Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358
QuoteReplyTopic: Expansionist States of Today Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 07:48
If you meet someone from Trabzon, know the following three things:
- They probably have some Greek (pontic) blood.
- They probably have some Georgian (laz) blood.
- They are probably fanatically patriotic about their country. That's why Mortazza felt compelled to warn you not to joke about that with me. It's ok though, i'm not THAT proud.
LMAO ok sorry i was replying to the other guy too, which was a Turk, and then when i replied to Leonida's post i mistook him for Turk :)))) OK, oi oi oi mr Australian, I'm sorry :)
Originally posted by Mortaza
Zagros, I never heard such thing.we believe, A muslim husband dont have any right to force women.
Quran: "As for those [wives] from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them." (4:34)
Originally posted by Leonidas
You find the whole country guilty and deserving of war, and also expansionism. A big leap in logic and smacks of chauvinism
Are you reading my posts partially on purpose or? I didn't accuse anyone of expansionism because of one assassination, i posted facts why I said that.
what does a Bosnian Serb hit on the Austrian emperor has to do with the modern state of serbia?
A lot, considering that pro-expansionistic and nationalistic party won cca 33% of seats in Parliament. Yes, the same guy who wants a piece of other countries to be incorporated in Great Serbia.
You know, you should really not discuss those topics you know nothing about.
first defence of an apologists, 'everyone else was doing it'. Big deal
every one else guilt doesn't wash away anyone else's. A Nazi is a Nazi
from any angle.
I'm sorry, what's your point? Did i say that Ustashe weren't pro-nazi? Yes i did. Did i say that majority of Croatia was leader anti-nazi movement in former Yugoslavia (meaning, whole region)? "Everyone else was doing it" is a good argument against those who want to single someone out and then use it as an argument "oh look you did that!" as everyone else is different.
Don't get me started about Australia, the ex-convict colony. Mind your own business, your countries troops are invading Iraq, unlawfully, and helping the biggest criminals among current world countries = americans. Clean your own backyard first, as you can see, Croatia is not waging any wars now, and if you ever find a single conquesting war that (independent) Croatia led (in 13 centuries of history), let me know. All wars we had, ALL, were in self defense.
Are you now claiming the partisans as a Croatian movement?
For start, im claiming you're utterly clueless.
As second, yes, that's what I'm claiming. Partisan movement was led by Josip Broz Tito, wow wait, a Croat. 'All of the partisan leaders were Croats, (and unlike the ustashe oposition in Croatia) the chetnik pro-nazi regime had no opposition whatsoever.'
Of course, I'm sure you will accuse me again of using biased logic, the other guy will accuse me of taking things out of the context, and no one will care about historical facts.
irrelevant were he came from
No, it's not irrelevant where he came from. If someone invades your country, conquers it, installs puppet regime and as the puppet head of state puts some guy who wasn't even living in Croatia but in Italy (which was Axis) - then yea, that's relevant.
Not to you, you're not a friend of truth.
BTW Tito's ethnicity is also irrelevant.
Yea, I suppose Hitlers ethnicity isn't relevant either, the ethnicity of Nazis isnt relevant either. What's relevant is that Leonida needs to be right, and those who disagree with him wrong. The methods don't matter, the tools don't matter, the truth matters not. Being right, that does matter.
ok now they were supported, 'but only by a little bit' . But an apologist couldnt help but to justify such support anyway.
I have zero respect of people who can't see shades of gray but see all in black and white, and I have serious doubts of their IQ.
Utashe apologist is no different to those in serbia that are chetnik apologist
I am not Ustashe apologist. I am apologist with other Croats who weren't Ustashe, and whom you treat equally because your bias doesn't allow you to see the whole picture.
One mans terrorist is another freedom fighter
Being terrorist doesn't make you wrong. Being on the wrong side and doing wrong things, does. Being a terrorist can be good, in certain cases.
Celebrating the hit on a Serbian king, than comparing the Serbian hit
on a Austrian king with 9/11. No your not biased in anyway......
I'm biased towards truth and justice. I don't equalize all murders. Some are good, some are not. Some I celebrate, some I mourn.
Originally posted by GoldenBlood
i have evidence that serbs claim in Croatia were over
35% serbs and you croats cleansed...now should believe we about it?
Serbs also claim that 2 million Serbs died in Jasenovac in WW2. Personally, I wish they did, but I guess they just haven't found as many because not as many existed. 35% of Serbs cleansed? I don't know the exact number (which is much less than that one), but IMO we didnt clean enough of em, judging from the online posts they are still making, and things they are still saying. If it was up to me, I'd deport half of them who still live in Croatia.
what about expulsion of Albanians and
Colonisation of Serbs from Kosova 1912-1945 have you hard about it? we
have 3-5 milions albanians in Turkey (why are there those magnificient
albanians?
And what of the pre-Turk invasion of Kosovo? And Bosnia? How many muslims did we have then? The reason I mentioned Kosovo was as an example of hyperpopulation. I have no intention to debate thousand of years of history, and who smacked whom first. If i wanted to do that, I'd debate Israeli Palestine issue :)
why you dont compare the most the populaion density??
Because the population density is irrelevant, since hyperpopulation over the decades makes the initial density no issue.
Truth, what truth?...why you dont say your truth about your Krajina and Slavonia?
What do you want to know about this? Slavonia and Krajina were always Croatian, except during wars against Ottoman empire when we sheltered Serbs there. Then they got haughty, Serbia populated Krajina on purpose (in organized manner) with Serbs in former Yugoslavia even further, and after the break of Yugoslavia they got haughty.. except they miscalculated their (and our) strenght. They got what they deserved, now they can go back to their barbaric country, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want any Neanderthal tribes in my country. If you like them so much, we can send them over to your country, and they can continue shouting "Serbia to Tokio".
Originally posted by Yugoslav
Of course Croatia should've handed them over - for if not, then the
ICTY would not exist at all (what, to put non-Croatians on trial)?
That's right. Haven't you heard of WW2? And other wars? Victorious side, being Allies, judged the losing side, being Axis powers. What do you think, that they were both convicted? No, just those guilty. Axis. Same thing here, Serbs were guilty of invading Slovenia Bosnia Croatia and Albanians on Kosovo. Croats beat the **** out of them, and that's pretty much it. No Croat, not a single one, should be sent to some political court.
I do not understand that which you say about Carla del Ponte. I think
she's a great and energic person
Birds of a feather flock together.
The rebellion in Croatia (celebrated as national liberation day today) was initiated by - guess who - Serb Partisans.
Yea, I assume you read that in Serbian schoolbooks. Quite interesting how all partisan leaders were Croats, and anti-nazi movement had a huge support in Croatia but none in Serbia. Saying that the rebellion was initiated in Croatia by serb partisans is so disgusting, and the very fast that Tito was a Croat should be enough to prove this wrong.
Up to 1943 most Croats were behind the Ustashas (either willingly, or through intimidation)
Interesting. Then how come Partisans won? Oh wait, I get it, Serbs came here and beat the crap of Ustashe, while Croatian partisans were busy hunting deer in the forest?
it isn't accident that in NDH most of the rebelled territories mostly had Serb majority early on
You mean Chetniks? Yea. Who else would oppose Ustashe more than Nazies. Chetniks collaborated with Nazies and it was in both interest they had conflcit with Ustashe
I would also like to point out the massive celebration and greeting in
Zagreb to the German forces in 1941, they were welcomed by the mass
with cookies, flowers
I know nothing about that, but I would assume this is correct. See, after decades of your Serb hegemony, people thought that Nazies would liberate them and Croatia would prosper. In other words, we got so sick of you Serbs that even Nazies were a better solution because they treated us better.
The scent of flowers does not travel against the wind but the odour of good people travels even against the wind; a good man pervades every place. The perfume of virtue is unsurpassed.
Josip, what you write is totally unrelated with what I said. Next time, try to write something that has relation with my words. At least do it, If you want to reply me...
what does a Bosnian Serb hit on the Austrian emperor has to do with the modern state of serbia?
A lot, considering that pro-expansionistic and nationalistic party won cca 33% of seats in Parliament. Yes, the same guy who wants a piece of other countries to be incorporated in Great Serbia.
so a piece of history explains today. yep lets go back to Croatia and do the same = oops no you get all upset and think thats unfair.
Originally posted by Josip
I'm sorry, what's your point? Did i say that Ustashe weren't pro-nazi? Yes i did. Did i say that majority of Croatia was leader anti-nazi movement in former Yugoslavia (meaning, whole region)? "Everyone else was doing it" is a good argument against those who want to single someone out and then use it as an argument "oh look you did that!" as everyone else is different.
Point is, Croatia fascist past
Originally posted by Josip
Don't get me started about Australia, the ex-convict colony. Mind your own business, your countries troops are invading Iraq, unlawfully, and helping the biggest criminals among current world countries = americans. Clean your own backyard first, as you can see, Croatia is not waging any wars now, and if you ever find a single conquesting war that (independent) Croatia led (in 13 centuries of history), let me know. All wars we had, ALL, were in self defense.
You can talk about Australia all you want, im not proud one bit about our role in the war on terror and such.
I consider Utashe as Croatian, you making it out as imposed, go figure! you can gloss over your own history, but others will have a different opinion, live with it.
Originally posted by Josip
Are you now claiming the partisans as a Croatian movement?
For start, im claiming you're utterly clueless.
As second, yes, that's what I'm claiming. Partisan movement was led by Josip Broz Tito, wow wait, a Croat. 'All of the partisan leaders were Croats, (and unlike the ustashe oposition in Croatia) the chetnik pro-nazi regime had no opposition whatsoever.'
Of course, I'm sure you will accuse me again of using biased logic, the other guy will accuse me of taking things out of the context, and no one will care about historical facts.
you sound upset. By your logic marxist are a Jewsih group and the Nazi's are an Austrian movement.
Originally posted by Josip
irrelevant were he came from
No, it's not irrelevant where he came from. If someone invades your country, conquers it, installs puppet regime and as the puppet head of state puts some guy who wasn't even living in Croatia but in Italy (which was Axis) - then yea, that's relevant. .
Hitler was Austrian, and i didn't think he was elected into parliament or was supported by all Germans. So really when he had his way with Germany, the Germans are not responsible for what happened next.
Um no, not so easy, no one made the Croatians fight for the Utashe or the brutalize the Serbs, Jews and gypsy's, set up concentration camps. Those that weren't partisans but did nothing against the Utashe, the majority one may speculate, what responsibility do they have?
Originally posted by Josip
BTW Tito's ethnicity is also irrelevant.
Yea, I suppose Hitlers ethnicity isn't relevant either, the ethnicity of Nazis isnt relevant either. What's relevant is that Leonida needs to be right, and those who disagree with him wrong. The methods don't matter, the tools don't matter, the truth matters not. Being right, that does matter.
instead of ranting tell me how being Croatian is relevant? a communist who didn't represent one ethnic group... all it tells me is that some Croatians also fought on the good side. doesn't excuse the ones that fought for the racist nazi lovers
Originally posted by Josip
ok now they were supported, 'but only by a little bit' . But an apologist couldnt help but to justify such support anyway.
I have zero respect of people who can't see shades of gray but see all in black and white, and I have serious doubts of their IQ.
Getting personal does nothing for the your position. Not very flattering at all.
I know things are not black and white, hence why i very purposefully applied your logic to your history. Unfortunately, yet very predictable maybe even 'cliche', what we have here, is a someone that can only apply simple black and white logic when its about his ethnic "other", but gets all grey and complicated when its about his own kind.
Originally posted by Josip
One mans terrorist is another freedom fighter
Being terrorist doesn't make you wrong. Being on the wrong side and doing wrong things, does. Being a terrorist can be good, in certain cases.
Celebrating the hit on a Serbian king, than comparing the Serbian hit
on a Austrian king with 9/11. No your not biased in anyway......
I'm biased towards truth and justice. I don't equalize all murders. Some are good, some are not. Some I celebrate, some I mourn.
of course, Josip, depending on which side of the fence you sit.
Any one can twist another's history and demonise their past. many have done this to Serbs in this forum. 'It all started with them', guess what? no it didn't. Brutality begets brutality and the cycle and awful acts are not just a serb problem. Croatia, is in there, the ottomans not so innocent either, can you honestly say the Austrians weren't aggressive themselves. so easy to pass the buck when its your own history
Josip, what you write is totally unrelated with what I said. Next time, try to write something that has relation with my words. At least do it, If you want to reply me...
Originally posted by Josip
Serbs also claim that 2 million Serbs died in Jasenovac in WW2. Personally, I wish they did, but I guess they just haven't found as many because not as many existed. 35% of Serbs cleansed? I don't know the exact number (which is much less than that one), but IMO we didnt clean enough of em, judging from the online posts they are still making, and things they are still saying. If it was up to me, I'd deport half of them who still live in Croatia.
so you believe it , what naive
Originally posted by Josip
And what of the pre-Turk invasion of Kosovo? And Bosnia? How many muslims did we have then? The reason I mentioned Kosovo was as an example of hyperpopulation. I have no intention to debate thousand of years of history, and who smacked whom first. If i wanted to do that, I'd debate Israeli Palestine issue :)
what pre-slavic invasion of Kosova?
josip your are very shallow about elementary (about history of balcan) lol you believed that Albanians/Bosnak were only muslim? very poor read history josipo read and dont say joke here.
Originally posted by Josip
What do you want to know about this? Slavonia and Krajina were always Croatian, except during wars against Ottoman empire when we sheltered Serbs there. Then they got haughty, Serbia populated Krajina on purpose (in organized manner) with Serbs in former Yugoslavia even further, and after the break of Yugoslavia they got haughty.. except they miscalculated their (and our) strenght. They got what they deserved, now they can go back to their barbaric country, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want any Neanderthal tribes in my country. If you like them so much, we can send them over to your country, and they can continue shouting "Serbia to Tokio".
when i said truth, i asked about serbs that claim (because your believe much serbian theory than your nation) not croats.
Leonidas, I'll drop the discussion because I have some minimum requirements regarding people I talk with, and you simply don't meet them.
Originally posted by GoldenBlood
you believed that Albanians/Bosnak were only muslim?
What I said was that Bosnia wasnt muslim before Ottomans.
The scent of flowers does not travel against the wind but the odour of good people travels even against the wind; a good man pervades every place. The perfume of virtue is unsurpassed.
1.Wrong, it leaves them what they have now, plus some extra waters if they also expand to 12 miles. We can't give them the Aegean Islands, can we?
2.Greece is playing tough because she wants to exercise her internationally recognized rights, and Turkey is the good guy when threatening Greece with war, should the latter choose to exercise her rights?? (yes I know, Turkey doesn't accept it as a right). 3.
I think it's the opposite actually; Turkey not signing the treaty makes the dispute political/diplomatic (solvable through negotiations aka bazaar) rather than legal, since there is no legal framework accepted by both parties. Greece wants it to be legal (solved in the Hague), Turkey wants it political. In any case, how the dispute's being legal shows that Greece is the aggressor, is sth that I really cannot understand.
1.Nobody is talking about any Island being given to Turkey,that is outdated and kinda phobic.Suprised to see that Greeks still buy that.
2.Well in fact Turkey interpetates the Treaties differently than Greece.In the meantime Greece and Turkey have signed bilateral agreements that each country interpretates in a different way,hence the battle is indeed a complex legal dispute.I am positive Turkey is leggally covered.The casus belli threats come only bsc Turkey views as an agressive act, Greece to unilaterally expand the waters.Those issues should be clarified and settled through common interpretation of the Treaties...
3.The same as number 2.
1. Who said I buy it that an Island will be given to Turkey? Nobody sold it to me to begin with. Don't worry, I don't have such a phobia. I just mentioned a way that Turkey can get a significant (for your standards) chunk of the Aegean. Another way is, during the delimination of continental shelf, we stay at 6 miles AND accept that islands are not taken into consideration during this delimination. I can't think of a third way right now.
2. The problem at the moment is not the interpretation of the Treaty, it is that Turkey has not signed and is not binded by the Treaty in the first place. In this sense I agree that Turkey is leggally covered. If they sign it, we can discuss about finding a common interpretation.
2. The problem at the moment is not the interpretation of the Treaty, it is that Turkey has not signed and is not binded by the Treaty in the first place. In this sense I agree that Turkey is leggally covered. If they sign it, we can discuss about finding a common interpretation.
3. Same as #2 and my previous #3 lol
Oh, yes she has.She has signed many bilateral agreements with Greece except the 1982 Treaty.Based on those Treaties Turkey finds legal excuses to oppose our interpretation of the Treaties we have signed with her.She finds legal binding the bilateral treaties she signed with Greece and NOT a Treaty she hasnt signed.So in my mind Turkey is leggally covered.Covering her expansionism that is....Exactly the same way Greece is doing.
Islam considers Jews and Christians as ehl-i kitap, in other words, members of the holy book. So Islam considers the other two Abrahamic religions as ''holy'' religions. One can marry a Jew or Christian, let alone establishing friendship
Im sorry for being off topic but if the above is true why is there so much strife between adherants of the three abrahamic religions.
As an atheist and having read both holy books and the spirit of there message its even more of a mystery.
Have they simply got nothing else better to do with there time or what.
2. The problem at the moment is not the interpretation of the Treaty, it is that Turkey has not signed and is not binded by the Treaty in the first place. In this sense I agree that Turkey is leggally covered. If they sign it, we can discuss about finding a common interpretation.
3. Same as #2 and my previous #3 lol
Oh, yes she has.She has signed many bilateral agreements with Greece except the 1982 Treaty.Based on those Treaties Turkey finds legal excuses to oppose our interpretation of the Treaties we have signed with her.She finds legal binding the bilateral treaties she signed with Greece and NOT a Treaty she hasnt signed.So in my mind Turkey is leggally covered.Covering her expansionism that is....Exactly the same way Greece is doing.
Which are those bilateral agreements and Treaties that you speak of? (Which have to do with terittorial waters that is)
2. The problem at the moment is not the interpretation of the Treaty, it is that Turkey has not signed and is not binded by the Treaty in the first place. In this sense I agree that Turkey is leggally covered. If they sign it, we can discuss about finding a common interpretation.
3. Same as #2 and my previous #3 lol
Oh, yes she has.She has signed many bilateral agreements with Greece except the 1982 Treaty.Based on those Treaties Turkey finds legal excuses to oppose our interpretation of the Treaties we have signed with her.She finds legal binding the bilateral treaties she signed with Greece and NOT a Treaty she hasnt signed.So in my mind Turkey is leggally covered.Covering her expansionism that is....Exactly the same way Greece is doing.
Which are those bilateral agreements and Treaties that you speak of? (Which have to do with terittorial waters that is)
I didnt refer to the waters but to the bilateral treaties singned in the meantime,which makes Turkey consider their is a ''package'' of disputes in the Aegean,thus refusing to talk only about the waters.I am not a lawyer but Turkey as far i see is legally covered of what it says.
Of what i see in the neutral sources Turkey seems as legally covered as Greece is.
My point is that while i consider Turkey an expansionist country i also consider Greece one too.Regardless of its EU entry Greece has prooven in the past as history has shown to be an extremely expansionist country(Macedonia,Thrace,Cyprus in the past but even now masked under a pretext of reunification,Aegean monopoly etc).
Regardless of what the Greek citizens wanna think to justify their position i refuse to believe that Greece has been a ''blessed'' country.To my eyes Greece is the same if not worse than Turkey,and i abide by it.
To regards of what Turkey is claiming in general over the disputes,here is what the Turkish Embassy in the U.S says:
The recent crisis over the Kardak rocks has erupted by coincidence in such an atmosphere when Greece was making anouncements for recruitement of potential settlers from all over the world to some of these small islets and rocks. It is obvious that such a recruitment and settlement effort is in total disregard of the environmental concerns and the fragility of the ecosystems of the small islands and rocks in the Aegean. In addition, it is yet another proof of Greece's thirst for territorial expansion beyond areas ceded to her by the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923 and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947.
Under the present 6 miles limit, Greek territorial sea comprises approximately 43.5 percent of the Aegean Sea. For Turkey the same percentage is 7.5 percent. The remaining 49 percent is high seas.
It is evident that the extension by Greece of her territorial waters beyond the present 6 miles in the Aegean, would have most inequitable implications and would, therefore, constitute an abuse of right.
If the breadth of Greek territorial waters is extended to 12 miles due to the existence of the islands, Greece would acquire approximately 71.5 percent of the Aegean sea, while Turkey's share would increase to only 8.8 percent. The Aegean high seas would diminish to 19.7 percent
The fundamental source of tension between Turkey and Greece is the Greek perception to regard the entire Aegean as a Greek sea in total disregard of Turkey's rights and interests as one of the coastal states.
Turkish policy is based on respect for the status quo whereas Greece appears determined to alter it in its favor.
The threat of extending Greek territorial waters beyond their present width of 6 miles ( Greece extended her territorial waters from 3 miles to 6 miles in 1936,Turkey followed suit in 1964),the remilitarization of the Eastern Aegean Islands placed under demilitarized status by virtue of the very agreements ceding them to Greece, a 10 mile "national air space" over territorial waters of 6, abuse of the FIR responsibility as if it confers sovereignty (request of flight plans from state aircraft and allegations of "violations of" Athens FIR) can be counted among these efforts which are the real underlying causes of the Turco-Greek conflict.
Subsequent to the International Court of Justice ruling and the Security Council Resolution, Turkey and Greece signed the 1976 Bern Agreement
However Greece, who terminated the negotiating process with Turkey in 1981, started seismic and related activities and planned drilling operations in the disputed areas of the Aegean continental shelf in 1981.These activities which were open violations of the Bern Agreement have formed the main cause of the March 1987 crisis between Turkey and Greece
The FIR arrangement on the Aegean Airspace devised in 1952 within the framework of ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization), is a technical responsibility. Greece, however, is using it to further its claims of de facto sovereignty over the Aegean airspace by demanding flight plans from Turkish state aircraft and allegations of "infringements of the Athens FIR".
Besides the abuse of its FIR responsibility, Greece claims a 10 nautical mile national airspace over territorial waters of 6 nautical miles. This arbitrary claim is a Greek attempt to reduce the international airspace of the Aegean by 50 percent.
Greece has been blatantly violating this demilitarized status since the mid 1960's. The treaty has established a direct link between sovereignty of Dodecanese islans that are so close to the Turkish mainland and their demilitarized status, taking into consideration the security requirements of Turkey. A similar arrangement has been also stipulated by the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty concerning the North Eastern Aegean islands. Their demilitarized status is also being violated by Greece. This issue is one of the main disputes between Greece and Turkey. For ease of reference the text of the Article 14 of the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty is quoted hereafter.
" 1-Italy hereby cedes to Greece in full sovereignty the Dodacanese Islands indicated hereafter, namley Stampalia (Astropalia), Rhodes (Rhodos), Calki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Niyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Simi (Symi), Cos (Kos) and Castellorizo, as well as the adjacent islets.
2-These islands shall be and shall remain demilitarized. "
To regards of what Turkey is claiming in general over the disputes,here is what the Turkish Embassy in the U.S says:
So it is interesting to see that Turkey also views us as an expansionist country
interesting? This is nothing other than predictable. Stuff like that gets cut and pasted in here and on other forums.
During a past debate long long time ago* i posted thisstudy^, that outlines each others position in the most neutral one ive seen on the web (which admittedly is not hard)
Greece expansionism effectively died in the deserts of Anatolia and the birth of the Turkish Republic, and had its politically death when the students in Athens stood up to the junta. Everything else is just perception and conjecture
LMAO ok sorry i was replying to the other guy too, which was a Turk, and then when i replied to Leonida's post i mistook him for Turk :)))) OK, oi oi oi mr Australian, I'm sorry :)
Originally posted by Mortaza
Zagros, I never heard such thing.we believe, A muslim husband dont have any right to force women.
Quran: "As for those [wives] from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them." (4:34)
Originally posted by Leonidas
You find the whole country guilty and deserving of war, and also expansionism. A big leap in logic and smacks of chauvinism
Are you reading my posts partially on purpose or? I didn't accuse anyone of expansionism because of one assassination, i posted facts why I said that.
what does a Bosnian Serb hit on the Austrian emperor has to do with the modern state of serbia?
A lot, considering that pro-expansionistic and nationalistic party won cca 33% of seats in Parliament. Yes, the same guy who wants a piece of other countries to be incorporated in Great Serbia.
You know, you should really not discuss those topics you know nothing about.
first defence of an apologists, 'everyone else was doing it'. Big deal
every one else guilt doesn't wash away anyone else's. A Nazi is a Nazi
from any angle.
I'm sorry, what's your point? Did i say that Ustashe weren't pro-nazi? Yes i did. Did i say that majority of Croatia was leader anti-nazi movement in former Yugoslavia (meaning, whole region)? "Everyone else was doing it" is a good argument against those who want to single someone out and then use it as an argument "oh look you did that!" as everyone else is different.
Don't get me started about Australia, the ex-convict colony. Mind your own business, your countries troops are invading Iraq, unlawfully, and helping the biggest criminals among current world countries = americans. Clean your own backyard first, as you can see, Croatia is not waging any wars now, and if you ever find a single conquesting war that (independent) Croatia led (in 13 centuries of history), let me know. All wars we had, ALL, were in self defense.
Are you now claiming the partisans as a Croatian movement?
For start, im claiming you're utterly clueless.
As second, yes, that's what I'm claiming. Partisan movement was led by Josip Broz Tito, wow wait, a Croat. 'All of the partisan leaders were Croats, (and unlike the ustashe oposition in Croatia) the chetnik pro-nazi regime had no opposition whatsoever.'
Of course, I'm sure you will accuse me again of using biased logic, the other guy will accuse me of taking things out of the context, and no one will care about historical facts.
irrelevant were he came from
No, it's not irrelevant where he came from. If someone invades your country, conquers it, installs puppet regime and as the puppet head of state puts some guy who wasn't even living in Croatia but in Italy (which was Axis) - then yea, that's relevant.
Not to you, you're not a friend of truth.
BTW Tito's ethnicity is also irrelevant.
Yea, I suppose Hitlers ethnicity isn't relevant either, the ethnicity of Nazis isnt relevant either. What's relevant is that Leonida needs to be right, and those who disagree with him wrong. The methods don't matter, the tools don't matter, the truth matters not. Being right, that does matter.
ok now they were supported, 'but only by a little bit' . But an apologist couldnt help but to justify such support anyway.
I have zero respect of people who can't see shades of gray but see all in black and white, and I have serious doubts of their IQ.
Utashe apologist is no different to those in serbia that are chetnik apologist
I am not Ustashe apologist. I am apologist with other Croats who weren't Ustashe, and whom you treat equally because your bias doesn't allow you to see the whole picture.
One mans terrorist is another freedom fighter
Being terrorist doesn't make you wrong. Being on the wrong side and doing wrong things, does. Being a terrorist can be good, in certain cases.
Celebrating the hit on a Serbian king, than comparing the Serbian hit
on a Austrian king with 9/11. No your not biased in anyway......
I'm biased towards truth and justice. I don't equalize all murders. Some are good, some are not. Some I celebrate, some I mourn.
Originally posted by GoldenBlood
i have evidence that serbs claim in Croatia were over
35% serbs and you croats cleansed...now should believe we about it?
Serbs also claim that 2 million Serbs died in Jasenovac in WW2. Personally, I wish they did, but I guess they just haven't found as many because not as many existed. 35% of Serbs cleansed? I don't know the exact number (which is much less than that one), but IMO we didnt clean enough of em, judging from the online posts they are still making, and things they are still saying. If it was up to me, I'd deport half of them who still live in Croatia.
what about expulsion of Albanians and
Colonisation of Serbs from Kosova 1912-1945 have you hard about it? we
have 3-5 milions albanians in Turkey (why are there those magnificient
albanians?
And what of the pre-Turk invasion of Kosovo? And Bosnia? How many muslims did we have then? The reason I mentioned Kosovo was as an example of hyperpopulation. I have no intention to debate thousand of years of history, and who smacked whom first. If i wanted to do that, I'd debate Israeli Palestine issue :)
why you dont compare the most the populaion density??
Because the population density is irrelevant, since hyperpopulation over the decades makes the initial density no issue.
Truth, what truth?...why you dont say your truth about your Krajina and Slavonia?
What do you want to know about this? Slavonia and Krajina were always Croatian, except during wars against Ottoman empire when we sheltered Serbs there. Then they got haughty, Serbia populated Krajina on purpose (in organized manner) with Serbs in former Yugoslavia even further, and after the break of Yugoslavia they got haughty.. except they miscalculated their (and our) strenght. They got what they deserved, now they can go back to their barbaric country, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want any Neanderthal tribes in my country. If you like them so much, we can send them over to your country, and they can continue shouting "Serbia to Tokio".
Originally posted by Yugoslav
Of course Croatia should've handed them over - for if not, then the
ICTY would not exist at all (what, to put non-Croatians on trial)?
That's right. Haven't you heard of WW2? And other wars? Victorious side, being Allies, judged the losing side, being Axis powers. What do you think, that they were both convicted? No, just those guilty. Axis. Same thing here, Serbs were guilty of invading Slovenia Bosnia Croatia and Albanians on Kosovo. Croats beat the **** out of them, and that's pretty much it. No Croat, not a single one, should be sent to some political court.
I do not understand that which you say about Carla del Ponte. I think
she's a great and energic person
Birds of a feather flock together.
The rebellion in Croatia (celebrated as national liberation day today) was initiated by - guess who - Serb Partisans.
Yea, I assume you read that in Serbian schoolbooks. Quite interesting how all partisan leaders were Croats, and anti-nazi movement had a huge support in Croatia but none in Serbia. Saying that the rebellion was initiated in Croatia by serb partisans is so disgusting, and the very fast that Tito was a Croat should be enough to prove this wrong.
Up to 1943 most Croats were behind the Ustashas (either willingly, or through intimidation)
Interesting. Then how come Partisans won? Oh wait, I get it, Serbs came here and beat the crap of Ustashe, while Croatian partisans were busy hunting deer in the forest?
it isn't accident that in NDH most of the rebelled territories mostly had Serb majority early on
You mean Chetniks? Yea. Who else would oppose Ustashe more than Nazies. Chetniks collaborated with Nazies and it was in both interest they had conflcit with Ustashe
I would also like to point out the massive celebration and greeting in
Zagreb to the German forces in 1941, they were welcomed by the mass
with cookies, flowers
I know nothing about that, but I would assume this is correct. See, after decades of your Serb hegemony, people thought that Nazies would liberate them and Croatia would prosper. In other words, we got so sick of you Serbs that even Nazies were a better solution because they treated us better.
So, just because an opposition party managed to enter the parliament you base that opinion?
New independent Croatia did not exist until 1991/1992-1994/1995, so excluding the 1941-1945 episode, it's not much of an argument. BTW I wouldn't call the genocidal war in WWII self-defense. And by the same logic that Serbia indirectly waged war upon Bosnia and Croatia - so did Croatia in 1993-1994. I'd also reckon certain activities (Medak, Gospic, Flash, Storm,...) not quite "self-defense" from the 1991-1995 war. Or in the Medieval Ages - those interventions in Bosnia, and the two late invasions of Serbia, and the attacks on Byzantine and/or Latin property deemed as "national liberation" nowadays is far from it - for that's the same like the Serbs calling their takeover of southern (Old) Serbia (Kosovo, Metohija, northern Sanjak, Vardar Macedonia) ca 1912 "self-defense" because of very same reasons.
Ante Pavelic only lived for some time in Italy. And also, remember Tito's mixed origin and Yugoslavian affiliation.
I think rebel is more correct than terrorist in this case.
I agree that the world isn't black-white, but I don't think any murder is simply "good".
I've never ever heard Serbs say 2 million died in Jasenovac - but what do you meant by not existing that much? In the Independent state of Croatia alone about 2,100,000 lived.
Quote: "I don't know the exact number (which is much less than that one), but
IMO we didnt clean enough of em, judging from the online posts they are
still making, and things they are still saying. If it was up to me, I'd
deport half of them who still live in Croatia." That's it. I'm reporting you.
Quote: 'What do you want to know about this? Slavonia and Krajina were always
Croatian, except during wars against Ottoman empire when we sheltered
Serbs there. Then they got haughty, Serbia populated Krajina on purpose
(in organized manner) with Serbs in former Yugoslavia even further, and
after the break of Yugoslavia they got haughty.. except they
miscalculated their (and our) strenght. They got what they deserved,
now they can go back to their barbaric country, as far as I'm
concerned. I don't want any Neanderthal tribes in my country. If you
like them so much, we can send them over to your country, and they can
continue shouting "Serbia to Tokio".' Not as racist as the previous one, but still...
So according to your logic, if Slobodan Milosevic won and the HDZ elite and many Slovenes and Albanians forever abandon Yugoslavia, with eventually him becoming the first president of the New Yugoslavia - do you actually think that only Tudjman and the others should've been prosecuted???
No, I read in Jewish and Yugoslavian (before) schoolbooks. It's interesting to say that "all Partisan leaders were Croats" is absolutely incorrect. For instance, proportionally, the greatest number of Partisan high-ranking officers were Montenegrins and Serbs. Yes, Serb Partisans (mostly) raised the anti-Nazi rebellion in Croatia on 27th July 1941. I already mentioned that Tito's not quite a best example for a Croat (being far more a Yugoslavian Slovene than Croat). And remember that Tito went to Belgrade to organize armed resistance - because in the Independent State of Croatia there was no atmosphere (yet) for any resistance. Tito didn't raise the National Liberation War in Croatia - but in Serbia. Quite interesting how all partisan leaders were Croats, and anti-nazi
movement had a huge support in Croatia but none in Serbia. Incredibly fallacious. In 1941 the anti-Fascist rebellion liberated Serbia and Montenegro, while there was still nothing in NDH. And only after 1943 serious movements emerge in Croatia, with the March of the Partisans from Uzice to Bihac. Could you please tell me all those famous & famed Croat Partisans before 1943?
After 1943, the war lasted all the way until 1945. Not "the Serbs", but the "Yugoslavs" - which excluded most Croats until '43 and excluded most Slovenes.
To say that all Chetniks collaborated with the Nazis is wrong - only some did, and those that did, cooperated with the Ustashas too. However, most Chetniks cooperated with the Italian Fascists, that's (sadly) true - and some even cooperated with the collaborationist puppet regimes in Montenegro and Serbia of Sekula Drljevic and Milan Nedic.
The Nazis were a better solution? Well I guess they were with the "Final Solution" for the Jews, and a similar one existing for the Serbs. Also this better solution seems to have brought to death almost 1,700,000 Yugoslavs - a figure at least one hundred thousand times greater than the victims of the Serb-hegemony royal Yugoslavia. And please, do not attach me nationalist connotations, and especially connect me with any crime I didn't commit.
In the end you contradict your very self - you point out that the world isn't black & white, and yet you see only to want to put the losers on trial...?
"I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum