,000 men and children.

I'm not trying to paint Serbs as bad people because it would be hard to find too many countries (including my own) that haven't done some horrible things during wartime. But I am struggling to understand why people like yourself try to justify it. If I'm uninformed on the matter, then please enlighten me.
Bold parts just show how little you know and your tendency to simplify things.It'd take me long time to "enlighten" you and this is a tennis forum, not a political one.So, if you really wanna know more send me your e-mail in a PM and I'll "educate" you.:)

Caesar1844
01-23-2013, 10:58 PM
Dude, it's a discussion forum. Discuss. I've asked a bunch of pretty simple questions, why don't you have a crack at answering them?

Personally I think it is pretty piss weak of you to come in here and tell people they're wrong/ignorant, and then refuse to actually put forward your own arguments. Seems to indicate to me that you're all hot air and no substance.

Time Violation
01-23-2013, 11:01 PM
I'm not trying to paint Serbs as bad people because it would be hard to find too many countries (including my own) that haven't done some horrible things during wartime. But I am struggling to understand why people like yourself try to justify it. If I'm uninformed on the matter, then please enlighten me.

The "why" usually generates infinite number of pages whether in books, press, magazines, forums etc. The shortest and most basic explanation (in my opinion of course) is vicious circle. Both official and unofficial history was teaching a lot of generations that the Serbs suffered 500+ years under Turks, i.e. Muslims, and also that hundreds of thousands died in Croatian Nazi death camps; the WW2 wasn't that long ago and still many people had their relatives/parents/friends lost there, so when the civil war happened, a number of people thought it was finally "payback time" and "an eye for an eye".

Of course, violence generates more violence which generates more violence and so on. When it all ended, then on all sides it was mostly all about who started it first, who was more guilty, whose losses were higher, who were the good guys and who are the bad guys, everybody pointing fingers to the other side and more-less that still goes on. The all-present myopia and failure to see the bigger picture, is unfortunately not something easily curable.

Trollicki
01-23-2013, 11:13 PM
Added to that is that anyone who tries to nuance what went on there gets branded a traitor by his/her compatriots, for their own party is exclusively the victim and never the perpetrator of anything that went on during the war. Anything that can be ascribed to a side as an act of agression is either far less worse than public opinion makes of it (see what has been said about Srebrenica in this thread) or ´merely´ a just act of self-defence.

Time Violation
01-23-2013, 11:21 PM
Added to that is that anyone who tries to nuance what went on there gets branded a traitor by his/her compatriots, for their own party is exclusively the victim and never the perpetrator of anything that went on during the war. Anything that can be ascribed to a side as an act of agression is either far less worse than public opinion makes of it (see what has been said about Srebrenica in this thread) or ´merely´ a just act of self-defence.

Yea, it's the usual "if you are not with us, then you're against us". To make things more grotesque, each side will sooner or later claim God and justice is/was on their side, never mind that the same God teaches compassion and peace.

Again, it's all oh-so simplified. There were also people in there for the money, for the political points, for other more or less bizarre reasons, different sides had support from different foreign countries who in turn had their own disparate interests, yada-yada. Some people sooner or later realized how utterly pointless and futile it all was, some probably never will.

nick the greek
01-23-2013, 11:24 PM
Dude, it's a discussion forum. Discuss. I've asked a bunch of pretty simple questions, why don't you have a crack at answering them?

Personally I think it is pretty piss weak of you to come in here and tell people they're wrong/ignorant, and then refuse to actually put forward your own arguments. Seems to indicate to me that you're all hot air and no substance.
Those are not simple questions.The same goes for answers.I'm not gonna give them to you on this forum.Period.You're talking about 8000 killed in Srebrenica?What are your sources?Naser Orlic and his unit killed 11 Serbian soldiers?It's more like 3500 Serbs(mostly civilians) and many burnt Serbian villages near Srebrenica.Btw, where are you from?

Trollicki
01-23-2013, 11:28 PM
Yea, it's the usual "if you are not with us, then you're against us". To make things more grotesque, each side will sooner or later claim God and justice is/was on their side, never mind that the same God teaches compassion and peace.

Again, it's all oh-so simplified. There were also people in there for the money, for the political points, for other more or less bizarre reasons, different sides had support from different foreign countries who in turn had their own disparate interests, yada-yada. Some people sooner or later realized how utterly pointless and futile it all was, some probably never will.

I´d venture to say that most of the politicians at the top belonged to this group. For instance, Milosevic himself I would characterise more as power crazy than as nationalistic, not to mention the cadre of criminals and ´businessmen´ that earned money over the backs of those that fought. Repugnant stuff, really.

nick the greek
01-23-2013, 11:30 PM
The "why" usually generates infinite number of pages whether in books, press, magazines, forums etc. The shortest and most basic explanation (in my opinion of course) is vicious circle. Both official and unofficial history was teaching a lot of generations that the Serbs suffered 500+ years under Turks, i.e. Muslims, and also that hundreds of thousands died in Croatian Nazi death camps; the WW2 wasn't that long ago and still many people had their relatives/parents/friends lost there, so when the civil war happened, a number of people thought it was finally "payback time" and "an eye for an eye".

Of course, violence generates more violence which generates more violence and so on. When it all ended, then on all sides it was mostly all about who started it first, who was more guilty, whose losses were higher, who were the good guys and who are the bad guys, everybody pointing fingers to the other side and more-less that still goes on. The all-present myopia and failure to see the bigger picture, is unfortunately not something easily curable.

Yea, it's the usual "if you are not with us, then you're against us". To make things more grotesque, each side will sooner or later claim God and justice is/was on their side, never mind that the same God teaches compassion and peace.

Again, it's all oh-so simplified. There were also people in there for the money, for the political points, for other more or less bizarre reasons, different sides had support from different foreign countries who in turn had their own disparate interests, yada-yada. Some people sooner or later realized how utterly pointless and futile it all was, some probably never will.
Good points.Some people here obviously can't understand the complexity of what happened and know little about that region's history.

Mr. Oracle
01-23-2013, 11:55 PM
I´d venture to say that most of the politicians at the top belonged to this group. For instance, Milosevic himself I would characterise more as power crazy than as nationalistic, not to mention the cadre of criminals and ´businessmen´ that earned money over the backs of those that fought. Repugnant stuff, really.

Please don't stop there. You have more work to do. The problem is universal isn't it? That our elites plunder and lie to the masses: wall street and the bailout, congress, iraq war (haliburton)... ad infinitum? This is the type of hypocritical journalism that was rampant during the balkan wars, and still perpetuates today. Why tell me to remove the speck in my eye when you have a plank in your own eye?

Repugnant stuff, really.

Aloimeh
01-23-2013, 11:59 PM
The reason, Caesar, you are not getting a good response is because you're not only getting all the answers wrong...you're getting all the questions wrong. You know so little that you can't even ask the right questions. And then when people don't bite, you set out to "educate" us, which becomes a pointless exercise.

From my perspective, before we talk about Srebrenica in 1995, we should talk about why the Bosnian war happened and how it began in 1992.

Before you talk about fake genocides that never took place, we should talk about real genocide that took place in WWII.

Since you are so obsessed with Srebrenica, perhaps you should look at a website detailing one of the Serbian counterperspectives before flippantly dismissing it as "11 POWs."

http://4international.me/2008/02/15/the-real-srebrenica-genocide-the-mass-murder-of-serbs-in-srebrenica-and-gorazde/

Time Violation
01-23-2013, 11:59 PM
Please don't stop there. You have more work to do. The problem is universal isn't it? That our elites plunder and lie to the masses: wall street and the bailout, congress, iraq war (haliburton)... ad infinitum? This is the type of hypocritical journalism that was rampant during the balkan wars, and still perpetuates today. Why tell me to remove the speck in my eye when you have a plank in your own eye?

There's the pointing fingers... didn't take long :p

From my perspective, before we talk about Srebrenica in 1995, we should talk about why the Bosnian war happened and how it began in 1992.


QED

Trollicki
01-24-2013, 12:00 AM
Ah yes, the hypocrisy argument. ´The same things go on in the West, so why are we the only ones that are held accountable for it´? Thing is, we have fuck all to say on an international scale and no influence whatsoever on what happens there. What we are able to do is fix ourselves so Serbia will be a halfway decent country to live in. Or would you say things are going well down there?

nick the greek
01-24-2013, 12:07 AM
The reason, Caesar, you are not getting a good response is because you're not only getting all the answers wrong...you're getting all the questions wrong. You know so little that you can't even ask the right questions. And then when people don't bite, you set out to "educate" us, which becomes a pointless exercise.

From my perspective, before we talk about Srebrenica in 1995, we should talk about why the Bosnian war happened and how it began in 1992.

Before you talk about fake genocides that never took place, we should talk about real genocide that took place in WWII.

Since you are so obsessed with Srebrenica, perhaps you should look at a website detailing one of the Serbian counterperspectives before flippantly dismissing it as "11 POWs."

http://4international.me/2008/02/15/the-real-srebrenica-genocide-the-mass-murder-of-serbs-in-srebrenica-and-gorazde/
This.

Caesar1844
01-24-2013, 12:14 AM
Those are not simple questions.The same goes for answers.I'm not gonna give them to you on this forum.Period.You're talking about 8000 killed in Srebrenica?What are your sources?Naser Orlic and his unit killed 11 Serbian soldiers?It's more like 3500 Serbs(mostly civilians) and many burnt Serbian villages near Srebrenica.Btw, where are you from?
What are YOUR sources? You're going against pretty much all mainstream reports of the war. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your account is the correct one.

This is my point. I'm getting my information from things like independently-verified UN reports. You're saying that's lies. I'm willing to accept that maybe my information is wrong, but I'm hardly going to take your word for it. Give me something to work with here!

The reason, Caesar, you are not getting a good response is because you're not only getting all the answers wrong...you're getting all the questions wrong. You know so little that you can't even ask the right questions. And then when people don't bite, you set out to "educate" us, which becomes a pointless exercise.

From my perspective, before we talk about Srebrenica in 1995, we should talk about why the Bosnian war happened and how it began in 1992.

Before you talk about fake genocides that never took place, we should talk about real genocide that took place in WWII.

Since you are so obsessed with Srebrenica, perhaps you should look at a website detailing one of the Serbian counterperspectives before flippantly dismissing it as "11 POWs."

http://4international.me/2008/02/15/the-real-srebrenica-genocide-the-mass-murder-of-serbs-in-srebrenica-and-gorazde/
I'm not really interested in discussing why the war started. I'm more interested in what actually happened during the war. People talking about fake massacres and stuff aren't providing me with anything of substance to correct my impressions, if they are in fact incorrect.

A link to one website that basically quotes Serb propaganda from the war isn't really going to cut it. Have you got anything else?

Brick Top
01-24-2013, 12:15 AM
The reason, Caesar, you are not getting a good response is because you're not only getting all the answers wrong...you're getting all the questions wrong. You know so little that you can't even ask the right questions. And then when people don't bite, you set out to "educate" us, which becomes a pointless exercise.

From my perspective, before we talk about Srebrenica in 1995, we should talk about why the Bosnian war happened and how it began in 1992.

Before you talk about fake genocides that never took place, we should talk about real genocide that took place in WWII.

Since you are so obsessed with Srebrenica, perhaps you should look at a website detailing one of the Serbian counterperspectives before flippantly dismissing it as "11 POWs."

http://4international.me/2008/02/15/the-real-srebrenica-genocide-the-mass-murder-of-serbs-in-srebrenica-and-gorazde/

Oh God,why did I open this link.

Time Violation
01-24-2013, 12:23 AM
I'm more interested in what actually happened during the war. People talking about fake massacres and stuff aren't providing me with anything of substance to correct my impressions, if they are in fact incorrect.

I'm afraid you won't find what you're looking for. To know at least in some part what happened there, you had to be there, in the war itself. I can only say I'm very lucky I wasn't old enough at time to be there, but many were far less fortunate.

Aloimeh
01-24-2013, 12:26 AM
What are YOUR sources? You're going against pretty much all mainstream reports of the war. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your account is the correct one.

This is my point. I'm getting my information from things like independently-verified UN reports. You're saying that's lies. I'm willing to accept that maybe my information is wrong, but I'm hardly going to take your word for it. Give me something to work with here!


I'm not really interested in discussing why the war started. I'm more interested in what actually happened during the war. People talking about fake massacres and stuff aren't providing me with anything of substance to correct my impressions, if they are in fact incorrect.

A link to one website that basically quotes Serb propaganda from the war isn't really going to cut it. Have you got anything else?

Actually, no, the onus is not on us. You asked us questions, so the onus is on you to independently investigate how reliable each side's statements are, if indeed you are interested in the whole truth. The fact that the UN or US state department say something hardly makes it "impartial" - as the very partial behavior of these players demonstrated.

I am actually very interested in how the war started and what the first atrocity of the war was. Because it happens to have been a massacre of about 80 Serb civilians and POWs in Sijekovac, which took place in March 26, 1992. And I'm sure you didn't know that. I'm also sure you don't know where the village of Sijekovac is, or indeed where the municipality of Bosanski Brod is located.

See how little you know? And yet you assert and state and insist away...when you lack knowledge, like an ignorant fool.

Some people have given you answers. You have failed to engage in dialogue, instead accusing posters of weak arguments, bias, whatever. The problem is you don't approach this with even a smidgen of open-mindedness. You have very set ideas and you think we're going to waste our time disproving that kind of garbage? Guess again.

Brick Top
01-24-2013, 12:26 AM
What are YOUR sources? You're going against pretty much all mainstream reports of the war. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your account is the correct one.

This is my point. I'm getting my information from things like independently-verified UN reports. You're saying that's lies. I'm willing to accept that maybe my information is wrong, but I'm hardly going to take your word for it. Give me something to work with here!


I'm not really interested in discussing why the war started. I'm more interested in what actually happened during the war. People talking about fake massacres and stuff aren't providing me with anything of substance to correct my impressions, if they are in fact incorrect.

A link to one website that basically quotes Serb propaganda from the war isn't really going to cut it. Have you got anything else?

If you dont want to know cause and background of the war,you will never understand what happened in the same.

Mr. Oracle
01-24-2013, 12:29 AM
The "why" usually generates infinite number of pages whether in books, press, magazines, forums etc. The shortest and most basic explanation (in my opinion of course) is vicious circle. Both official and unofficial history was teaching a lot of generations that the Serbs suffered 500+ years under Turks, i.e. Muslims, and also that hundreds of thousands died in Croatian Nazi death camps; the WW2 wasn't that long ago and still many people had their relatives/parents/friends lost there, so when the civil war happened, a number of people thought it was finally "payback time" and "an eye for an eye".

Of course, violence generates more violence which generates more violence and so on. When it all ended, then on all sides it was mostly all about who started it first, who was more guilty, whose losses were higher, who were the good guys and who are the bad guys, everybody pointing fingers to the other side and more-less that still goes on. The all-present myopia and failure to see the bigger picture, is unfortunately not something easily curable.

"so when the civil war happened, a number of people thought it was finally "payback time" and "an eye for an eye".

You almost have it. But, war is not just about revenge. You have not mentioned one of the most powerful motivators according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs: the need for security, safety. I don't want to assign blame to any of the people living there, but all of them desire to live in safety. Generally though, you are headed in the right direction with your "circle of violence" analogy (something which is not limited to that part of the world). We can look at the problems in the middle east. We can look at the harmful effects of dispossessing the american natives, of enslaving millions of africans, of government testing of smallpox on those same people, of the economic plundering of the middle class going on right now.

I mentioned earlier that I am more lenient towards people who fight for their own homes than for imperialists. The west, whether it was britian, spain, the dutch in south africa etc, have more sins to account for than the people of the balkans. Caesar asked how some can defend the actions of certain parties during the balkan wars. What I want to know is how can millions of people living in the west still cherish the sins of their forebears?

For example, how can the imperialist doctrine of "manifest destiny" still be popular with millions of americans? The idea that God chose the pilgrims to come to the new world to dispossess the native "savages" and go on a centuries long "crusade" of genocide to exterminate them, and break every treaty in the process. We had an entire year of american history/literature at university trying to solve the concept of "manifest destiny." We still see imperialistic war being raged around the world. Why is that? It boggles the mind regarding the evil that is in the hearts of men, ALL men.

I'm not picking on the americans or anyone else. But you need to tackle the greater sins of superpowers at the same time, instead of picking on a small region in europe, on a people who's problems are limited to where they live. I'm confident that one day we will solve our problems there and we don't need to be singled out unfairly.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...

Caesar1844
01-24-2013, 12:29 AM
I'm afraid you won't find what you're looking for. To know at least in some part what happened there, you had to be there, in the war itself. I can only say I'm very lucky I wasn't old enough at time to be there, but many were far less fortunate.
Of course there is stuff that happens during wars that can't be understood by people who weren't there. But some of this stuff I would have thought would be pretty easy to at least partially substantiate some of these statements with facts (e.g. a massacre of 8000 people was faked, another massacre of 3000 people was covered up).

Aloimeh
01-24-2013, 12:37 AM
Of course there is stuff that happens during wars that can't be understood by people who weren't there. But some of this stuff I would have thought would be pretty easy to at least partially substantiate some of these statements with facts (e.g. a massacre of 8000 people was faked, another massacre of 3000 people was covered up).

As hard as it may be for you to believe, it is not the hardest thing in the world to fake a civilian massacre of almost entirely military age men. I mean, after all, it is a well known fact that many if not most of Srebrenica's men were Naser Oric's troops and terrorists. What better way to cover up the facts of what they were and how they may have died (in battle) than by burying their bodies in memorial cemeteries and commemorating them as white-as-snow innocents who were executed? There is strong evidence of hundreds of executed prisoners (ligatures and blindfolds). There is no evidence of 8000 or even 4000.

I have *personally* dealt with a lying Bosnian Muslim woman who got refugee status and access to the US on the basis of invented injuries as being due to a Serb mortar shell, when in fact she incurred the injuries before the war at a party where they were playing with firecrackers. She eventually became so overwhelmed with guilt that she confessed everything and returned to her original home in Bosnia, in a city from which Serbs and Croats had been cleansed by Muslims. That city is Bugojno (another place you probably never heard of).

And of course that doesn't refute real victims. But a lot of the victimization is smokescreens and propaganda. Bosnian Muslim hysterical lies of 250,000 dead civilians have been abolished once and for all. They did a victim count: it was 35,000 Muslim civilians, and there is no information as to how many died at the hands of Serbs vs. Croats (vs. Muslims), how many were killed by shells and bombs vs. by massacres, etc. We have none of that all-so-important demographic information that would help us determine whether a genocide really took place. Because if it turns out that "only" 5,000-10,000 Bosnian Muslims were victims of genuine massacres (a tragedy, to be sure), their strident claims of genocide will have rung very hollow, indeed.

nick the greek
01-24-2013, 12:37 AM
What are YOUR sources? You're going against pretty much all mainstream reports of the war. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your account is the correct one.

This is my point. I'm getting my information from things like independently-verified UN reports. You're saying that's lies. I'm willing to accept that maybe my information is wrong, but I'm hardly going to take your word for it. Give me something to work with here!


I'm not really interested in discussing why the war started. I'm more interested in what actually happened during the war. People talking about fake massacres and stuff aren't providing me with anything of substance to correct my impressions, if they are in fact incorrect.

A link to one website that basically quotes Serb propaganda from the war isn't really going to cut it. Have you got anything else?
Where are you from?I've asked you twice.Oh one more thing, stick to your "independent/verified sources and your "unbiased" views.:wavey:

Caesar1844
01-24-2013, 12:39 AM
If you dont want to know cause and background of the war,you will never understand what happened in the same.
I'm primarily looking for facts, rather than pointing fingers over who started what. Once we've established what actually happened, we can talk about why it happened.

Actually, no, the onus is not on us. You asked us questions, so the onus is on you to independently investigate how reliable each side's statements are, if indeed you are interested in the whole truth. The fact that the UN or US state department say something hardly makes it "impartial" - as the very partial behavior of these players demonstrated.

I am actually very interested in how the war started and what the first atrocity of the war was. Because it happens to have been a massacre of about 80 Serb civilians and POWs in Sijekovac, which took place in March 26, 1992. And I'm sure you didn't know that. I'm also sure you don't know where the village of Sijekovac is, or indeed where the municipality of Bosanski Brod is located.

See how little you know? And yet you assert and state and insist away...when you lack knowledge, like an ignorant fool.

Some people have given you answers. You have failed to engage in dialogue, instead accusing posters of weak arguments, bias, whatever. The problem is you don't approach this with even a smidgen of open-mindedness. You have very set ideas and you think we're going to waste our time disproving that kind of garbage? Guess again.
See, you assume that I don't know about Sijekovac (I do, most reports put it at less than 50 not 80).

Say what you like about the UN but their reports have more credibility due to their independent verification procedures than a bunch of Bosnian Serb wartime press releases posted on a fringe website. So again I ask. Do you have anything else?

I'm not making any assertions here. I'm just pointing out what the accepted wisdom is, and asking you to provide me with a credible alternative. I'm totally openminded. I'm totally prepared to accept that some of the stuff that the UN says is incorrect. But you have to give me an alternative.

You're asking me to examine the evidence from both sides and draw my own conclusions. That's exactly what I am attempting to do! Yet you would rather insult me and whinge about me being closeminded than actually provide me with information. What conclusion am I supposed to draw from that? That you don't have any?

Time Violation
01-24-2013, 12:39 AM
I mentioned earlier that I am more lenient towards people who fight for their own homes than for imperialists. The west, whether it was britian, spain, the dutch in south africa etc, have more sins to account for than the people of the balkans. Caesar asked how some can defend the actions of certain parties during the balkan wars. What I want to know is how can millions of people living in the west still cherish the sins of their forebears?

For example, how can the imperialist doctrine of "manifest destiny" still be popular with millions of americans? The idea that God chose the pilgrims to come to the new world to dispossess the native "savages" and go on a centuries long "crusade" of genocide to exterminate them, and break every treaty in the process. We had an entire year of american history/literature at university trying to solve the concept of "manifest destiny." We still see imperialistic war being raged around the world. Why is that? It boggles the mind regarding the evil that is in the hearts of men, ALL men.

I'm not picking on the americans or anyone else. But you need to tackle the greater sins of superpowers at the same time, instead of picking on a small region in europe, on a people who's problems are limited to where they live. I'm confident that one day we will solve our problems there and we don't need to be singled out unfairly.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...

Dude, I don't give a rat's ass about the West, I live in Serbia. Ever heard of "clean up your own back yard"? :)

Caesar1844
01-24-2013, 12:50 AM
I mean, after all, it is a well known fact that many if not most of Srebrenica's men were Naser Oric's troops and terrorists.
I can call anything a well-known fact. It doesn't mean anything. Do you have some evidence for this?

There is strong evidence of hundreds of executed prisoners (ligatures and blindfolds). There is no evidence of 8000 or even 4000.
Why is it then that in the Popovic trial the court found (on the basis of forensic evidence) that the number of people executed was between 5,300 and 7,900?

Genuine question, if that number is wrong then I want to know why.

I have *personally* dealt with a lying Bosnian Muslim woman who got refugee status and access to the US on the basis of invented injuries as being due to a Serb mortar shell, when in fact she incurred the injuries before the war at a party where they were playing with firecrackers. She eventually became so overwhelmed with guilt that she confessed everything and returned to her original home in Bosnia, in a city from which Serbs and Croats had been cleansed by Muslims. That city is Bugojno (another place you probably never heard of).

And of course that doesn't refute real victims. But a lot of the victimization is smokescreens and propaganda. Bosnian Muslim hysterical lies of 250,000 dead civilians have been abolished once and for all. They did a victim count: it was 35,000 Muslim civilians, and there is no information as to how many died at the hands of Serbs vs. Croats (vs. Muslims), how many were killed by shells and bombs vs. by massacres, etc. We have none of that all-so-important demographic information that would help us determine whether a genocide really took place. Because if it turns out that "only" 5,000-10,000 Bosnian Muslims were victims of genuine massacres (a tragedy, to be sure), their strident claims of genocide will have rung very hollow, indeed.
For sure there has been plenty of lying and confusion on all sides, but let's get real. The numbers are pretty variable but I have never seen a credible source suggest that the number of Bosnian victims is anywhere near as low as 5,000-10,000. If we're going to have a discussion at least be realistic about it.

Mr. Oracle
01-24-2013, 12:56 AM
Of course there is stuff that happens during wars that can't be understood by people who weren't there. But some of this stuff I would have thought would be pretty easy to at least partially substantiate some of these statements with facts (e.g. a massacre of 8000 people was faked, another massacre of 3000 people was covered up).

I remember just prior to the war in Kosovo, the american press secretary james rubin (I have to restrain myself calling him names), went on the air on cnn, and shamelessly claimed that soccer fields were being used to bury thousands of dead albanians. He did a great job with this propaganda and lies and eventually softened up a naive public in the west to authorize the aggression against serbia. When the Nato occupiers entered after the war, low and behold, there were no graves, only soccer players. The media shrugged this off. No apologies.

Once Serbia is ready to deal with it's allegations, it will judge itself. We are a nation of conscience, of love for God and our neighbours. We have one of the most diverse populations in Europe where all people are welcome, more so than our neighbours. We do not however acknowledge the accusations of those who waged an imperialistic war of lies against us, and continue to do so at the kangaroo court in the Hague.

Aloimeh
01-24-2013, 12:57 AM
I can call anything a well-known fact. It doesn't mean anything. Do you have some evidence for this?


Why is it then that in the Popovic trial the court found (on the basis of forensic evidence) that the number of people executed was between 5,300 and 7,900?

Genuine question, if that number is wrong then I want to know why.


For sure there has been plenty of lying and confusion on all sides, but let's get real. The numbers are pretty variable but I have never seen a credible source suggest that the number of Bosnian victims is anywhere near as low as 5,000-10,000. If we're going to have a discussion at least be realistic about it.

Only that their names appeared on the rosters of the Bosnian Muslim army and thus could not be included in the recent body count as civilians. Several thousand Srebrenica "civilians" were on the official rosters and thus counted as military. They even had protests about this - about not being counted as civilians.

What court made the finding and what was their reasoning? I don't have time or interest to read their transcripts, that's your job.

Let's get real: I have not seen evidence that more than 35,000 Muslim civilians were killed. I have not seen evidence regarding: 1.) who killed them (mostly by Serb forces, I'm sure, but many clearly were not); 2.) how and where were they killed (a mortar shell? bombing and crossfire? or taken prisoner, lined up and executed?).

As such, I don't know how many people were mowed down with machine guns in what could be termed conventional genocide. I would wager that the number is much smaller than has been claimed and probably is in the range of 10,000 or so, perhaps less. Horrific, yes. Genocide, absolutely not. But whatever the case may be, it has no place being mentioned alongside horrors like Auschwitz...or Jasenovac, for that matter.

I also find it curious that despite the fact that you were allegedly aware of Sijekovac (highly doubtful, but be that as it may), you are not at all puzzled by the fact that it was never taken up as a case by the ICTY or any local tribunal. How can we explain that the first atrocity of a war, in which dozens of innocent people were murdered, is not prosecuted at all? What does that tell us about the credibility of the ICTY? In my view, it is very telling.

Mr. Oracle
01-24-2013, 12:58 AM
I swore I would never talk politics on MTF. Damn the OP for starting this thread.

Mr. Oracle
01-24-2013, 01:00 AM
Dude, I don't give a rat's ass about the West, I live in Serbia. Ever heard of "clean up your own back yard"? :)

Don't single us out. Period.

Aloimeh
01-24-2013, 01:03 AM
Don't single us out. Period.

And the same vultures who put up a dog-and-pony show every July in Srebrenica (burying and reburying who knows whom) will be first to pooh-pooh Serb victims and dismiss Serb grievances as "paranoia" and "ancient history." 1992 is not ancient, but 1942 apparently is. How convenient.

Mr. Oracle
01-24-2013, 01:08 AM
And the same vultures who put up a dog-and-pony show every July in Srebrenica (burying and reburying who knows whom) will be first to pooh-pooh Serb victims and dismiss Serb grievances as "paranoia" and "ancient history." 1992 is not ancient, but 1942 apparently is. How convenient.

Yep. This is why I say they cannot understand because they never experienced it. Amazing how a superpower can cloak hypocrisy as justice. Same thing goes for the writing of history. The winner decides who the good and bad guys are, which facts and lies are including or excluded.

Time Violation
01-24-2013, 01:10 AM
Once Serbia is ready to deal with it's allegations, it will judge itself. We are a nation of conscience, of love for God and our neighbours.

Yea, that's probably how Serbia looks from 10,000 miles away :)

Mr. Oracle
01-24-2013, 01:26 AM
Yea, that's probably how Serbia looks from 10,000 miles away :)

Great generalization. Proves you are disingenuous and have an axe to grind, and why my dear we just don't give a damn about foreign opinion. Cheers.

In the mean time, have a look at the rich and diverse population of Serbia.

Caesar1844
01-24-2013, 01:33 AM
Only that their names appeared on the rosters of the Bosnian Muslim army and thus could not be included in the recent body count as civilians.
Okay that's cool. If it's true I've definitely learned something. Got a source?

What court made the finding and what was their reasoning? I don't have time or interest to read their transcripts, that's your job.
WTF? If you haven't even read the forensic evidence in relation to the massacre that was collated for the trial, then how can you dismiss it so casually?

Let's get real: I have not seen evidence that more than 35,000 Muslim civilians were killed. I have not seen evidence regarding: 1.) who killed them (mostly by Serb forces, I'm sure, but many clearly were not); 2.) how and where were they killed (a mortar shell? bombing and crossfire? or taken prisoner, lined up and executed?).

As such, I don't know how many people were mowed down with machine guns in what could be termed conventional genocide. I would wager that the number is much smaller than has been claimed and probably is in the range of 10,000 or so, perhaps less. Horrific, yes. Genocide, absolutely not. But whatever the case may be, it has no place being mentioned alongside horrors like Auschwitz...or Jasenovac, for that matter.
So to summarise:

1) You haven't looked at the evidence
2) You don't have time to look at the evidence
3) For some unspecified reason you think that the number is far less than any credible international study has proposed
4) You don't really care anyway because it was payback

Awesome.

I also find it curious that despite the fact that you were allegedly aware of Sijekovac (highly doubtful, but be that as it may), you are not at all puzzled by the fact that it was never taken up as a case by the ICTY or any local tribunal. How can we explain that the first atrocity of a war, in which dozens of innocent people were murdered, is not prosecuted at all? What does that tell us about the credibility of the ICTY? In my view, it is very telling.
The evidence in relation to that incident is sketchy and highly conflicted. It's not possible to take it before a court because nobody knows for certain what actually happened.

If a war crime was committed it's terrible that the perpetrators couldn't be called to account, but sometimes that happens. It's not fair, but it doesn't mean that there was some kind of UN/ICTY conspiracy.

Time Violation
01-24-2013, 01:41 AM
Great generalization. Proves you are disingenuous and have an axe to grind, and why my dear we just don't give a damn about foreign opinion. Cheers.

Hey, at least I'm not the one condemning the West while sitting smack in the middle of it, waging epic battles from an exceedingly safe distance. Put your money where your mouth is, eh?

Btw, just try telling someone that Albanians should get like 30% or more places in the Parliament should Kosovo ever return, and watch the reactions.

Mr. Oracle
01-24-2013, 01:47 AM
Hey, at least I'm not the one condemning the West while sitting smack in the middle of it, waging epic battles from an exceedingly safe distance. Put your money where your mouth is, eh?

Btw, just try telling someone that Albanians should get like 30% or more places in the Parliament should Kosovo ever return, and watch the reactions.

I will repeat: don't single us out. We don't like that. I judge or condemn no one. Read my posts more carefully.

nick the greek
01-24-2013, 01:49 AM
I remember just prior to the war in Kosovo, the american press secretary james rubin (I have to restrain myself calling him names), went on the air on cnn, and shamelessly claimed that soccer fields were being used to bury thousands of dead albanians. He did a great job with this propaganda and lies and eventually softened up a naive public in the west to authorize the aggression against serbia. When the Nato occupiers entered after the war, low and behold, there were no graves, only soccer players. The media shrugged this off. No apologies.

Once Serbia is ready to deal with it's allegations, it will judge itself. We are a nation of conscience, of love for God and our neighbours. We have one of the most diverse populations in Europe where all people are welcome, more so than our neighbours. We do not however acknowledge the accusations of those who waged an imperialistic war of lies against us, and continue to do so at the kangaroo court in the Hague.

Only that their names appeared on the rosters of the Bosnian Muslim army and thus could not be included in the recent body count as civilians. Several thousand Srebrenica "civilians" were on the official rosters and thus counted as military. They even had protests about this - about not being counted as civilians.

What court made the finding and what was their reasoning? I don't have time or interest to read their transcripts, that's your job.

Let's get real: I have not seen evidence that more than 35,000 Muslim civilians were killed. I have not seen evidence regarding: 1.) who killed them (mostly by Serb forces, I'm sure, but many clearly were not); 2.) how and where were they killed (a mortar shell? bombing and crossfire? or taken prisoner, lined up and executed?).

As such, I don't know how many people were mowed down with machine guns in what could be termed conventional genocide. I would wager that the number is much smaller than has been claimed and probably is in the range of 10,000 or so, perhaps less. Horrific, yes. Genocide, absolutely not. But whatever the case may be, it has no place being mentioned alongside horrors like Auschwitz...or Jasenovac, for that matter.

I also find it curious that despite the fact that you were allegedly aware of Sijekovac (highly doubtful, but be that as it may), you are not at all puzzled by the fact that it was never taken up as a case by the ICTY or any local tribunal. How can we explain that the first atrocity of a war, in which dozens of innocent people were murdered, is not prosecuted at all? What does that tell us about the credibility of the ICTY? In my view, it is very telling.
Guys, ignore this caesar clown.

Caesar1844
01-24-2013, 01:49 AM
Guys, ignore this ceasar clown.
I've given you every opportunity to provide me with alternative evidence that supports your views, and change my mind. You've not only declined but resorted to insulting me.

That indicates to me that either you know you're full of shit, or you're too stupid to engage in a discussion that involves substantiating your points. Which is it?

Aloimeh
01-24-2013, 01:51 AM
Okay that's cool. If it's true I've definitely learned something. Got a source?

I read this on Muslim forums, in the native language, where there was much gnashing of teeth over this. I can't find you an English language source right now. Nor do I care (more of that later).

WTF? If you haven't even read the forensic evidence in relation to the massacre that was collated for the trial, then how can you dismiss it so casually?

You have read the forensics? How many victims had blindfolds and/or ligatures?

So to summarise:

1) You haven't looked at the evidence
2) You don't have time to look at the evidence
3) For some unspecified reason you think that the number is far less than any credible international study has proposed
4) You don't really care anyway because it was payback

Awesome.

1.) You have been in Tuzla morgue and "looked at the evidence"?
2.) No, I'm in medical school and have a final exam two days from now and don't have time to do this sort of research.
3.) The most recent "credible international study" found ~35,000 Muslim civilian victims. I have yet to see a breakdown with respect to who killed them and how. And that is critical, because it's the linchpin of "genocide" that's being touted by people like you.
4.) I care, but I simply don't find myself more so outraged by one atrocity vs. another. There were atrocities on all sides, I am disgusted and scandalized by them all. That doesn't mean I'm an idiot who will start devoting my life towards mourning something that has nothing to do with me and frankly is a detail of world history, even as my own people's very real experience of genocide in WWII is systematically dismissed, minimized, covered up, ignored, and outright erased out of the books - in no small part by the same groups that are now accusing us of genocide. I am outraged that Srebrenica happened, but I am yet more outraged that Jasenovac happened and that it is far less known and far less deemed worthy of mourning than Oric's gang of hoodlums and the innocents he dragged along with him into hell.

Well, God sees all. He will avenge both Jasenovac and Srebrenica and all the victims of imperial fascism (a very long list that includes Iraq, Libya, Syria, Serbia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Chile, Cyprus, etc. - to name a few).

The evidence in relation to that incident is sketchy and highly conflicted. It's not possible to take it before a court because nobody knows for certain what actually happened.

If a war crime was committed it's terrible that the perpetrators couldn't be called to account, but sometimes that happens. It's not fair, but it doesn't mean that there was some kind of UN/ICTY conspiracy.

It's not sometimes, it's always. Every atrocity against Serbs is "sketchy" and "conflicted" - every atrocity by Serbs is clear as day. And then these "sketchy" crimes are never prosecuted. Or the perpetrators get acquitted for atrocity after atrocity after atrocity. Whether it's Klecka or the Kosovo organ theft scandal or the 2004 pogrom or Operation Flash or Operation Mistral or Operation Storm or Oric's escapades or Mirko Norac's ghoulish crimes in Gospic or the murder of thousands of Sarajevo Serbs by Muslim warlords - somehow...always...the evidence of atrocities against Serbs doesn't merit prosecution or conviction.

And yet, we still have tens of thousands of dead Serbs and hundreds of thousands of expelled Serbs. And there's no explanation being provided for that. Other than Milosevic.

Anyway, I'm off to study. I have work to do, I'm sure you have work of your own to do, and I don't have time or interest to debate this further. I think I've made some salient points and others can glean what they may. You and I will clearly not agree on this.

Good night.

Time Violation
01-24-2013, 01:56 AM
I will repeat: don't single us out. We don't like that. I judge or condemn no one. Read my posts more carefully.

Yea, I've read carefully. Everybody are guilty and there should be peace in the world. It's not a beauty pageant unfortunately :)

Once Serbia is ready to deal with it's allegations, it will judge itself. We are a nation of conscience, of love for God and our neighbours.

I really have to quote this one again. You acuse me of generalization, but the quote above is one of biggest generalizations I've ever heard. It borders with parody, but you really mean it? Tell me, when was the last time you lived in Serbia? I mean for real, not on a Christmas vacation? :)

Caesar1844
01-24-2013, 02:08 AM
I read this on Muslim forums, in the native language, where there was much gnashing of teeth over this. I can't find you an English language source right now. Nor do I care (more of that later).
Great, more unsubstantiated stuff. Can you really blame me for not believing you? I am trying hard here but I need something to hang my hat on other than your word.

You have read the forensics? How many victims had blindfolds and/or ligatures?
Those were the findings of an international court, my friend. Do you have any reason to doubt them other than "it's all a big anti-Serbian conspiracy"?

I am outraged that Srebrenica happened, but I am yet more outraged that Jasenovac happened and that it is far less known and far less deemed worthy of mourning than Oric's gang of hoodlums and the innocents he dragged along with him into hell.
Are you really surprised that a massacre of up to 8,000 people within the last decade is better known than one incident that was past of a massive world war more than half a century ago? That's just reality, man. A lot of nasty shit went down in WWII and these days we only get a high(low)lights reel. Everyone knows about Auchwitz but nobody remembers the other stuff. Not fair but that's just how it is.

I mean perhaps Jasenovac should be better known than it is, but it's not evidence of some sort of selective international persecution of Serbs.

It's not sometimes, it's always. Every atrocity against Serbs is "sketchy" and "conflicted" - every atrocity by Serbs is clear as day. And then these "sketchy" crimes are never prosecuted. Or the perpetrators get acquitted for atrocity after atrocity after atrocity. Whether it's Klecka or the Kosovo organ theft scandal or the 2004 pogrom or Operation Flash or Operation Mistral or Operation Storm or Oric's escapades or Mirko Norac's ghoulish crimes in Gospic or the murder of thousands of Sarajevo Serbs by Muslim warlords - somehow...always...the evidence of atrocities against Serbs doesn't merit prosecution or conviction.
You realise that multiple Bozniaks and Croats were charged with war crimes against Serbians and convicted, right?

There's plenty of crimes/potential crimes on all sides of the conflict that nobody has been brought to account for. It's horrible, but it's war. I find the way you minimise the crimes that have been brought to account by crying persecution to be extremely disturbing.

Mr. Oracle
01-24-2013, 02:17 AM
I read this on Muslim forums, in the native language, where there was much gnashing of teeth over this. I can't find you an English language source right now. Nor do I care (more of that later).



You have read the forensics? How many victims had blindfolds and/or ligatures?



1.) You have been in Tuzla morgue and "looked at the evidence"?
2.) No, I'm in medical school and have a final exam two days from now and don't have time to do this sort of research.
3.) The most recent "credible international study" found ~35,000 Muslim civilian victims. I have yet to see a breakdown with respect to who killed them and how. And that is critical, because it's the linchpin of "genocide" that's being touted by people like you.
4.) I care, but I simply don't find myself more so outraged by one atrocity vs. another. There were atrocities on all sides, I am disgusted and scandalized by them all. That doesn't mean I'm an idiot who will start devoting my life towards mourning something that has nothing to do with me and frankly is a detail of world history, even as my own people's very real experience of genocide in WWII is systematically dismissed, minimized, covered up, ignored, and outright erased out of the books - in no small part by the same groups that are now accusing us of genocide. I am outraged that Srebrenica happened, but I am yet more outraged that Jasenovac happened and that it is far less known and far less deemed worthy of mourning than Oric's gang of hoodlums and the innocents he dragged along with him into hell.

Well, God sees all. He will avenge both Jasenovac and Srebrenica and all the victims of imperial fascism (a very long list that includes Iraq, Libya, Syria, Serbia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Chile, Cyprus, etc. - to name a few).



It's not sometimes, it's always. Every atrocity against Serbs is "sketchy" and "conflicted" - every atrocity by Serbs is clear as day. And then these "sketchy" crimes are never prosecuted. Or the perpetrators get acquitted for atrocity after atrocity after atrocity. Whether it's Klecka or the Kosovo organ theft scandal or the 2004 pogrom or Operation Flash or Operation Mistral or Operation Storm or Oric's escapades or Mirko Norac's ghoulish crimes in Gospic or the murder of thousands of Sarajevo Serbs by Muslim warlords - somehow...always...the evidence of atrocities against Serbs doesn't merit prosecution or conviction.

And yet, we still have tens of thousands of dead Serbs and hundreds of thousands of expelled Serbs. And there's no explanation being provided for that. Other than Milosevic.

Anyway, I'm off to study. I have work to do, I'm sure you have work of your own to do, and I don't have time or interest to debate this further. I think I've made some salient points and others can glean what they may. You and I will clearly not agree on this.

Good night.

This is the wisest approach when people throw accusations around and demand simple explanations, there are no simple answers. I think most Serbs will be less reticent to give simple answers when they sense that the whole "package" of issues and grievances are on the table. I can smell someone who has an axe to grind a mile away, they can chase their own tails for my amusement instead.

Caesar1844
01-24-2013, 02:22 AM
This is the wisest approach when people throw accusations around and demand simple explanations, there are no simple answers. I think most Serbs will be less reticent to give simple answers when they sense that the whole "package" of issues and grievances are on the table. I can smell someone who has an axe to grind a mile away, they can chase their own tails for my amusement instead.
Dude I have no axe. I kind of believe there is more to the situation than the accepted/UN view of the war, which is kind of the reason behind the questions. I'm trying to get a fuller picture.

The problem is that I am not really getting much in the way of substance to improve my understanding of the situation. Seems like the response from people like Aloimeh and nick the greek is basically:

1) The UN / Western media story / evidence presented at ICTY is lies & conspiracy
2) X is what really happened
3) I don't actually have any evidence I can point you to that proves X but you should take my word for it
4) If you don't take my word for it then you are an idiot and a moron

You gotta admit, that's a pretty poor argument. I am totally willing to accept (1) and (2) if someone shows me some evidence at (3) but I'm just not getting any joy.

vucina
01-24-2013, 11:17 AM
Wow, I forgot Sweet Cleo opened this shit.
Anyway, what ideas of Milosevic? How to rob Serbian people of their money? How to stay in power until he dies?
If you think he was a nationalist, think again. All he did was betraying Serbs west of Drina river. He sold them thinking he will be awarded Nobel peace prize. Seriously. He desperately wanted approval from Americans like a molested dog from his master.
About the war, he tied the army's hands and let our enemies grow stronger. He should have used everything on our disposal and napalm bombed Croatia in '91. There would be no war in Bosnia after that.
Caesar1844, if you want us to grovel and apologize for defending our land and people, you won't get that satisfaction. Milosevic wasn't a hero, but Radovan and Ratko are in the hearts of huge majority of Serbs. If you are shocked by this, we don't give a rat's ass. You're probably a westerner and your opinion is not very important for us. We just look to survive and hold on until Muslim masses and other third worlders destroy your rotten countries from within.
To all my Serbian brethren "defending" Serbia from USA, Canada, Australia, Germany... stop being hypocrites and come back home before it's too late.

Caesar1844
01-24-2013, 11:29 AM
lol wow. Man, I feel sorry for the Serbs that are reading your post and cringing.

vucina
01-24-2013, 11:39 AM
lol wow. Man, I feel sorry for the Serbs that are reading your post and cringing.

Sure, there are weaklings who will cringe. But, the vast majority won't. And those people are mostly not on internet forums arguing with the likes of you. I am a fool for wasting my time doing this.

Caesar1844
01-24-2013, 11:46 AM
Sure, there are weaklings who will cringe. But, the vast majority won't. And those people are mostly not on internet forums arguing with the likes of you. I am a fool who wastes his time doing this.
Well you got one thing right in that paragraph.

bokehlicious
01-24-2013, 11:47 AM
Too bad ektremista is not around anymore. He'd make vucina sound like a moderate choirboy... :o

homogenius
01-24-2013, 11:51 AM
Wow, I forgot Sweet Cleo opened this shit.
Anyway, what ideas of Milosevic? How to rob Serbian people of their money? How to stay in power until he dies?
If you think he was a nationalist, think again. All he did was betraying Serbs west of Drina river. He sold them thinking he will be awarded Nobel peace prize. Seriously. He desperately wanted approval from Americans like a molested dog from his master.
About the war, he tied the army's hands and let our enemies grow stronger. He should have used everything on our disposal and napalm bombed Croatia in '91. There would be no war in Bosnia after that.
Caesar1844, if you want us to grovel and apologize for defending our land and people, you won't get that satisfaction. Milosevic wasn't a hero, but Radovan and Ratko are in the hearts of huge majority of Serbs. If you are shocked by this, we don't give a rat's ass. You're probably a westerner and your opinion is not very important for us. We just look to survive and hold on until Muslim masses and other third worlders destroy your rotten countries from within.
To all my Serbian brethren "defending" Serbia from USA, Canada, Australia, Germany... stop being hypocrites and come back home before it's too late.

http://image.torrent-invites.com/images/803anigif_not_sure_if_ser.gif

abraxas21
01-24-2013, 12:03 PM
Bold parts just show how little you know and your tendency to simplify things.It'd take me long time to "enlighten" you and this is a tennis forum, not a political one.So, if you really wanna know more send me your e-mail in a PM and I'll "educate" you.:)

well, this is the OFF TOPIC board of a tennis website and we're in a thread about Serbians. If you aren't willing to contribute anything to the discussion, why don't you just leave? Your note to "educate and enlighten" others via e-mail/PM has already been duly noted. thank you.

vucina
01-24-2013, 12:05 PM
http://image.torrent-invites.com/images/803anigif_not_sure_if_ser.gif

No, I'm not their member.

abraxas21
01-24-2013, 12:14 PM
but in all seriousness, the civil war in former yugoslavia couldn't have been really that bad. i mean, both djokovic and tipsarevic's parents survived and were able to raise 2 of the best human beings in all of mankind. :bowdown:

ssin
01-24-2013, 12:18 PM
Wow, I forgot Sweet Cleo opened this shit.
Anyway, what ideas of Milosevic? How to rob Serbian people of their money? How to stay in power until he dies?
If you think he was a nationalist, think again. All he did was betraying Serbs west of Drina river. He sold them thinking he will be awarded Nobel peace prize. Seriously. He desperately wanted approval from Americans like a molested dog from his master.
About the war, he tied the army's hands and let our enemies grow stronger. He should have used everything on our disposal and napalm bombed Croatia in '91. There would be no war in Bosnia after that.
Caesar1844, if you want us to grovel and apologize for defending our land and people, you won't get that satisfaction. Milosevic wasn't a hero, but Radovan and Ratko are in the hearts of huge majority of Serbs. If you are shocked by this, we don't give a rat's ass. You're probably a westerner and your opinion is not very important for us. We just look to survive and hold on until Muslim masses and other third worlders destroy your rotten countries from within.
To all my Serbian brethren "defending" Serbia from USA, Canada, Australia, Germany... stop being hypocrites and come back home before it's too late.

What a load of crap. This ranks among the worst posts I have ever read.

A shame really, to think how a state propaganda of xenophobia and hatred can destroy a soul of a young man. Do you realize that before 1990s no one talked like this? Not in Belgrade, not in Sarajevo, not in Zagreb.

Can you even try to begin to understand the magnitude of crime that has been done to people, especially your generation in the entire region? To you personally as well. (the time of your growing up is painfully obvious). It required LOTS of poison - and the masterminds lived in my own city. Such an enormous tragedy. Everyone wants to be a victim in the Balkans, enough to make any sane person sick.

Will you ever understand how pitiful this is?

abraxas21
01-24-2013, 12:20 PM
I'm getting my information from things like independently-verified UN reports.

theres no such thing, mate

ssin
01-24-2013, 12:30 PM
but in all seriousness, the civil war in former yugoslavia couldn't have been really that bad. i mean, both djokovic and tipsarevic's parents survived and were able to raise 2 of the best human beings in all of mankind. :bowdown:

The war was as bad as WW2 to the people of the region, a true apocalypse that left no one unhurt, including people in ex-yu off the war zones. I am not sure that's a laughing matter but you would probably fit well here where dark comedy has always been appreciated. I myself like to make fun of death sometimes (see my Mexican day of the dead avatar). It's easier to me to face death than to face a poisoned soul.

abraxas21
01-24-2013, 12:36 PM
Btw, where are you from?

ceasar is most likely a brit, i think.

vucina
01-24-2013, 12:37 PM
What a load of crap. This ranks among the worst posts I have ever read.

A shame really, to think how a state propaganda of xenophobia and hatred can destroy a soul of a young man. Do you realize that before 1990s no one talked like this? Not in Belgrade, not in Sarajevo, not in Zagreb.
Luckily, Serbia is not Belgrade.

Can you even try to begin to understand the magnitude of crime that has been done to people, especially your generation in the entire region? To you personally as well. (the time of your growing up is painfully obvious). It required LOTS of poison - and the masterminds lived in my own city. Such an enormous tragedy. Everyone wants to be a victim in the Balkans, enough to make any sane person sick.

Will you ever understand how pitiful this is?
:vomit:
Keep crawling like a worm. Maybe they'll like you.

abraxas21
01-24-2013, 12:41 PM
The war was as bad as WW2 to the people of the region, a true apocalypse that left no one unhurt, including people in ex-yu off the war zones. I am not sure that's a laughing matter but you would probably fit well here where dark comedy has always been appreciated. I myself like to make fun of death sometimes (see my Mexican day of the dead avatar). It's easier to me to face death than to face a poisoned soul.

Not my intention to make fun of the people who died in the war. It certainly was a tragedy of which I admit i know little. A couple of years ago i tried to learn more about it (i'm pretty interested in international politics) but I found the subject so complex that I realized it would take me a long time to get a proper grasp of it. Time i never really comitted to it. Because of it, I don't have an opinion about it.

ssin
01-24-2013, 12:55 PM
Luckily, Serbia is not Belgrade.


:vomit:
Keep crawling like a worm. Maybe they'll like you.

Mama's boy, crawling has never been my position. Except in the war in 1999 that you most probably watched from TV and I participated in as a soldier, and now thanks to that it's difficult to get a visa for some countries although I have no intention of leaving Serbia. I could have left a million times and still can if I want. The place where you live in is not of major importance, Belgrade, no Belgrade, Serbia or any other place.

"They" are in your head only, no such thing, you will understand that when you grow up and start assuming responsibility for what you speak and do.

Thanks for your bad rep and "nice" words, I am not offended, it can be expected. Very sad what the machinery did to you, you can believe me or not, but I truly feel sorry for you.

ssin
01-24-2013, 01:00 PM
Not my intention to make fun of the people who died in the war. It certainly was a tragedy of which I admit i know little. A couple of years ago i tried to learn more about it (i'm pretty interested in international politics) but I found the subject so complex that I realized it would take me a long time to get a proper grasp of it. Time i never really comitted to it. Because of it, I don't have an opinion about it.

It was entirely meaningless and futile, that's for starters

abraxas21
01-24-2013, 01:03 PM
like life itself, then.

nick the greek
01-24-2013, 01:04 PM
I've given you every opportunity to provide me with alternative evidence that supports your views, and change my mind. You've not only declined but resorted to insulting me.

That indicates to me that either you know you're full of shit, or you're too stupid to engage in a discussion that involves substantiating your points. Which is it?
http://www.myemoticons.com/emoticons/images/msn/new-emoticons/watching.gif

nick the greek
01-24-2013, 01:06 PM
Luckily, Serbia is not Belgrade.


:vomit:
Keep crawling like a worm. Maybe they'll like you.

Mama's boy, crawling has never been my position. Except in the war in 1999 that you most probably watched from TV and I participated in as a soldier, and now thanks to that it's difficult to get a visa for some countries although I have no intention of leaving Serbia. I could have left a million times and still can if I want. The place where you live in is not of major importance, Belgrade, no Belgrade, Serbia or any other place.

"They" are in your head only, no such thing, you will understand that when you grow up and start assuming responsibility for what you speak and do.

Thanks for your bad rep and "nice" words, I am not offended, it can be expected. Very sad what the machinery did to you, you can believe me or not, but I truly feel sorry for you.
Guys, don't fight.

Time Violation
01-24-2013, 01:35 PM
Wow, I forgot Sweet Cleo opened this shit.
Anyway, what ideas of Milosevic? How to rob Serbian people of their money? How to stay in power until he dies?
If you think he was a nationalist, think again. All he did was betraying Serbs west of Drina river. He sold them thinking he will be awarded Nobel peace prize. Seriously. He desperately wanted approval from Americans like a molested dog from his master.
About the war, he tied the army's hands and let our enemies grow stronger. He should have used everything on our disposal and napalm bombed Croatia in '91. There would be no war in Bosnia after that.
Caesar1844, if you want us to grovel and apologize for defending our land and people, you won't get that satisfaction. Milosevic wasn't a hero, but Radovan and Ratko are in the hearts of huge majority of Serbs.

Ah, here's one of those who dislike Milosevic because he was too soft. Luckily that train has left the station long time ago. And your "huge majority" is just a small herd of dinosaurs these days.

vucina
01-24-2013, 01:42 PM
Ah, here's one of those who dislike Milosevic because he was too soft. Luckily that train has left the station long time ago. And your "huge majority" is just a small herd of dinosaurs these days.

Don't ever leave "krug dvojke" if you want to avoid being shocked.

Mr. Oracle
01-25-2013, 04:46 AM
Ah, here's one of those who dislike Milosevic because he was too soft. Luckily that train has left the station long time ago. And your "huge majority" is just a small herd of dinosaurs these days.

Have you made your ethnic roots known yet? It would help me answer you in a better way. Be honest now. Please don't say swedish because you seem privy to a lot of the happenings of things which are obscure to those who are not directly connected to the Balkans.

Mr. Oracle
01-25-2013, 04:55 AM
but in all seriousness, the civil war in former yugoslavia couldn't have been really that bad. i mean, both djokovic and tipsarevic's parents survived and were able to raise 2 of the best human beings in all of mankind. :bowdown:

A large part of our psyche is the direct result of the ottoman turk's belittling of our culture and trying to force islam on us for 500 years. Those were the days of hell on earth until we chased you out. Think twice before wrapping a beach towel around your head and patronizing us on an internet forum.

Mr. Oracle
01-25-2013, 05:16 AM
To all my Serbian brethren "defending" Serbia from USA, Canada, Australia, Germany... stop being hypocrites and come back home before it's too late.

It's very possible that my father felt a lot less comfortable living under tito and his communists than your father/grandfather and was one of the patriotic diaspora like our royal head Karađorđević. You sound like a loose canon and a goon with very little sense. You're probably just a teenager who listens to too much american gangsta hip hop. So much for the world's biggest serb.

Time Violation
01-25-2013, 06:22 AM
Have you made your ethnic roots known yet? It would help me answer you in a better way. Be honest now. Please don't say swedish because you seem privy to a lot of the happenings of things which are obscure to those who are not directly connected to the Balkans.

Ethnic roots? :lol: I'm a Serbian living in Serbia for almost 35 years now. On the other hand, I don't remember you having answered when was the last time you lived in Serbia, that is, have you ever lived in Serbia or you're a Canadian?

Don't ever leave "krug dvojke" if you want to avoid being shocked.

I've never lived there. You'd sound more like someone from there, usually the most extreme ones are those living large in some big ass Belgrade apartment :wavey:

Mr. Oracle
01-25-2013, 06:47 AM
Ethnic roots? :lol: I'm a Serbian living in Serbia for almost 35 years now. On the other hand, I don't remember you having answered when was the last time you lived in Serbia, that is, have you ever lived in Serbia or you're a Canadian?



I've never lived there. You'd sound more like someone from there, usually the most extreme ones are those living large in some big ass Belgrade apartment :wavey:

What I mean is are you an ethnic Serb and not a minority? Someone who has the obligatory portrait of Draža Mihailović displayed prominently? Someone who has the 4 CCCCs stamped on his heart from birth?

Time Violation
01-25-2013, 07:42 AM
What I mean is are you an ethnic Serb and not a minority? Someone who has the obligatory portrait of Draža Mihailović displayed prominently? Someone who has the 4 CCCCs stamped on his heart from birth?

Everyone on either side of my family for the last 150 years is a Serb as far as I know, is that good enough? :) Who on earth keeps portrait of Mihajlović "displayed prominently"? This is the 21st century mate :) You still haven't answered my question, have you ever been to Serbia except for Christmas holidays? Have you ever been to Serbia at all?!

abraxas21
01-25-2013, 10:01 AM
A large part of our psyche is the direct result of the ottoman turk's belittling of our culture and trying to force islam on us for 500 years. Those were the days of hell on earth until we chased you out. Think twice before wrapping a beach towel around your head and patronizing us on an internet forum.

:lol:

it's kinda bemusing to see that type of attitude considering most serbs these days have some Ottoman admixture. In some cases quite noticeable in their physical features.

But i'd sleep with an open eye if i were you. You are aware we are more than you and we can always come back to our place in the balkans after conquering western and central europe first.

vucina
01-25-2013, 10:22 AM
It's very possible that my father felt a lot less comfortable living under tito and his communists than your father/grandfather and was one of the patriotic diaspora like our royal head Karađorđević. You sound like a loose canon and a goon with very little sense. You're probably just a teenager who listens to too much american gangsta hip hop. So much for the world's biggest serb.
Do you speak Tarzan Serbian like our royal dickhead Karadjordjevic? I will never recognize that British spy as a king.
A large part of our psyche is the direct result of the ottoman turk's belittling of our culture and trying to force islam on us for 500 years. Those were the days of hell on earth until we chased you out. Think twice before wrapping a beach towel around your head and patronizing us on an internet forum.
Abraxas is a Chilean Marxist clown, not a Turk.

:lol:

it's kinda bemusing to see that type of attitude considering most serbs these days have some Ottoman admixture. In some cases quite noticeable in their physical features.

But i'd sleep with an open eye if i were you. You are aware we are more than you and we can always come back to our place in the balkans after conquering western and central europe first.

That's not Ottoman admixture, clown. We are the tallest nation in Europe, not half-Muslim midgets. If our complexion is darker, that comes from native Balkan peoples whom we absorbed. Yes, Ottoman savages were rapists, but women didn't allow children to be born from such crimes.

abraxas21
01-25-2013, 07:57 PM
That's not Ottoman admixture, clown. We are the tallest nation in Europe, not half-Muslim midgets. If our complexion is darker, that comes from native Balkan peoples whom we absorbed. Yes, Ottoman savages were rapists, but women didn't allow children to be born from such crimes.

sure thing, buddy.

Mr. Oracle
01-25-2013, 10:23 PM
Do you speak Tarzan Serbian like our royal dickhead Karadjordjevic? I will never recognize that British spy as a king.

Abraxas is a Chilean Marxist clown, not a Turk.



That's not Ottoman admixture, clown. We are the tallest nation in Europe, not half-Muslim midgets. If our complexion is darker, that comes from native Balkan peoples whom we absorbed. Yes, Ottoman savages were rapists, but women didn't allow children to be born from such crimes.

LMAO, we have a similar style although you push it a little farther--you;ll grow out of it. Nevertheless, good for a laugh.

"Me Serb, you Serb, Tarzan show."

Time Violation
01-26-2013, 12:24 AM
So, still no answer Mr Oracle? Though tbh, I didn't really expect one. That's the common problem talking with expats, the information on Serbia you get from one is like Hollywood movies' information on USA :)

Mr. Oracle
01-26-2013, 02:24 AM
Yea, that's probably how Serbia looks from 10,000 miles away :)

Generalizations like this tell me you are either a self-hating serb, or not a serb at all. How are you in a position to judge the diaspora then?


So, still no answer Mr Oracle? Though tbh, I didn't really expect one. That's the common problem talking with expats, the information on Serbia you get from one is like Hollywood movies' information on USA :)

The patronizing didn't take long did it? Couldn't contain the itch I see. You're right, my knowledge of Serbia is from movies and mythology, not from visits. At least build a better mouse-trap to catch your fool!

Time Violation
01-26-2013, 12:25 PM
The patronizing didn't take long did it? Couldn't contain the itch I see. You're right, my knowledge of Serbia is from movies and mythology, not from visits. At least build a better mouse-trap to catch your fool!

Sure man, I see you had no problem inquiring about my nationality, and whether I'm a minority or no (wtf?), what's next, asking me to upload my birth certificate? Regardless, I had no problem answering you, but you still kept beating around the bush. Even a 5 year old kid could answer that, where is the problem?

Brick Top
01-26-2013, 01:45 PM
sure thing, buddy.

Lol clown ignoring the facts. Present day Serbs are more native Balkan tribes in first place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinaric_race and rest (Thracians,Dacians) with minor admixture of slavic genes. I am 190cm tall Serb and I dont know if any of them looks like a Ottoman or whatever that means.

Brick Top
01-26-2013, 01:47 PM
Also hundreds of thousands Serbs have settled Asia Minor and many of modern Turks have Serbian ancestry so...

abraxas21
01-26-2013, 02:11 PM
Lol clown ignoring the facts. Present day Serbs are more native Balkan tribes in first place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinaric_race and rest (Thracians,Dacians) with minor admixture of slavic genes. I am 190cm tall Serb and I dont know if any of them looks like a Ottoman or whatever that means.

my comment was mostly rooted in the dismissive (not to say racist) way in which that poster talked about Turks and the extremely defensive way in which most of you try to make it appear that there's no turkish blood running through your balkan veins. (impossible for me to believe that after centuries of ottoman domination there is no racial influence among present-day serbs btw. you guys need to wake up and realize who you are first).

all in all, this nationalistic spirit seems rather shocking. get rid of it.

Time Violation
01-26-2013, 02:16 PM
Blood cells have no nationality, it's all bs anyway.

Brick Top
01-26-2013, 02:22 PM
my comment was mostly rooted in the dismissive (not to say racist) way in which that poster talked about Turks and the extremely defensive way in which most of you try to make it appear that there's no turkish blood running through your balkan veins. (impossible for me to believe that after centuries of ottoman domination there is no racial influence among present-day serbs btw. you guys need to wake up and realize who you are first).

all in all, this nationalistic spirit seems rather shocking. get rid of it.

Im not saying that , there are probably some cases, but not as much as you might think because Turkish population in Balkan was never big and most of Turkish law enforcers and soldiers were Serbs who switched to Islam especially in Bosnia, which had almost zero Turk inhabitants. Population of Turks was a higher in Serbia and they lived mostly in major cities. The fact is that people of Balkans are so mixed up and if there is some turkish blood it is very minor when compared to others especially Dinarids.

Trollicki
01-26-2013, 02:23 PM
As far as genetic background is concerned, there is one golden rule that applies in the Balkans (and Anatolia): everybody has f***ed everybody else. There are no ´pure´ genes there, any assertion to the contrary is merely a futile attempt to put the own ´race´ in a better light. And yes, blood cells and genes do not have nationality anyway.

Brick Top
01-26-2013, 02:27 PM
As far as genetic background is concerned, there is one golden rule that applies in the Balkans (and Anatolia): everybody has f***ed everybody else. There are no ´pure´ genes there, any assertion to the contrary is merely a futile attempt to put the own ´race´ in a better light. And yes, blood cells and genes do not have nationality anyway.

And a major part of the world too.

Trollicki
01-26-2013, 02:30 PM
True. It´s just that the major overland route between Europe and the Middle East goes through the Balkans, which has seen countless peoples pass over the ages, meaning Balkanites are even more mixed than others (it explains our all-around sexiness :cool:)

nick the greek
01-26-2013, 02:31 PM
my comment was mostly rooted in the dismissive (not to say racist) way in which that poster talked about Turks and the extremely defensive way in which most of you try to make it appear that there's no turkish blood running through your balkan veins. (impossible for me to believe that after centuries of ottoman domination there is no racial influence among present-day serbs btw. you guys need to wake up and realize who you are first).

all in all, this nationalistic spirit seems rather shocking. get rid of it.
Pedro de Valdivia says hi.:wavey:

Time Violation
01-26-2013, 04:00 PM
And a major part of the world too.

Nothing wrong with mixing. I think there's nothing more creepy, than a small and closed community where everybody seems to be a cousin with everybody else. :p

Aloimeh
01-26-2013, 04:59 PM
my comment was mostly rooted in the dismissive (not to say racist) way in which that poster talked about Turks and the extremely defensive way in which most of you try to make it appear that there's no turkish blood running through your balkan veins. (impossible for me to believe that after centuries of ottoman domination there is no racial influence among present-day serbs btw. you guys need to wake up and realize who you are first).

all in all, this nationalistic spirit seems rather shocking. get rid of it.

No, of course there's some admixture, but I hope you don't take the fact that Serbs have dark hair and eyes as evidence of Turkish ancestry. They looked like that in medieval times, too, so it's obvious that they've looked like that since settling in the area. The Ottoman conquest of the Balkans did not involve a huge influx of Turkish settlers. Most of the administration were Janissaries, who were local converts to Islam. Most of the settled Muslims in towns and villages were local converts. Case examples: Bosnian Muslims and Cretan Turks, both of whom still speak their ancestors' language, even though they identified with the Turks through their religion.

http://www.sv-luka.org/monasteries/crarstedr.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Prvovencani.jpg/260px-Prvovencani.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Car_Dušan,_Manastir_Lesnovo,_XIV_vek,_Makedonija.j pg

And while we're at it, I think Turks look a lot more like Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians, Serbs, etc. than like their Asian ancestors. The original Turks looked like this:

http://kazakhnomad.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/calendar-kazakh-maidens-v2.jpg

And other than Jelena Jankovic, I haven't seen too many Asian-looking Serbs.

Or are you someone who holds to the Fallmerayer hypothesis?

ssin
01-26-2013, 07:10 PM
generally, Serbian men and women are tall and handsome ;)

See it for yourself: Visit Serbia before Serbia visits you :devil:

Mr. Oracle
01-27-2013, 04:53 AM
generally, Serbian men and women are tall and handsome ;)

See it for yourself: Visit Serbia before Serbia visits you :devil:

:haha:

i salute you.

great week on mtf: dancing gorillas, picasso novak, and now this.

add to tall and handsome, the funniest people on planet earth

Crvena Zvezda
01-29-2013, 08:05 AM
You forgot about one thing, Muslim Dominance in Srbija was not a "Big Party".

There was a religion gap that prevent people to mix.

Slavian that decided to switch to Muslim religion were in Bosnia and stayed muslim afterwards and are called Bosniak now.

They used to get the power (nobilitary) over Srbs from Turkish people.

Muslim religion and Orthodox religion are not kind to allow marriage with people from other religion.

There were probably children out of marriage (rapes, or sex affairs) but I'm not sure srbian women keep ther babies if they looked too turkish.

Knowing the srbian spirit, I'm not sure that a srbian women, keeping a baby from a mixed "union" at that time, would have had a very long happy life on earth.

You can call that "barbarian" but it was a war.

From the place where I live now, I heard stories about WWII and what happens to women that slept with germans and that was not really nice despite it was centuries after.

But I guess I am loosing my time and brain, because you are just trying to get us srbs angry.

Anyway, despite all your mooves,

Novak is World number 1 and won AO again despite tennis was hardly known in Srbija when he was a youngster.

Now Srbija has tennis schools and there is a bunch of young srbian players coming (Jorovic, Milojevic, Krstin, Kecman...).

Crvena Zvezda
01-29-2013, 08:21 AM
What is your point of view after all this years?

Tito with all his flaws was still able to keep the union and the constitution in 74 gave people many rights.

Milosovic believed in the Serbian identity only and wasn't able to understand minorities rights, wars erupted, thousands died and union dissolved. He had many supporters between Serbs.

Do you think things should have been done differently? Do you regret what happened, or you still think he is a good leader? Or do you think the union was going to dissolve any way after death of Tito?

Please reply.

Girl, why are you speaking about something you don't know.

Just investigate about what happened and how the war began.

Then we can talk again about those issues.

Curiously, there were 4 millions srbs from Bosna or Hrvatska that were compelled to leave Jugoslavija to Western Europe, Australija or SAD.

And you are talking about "understanding minorities rights" from Milosevic ? Do u really think it was a one way problem ?

Crvena Zvezda
01-29-2013, 08:47 AM
Last and not least, I will tell you a little story to make you understand wat is srbian mood right now.

Just imagine a big school yard where there is a bunch of children playing.

Some children are battling and yelling. Adults came to figure out what happened.
Each child told his own story about the fight and adults choosed one story from all to be the truth.

One of the children got very frustrated because, despite he knew none of the stories (even his) was the truth, he felt like being charged from all the sin in this fight.

A few weeks after this child was stolen one of his toys and adults came back, struck him, and said : "we know you are Evil, so if you asked about this toy once again, you would not be allowed anymore in the school yard."

Then I guess you can understand this child's mood.
Maybe you can say it is all in his brain, but it is his mood right now.


Now replace :
Children by Hrvatska, Slovenija, Srbija, Bosna or FYROM.
Adults by SAD and EU
Struck by 78 days bombing from NATO
Toy by Kosovo

Caesar1844
01-29-2013, 11:06 AM
Worst analogy ever.

@Sweet Cleopatra
07-13-2014, 04:36 PM
So now after the situation in Ukraine I am rethinking what happened in Yugoslavia.. I have close friends from Kosovo who tell me their stories and I still think it is genuine plus I always think if you can't live as neighbors separate as enemies better than killing innocents which what happened.. But I also read now about a similar situation in which self declaration of independence is against international law and it comes from the same people who recognized Kosovo independence so I am confused about what really dissolved Yugoslavia and was it only internal factors although I still condemn the harsh treatments to Kosovons during that time.. I am confused my mind is confused I need to re read this issue again from A to Z..

Discuss...

MichaelKrep
07-13-2014, 05:43 PM
Cleo stirring up shit as usual. :yeah:

Mr. Oracle
07-13-2014, 06:17 PM
Cleo stirring up shit as usual. :yeah:

Beat me to it. Opening up old wounds for a lot of people makes Cleo happy. Shady troll. :cool:

rutinos harcos
07-13-2014, 08:06 PM
Beat me to it. Opening up old wounds for a lot of people makes Cleo happy. Shady troll. :cool:

Yes.Extremely annoying poster.

@Sweet Cleopatra
07-13-2014, 08:42 PM
Beat me to it. Opening up old wounds for a lot of people makes Cleo happy. Shady troll. :cool:

Searching and comparing historical situations are opening old wounds?
My question is why a certain self declaration of independence is legal and another one is illegal? Example Kosovo and Ukraine or any self declared independence.. And I am comparing it to Ukraine because it is happening now but the reaction of western media is different.. So another question popped in my mind, was it really only internal factors or did the west had their share in desiring the disintegration of Yugoslavia?
My question is what actually happened that dissolved Yugoslavia..
My question is to what extent the media is honest? And did certain media fool us about their subjectivity since world war two when in fact they were puppets to powers.. Or are they really honest and it is all genuine?
You can easily skip the thread and don't read it.. But since asking these questions is hard for you, you choose to bash me instead.. As for me I don't have problems with asking any questions and searching for real answers regarding what my feelings are because truth is more important.. Not to mention that I am actually questioning myself since I had a certain view on this conflict that changed a little after Ukraine crisis and now I am confused and had to search again..

Back to topic now.. :wavey:

Brick Top
07-13-2014, 08:45 PM
Close the thread.

Mr. Oracle
07-13-2014, 08:50 PM
As for me I don't have problems with asking any questions and searching for real answers regarding what my feelings are because truth is more important..
[/COLOR]

Someone post the jack nicholson clip.

Only naive people ask for the truth in a world which is irreparably broken. And why I said you'd be better off on the beach this summer instead of filling your mind with this nonsense. Don't get a sunburn on your button nose sweety sweety.

Time Violation
07-13-2014, 08:59 PM
Searching and comparing historical situations are opening old wounds?
My question is why a certain self declaration of independence is legal and another one is illegal? Example Kosovo and Ukraine or any self declared independence.. And I am comparing it to Ukraine because it is happening now but the reaction of western media is different.. So another question popped in my mind, was it really only internal factors or did the west had their share in desiring the disintegration of Yugoslavia?
My question is what actually happened that dissolved Yugoslavia..

There is no simple answer to that. Many factors and their combined power.

My question is to what extent the media is honest? And did certain media fool us about their subjectivity since world war two when in fact they were puppets to powers.. Or are they really honest and it is all genuine?


Media are pretty much never honest, but what else is new.

rutinos harcos
07-13-2014, 09:09 PM
Searching and comparing historical situations are opening old wounds?
My question is why a certain self declaration of independence is legal and another one is illegal? Example Kosovo and Ukraine or any self declared independence.. And I am comparing it to Ukraine because it is happening now but the reaction of western media is different.. So another question popped in my mind, was it really only internal factors or did the west had their share in desiring the disintegration of Yugoslavia?
My question is what actually happened that dissolved Yugoslavia..
My question is to what extent the media is honest? And did certain media fool us about their subjectivity since world war two when in fact they were puppets to powers.. Or are they really honest and it is all genuine?
You can easily skip the thread and don't read it.. But since asking these questions is hard for you, you choose to bash me instead.. As for me I don't have problems with asking any questions and searching for real answers regarding what my feelings are because truth is more important.. Not to mention that I am actually questioning myself since I had a certain view on this conflict that changed a little after Ukraine crisis and now I am confused and had to search again..

Back to topic now.. :wavey:


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/camp-bondsteel_2000.jpg

MichaelKrep
07-13-2014, 10:06 PM
Close the thread.

Ban OP.

BlackeyeVuk
07-13-2014, 10:16 PM
Nothing to say. Damage has been done. We Serbs will not comment on it. At least those sane enough.

We have a saying " Sta poseješ to i požanješ" , similar connotation is "what comes around, goes around" in English. If world gonna burn because of it, let it burn.

Time Violation
07-13-2014, 11:32 PM
We have a saying " Sta poseješ to i požanješ" , similar connotation is "what comes around, goes around" in English. If world gonna burn because of it, let it burn.


That sounds more like 'let the neighbor's cow die' though :p

Fatima
07-16-2014, 10:45 PM
Are you being serious? No man has ever done as much harm to Yugoslavian nations as Milosevic. He was a truly evil person.

Virtu4l
07-16-2014, 10:54 PM
Do you need some Bosnians in this discussion :hatoff: