Expansionist States of Today

Trabzon is both religious and nationalist.

Hmm. I find that a little early.

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.

Originally posted by Josip 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




Edited by Leonidas - 16-Jul-2007 at 10:44

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.

Originally posted by Neoptolemos 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

Edited by Southerneighbr - 16-Jul-2007 at 19:04

Originally posted by Southerneighbr Originally posted by Neoptolemos 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)

 To regards of what Turkey is claiming in general over the disputes,here is what the Turkish Embassy in the U.S says:

Edited by Southerneighbr - 16-Jul-2007 at 23:18

Originally posted by Mortaza 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.     Because you only talk about strife. There is both strife and cooperation between abrahamic religions.. It is politics.

Originally posted by Josip 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...?