Expansionist States of Today

Originally posted by TheDiplomat One can marry a Jew or Christian, let alone establishing friendship

Islam lets Muslim men to marry Jew/Christian women, but not Muslim women to marry Jew/Christian men.

Originally posted by Josip #1 USA. Yup, the first spot is, hands down, taken by the USA. While USA has no direct territorial claims, and IMO doesn't have plans to actually annex any country, the style is still that of expansionism, or, colonialism. Iraq war for instance for oil and control of the region (plan failed though), conflicts in Latin America (various interests), interfering with internal affairs of Iran etc. A lot of scheming done with UK. (Engdahl: A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order) #2 Islam. While not a state in itself, muslims first and foremost declare themselves as "muslims" and only after that as citizens of some states (unlike everyone else, more or less). The "panislamic state" is spreading fast via hyperpopulation (check demographics of Kosovo, last 50yrs), and once it reaches majority, the exodus of non-islamic population starts and the country becomes islamic republic. Panislamic state has a perfect strategy to counter military superior West, it uses western tools to achieve their goal (=democracy, and 'lets tolerate all'). Unlike other religions, Islam is the only religion (that i know of) which was founded by an imperialistic charismatic figgure (a conquerer, pillager of caravans etc), and the only that i know of, which clearly states that everyone should be offered to convert to Islam or die. Unlike the organized expansionist states such as USA for instance, the "panislamic state" is passive and at first seems more chaotic and divided, but is winning over the years. #3 Serbia. I'll nominate this one, and it has been mentioned already in the thread. Serbia is, no matter how you measure it, an imperialistic country. The only problem they have is they try to take more than they can chew. In last 20 years alone, Serbia has waged war with Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and had a conflict with Albanians in Kosovo in two occasions. Even after these conflicts, a large population of Serbia (as well as Serbian emigration) still has territorial claims for Bosnia and parts of Croatia. In 1914 it was Serbia who started First World War by assassinating Austrian archduke.

Far, far, far too POVly and insultingly written, my friend.

By the way, there aren't ANY muslims concerned with a panislamic state. Imagine a state from Morocco to Indonesia! Just plain ridiculous, yet islamophobes manage to make it sound creditable. No, the panislamic state is a fable.

Originally posted by Josip Originally posted by Leonidas islam is a political definable state, Josip? This isnt a thread on religion. As I said, it's not politically definable state, that's why im closing the discussion from my part, because I have no desire to debate with fanatics who will not accept facts because they dont fit their life philosophy, and if I type them down they'll just say it's wrong and won't look it up themselves because they are afraid that the quotes are not out of context.

ok, we can leave Islam out of this and if your want you can start a thread on expansionists religions. you can do Islam, and i will do Latin church in Rome.

Originally posted by Josip AFIAK a Serb pulled the trigger not Serbia. I don't see the difference. If Serbia had something against it, it would put the guy into jail. Since Serbia refused to extradite the man to Austria-Hungaria, it's a bit silly to say that the whole attack was an accident and Serbia has absolutely nothing to do with it. Next thing you know, someone will say Serbia was actually supporting the Austria and the fact that they didn't want to extradite him is fabricated. The fact that Serbia was behind that is just too much for some people to hear.. i mean, sure it's not Serbia who wanted a piece of Bosnia and had a conflict with Austria... it's all science fiction. I'm new to this forum, but so far it seems no different than other forums so I think i'll just leave. It's full of people who are ready to accept what they want to accept, regardless of all evidence pointing otherwise.

of course you cant see the difference. Im not to sure the Croatian track record on handing over war criminals is good enough to make a moral stand on this.  Should i equate, using your logic, the today's Croatia with the fascist, Nazi loving and expansionist Utashe regime? Sound fair?

And with such irony, and proof of your chauvinism, that you use a local hit on a emperor and occupier, as a example of expansionism. Serbs and other Bosnians live in Bosnia, not Austrians. So lets talk about empires when talking about expansionists.

 It was Austrian Empire that attacked Serbia (and started WW1), causing a huge amount of Serbs to die. No one can compare this aggression, with a militant hit on a head of state. That was simply an excuse to attack. what they really wanted to do, is to stop Serbian inspired, Slavic nationalism from eroding their southern holdings.

as for 'evidence', bring it on and teach. some of us, are much more opened minded than you may assume.





Edited by Leonidas - 15-Jul-2007 at 00:27

I will stay out of Islam discussion because I don't think that belongs here. I said what I wanted to say. Now let's go back to the states;

Originally posted by Leonidas Im not to sure the Croatian track record on handing over war criminals is good enough to make a moral stand on this.  Should i equate, using your logic, the today's Croatia with the fascist, Nazi loving and expansionist Utashe regime? Sound fair?

I am not quite sure I understand you, can you clarify please?

Croatia should not have handed over a single person to the political and unjust court of Haag. As a matter of fact I'm a strong supporter or arresting Carla del Ponte next time she comes to Croatia, and convicting her of 'crimes against injustice'.

Or do you mean to say that you support the extradition of Turks generals who participated in the conflict with Kurds?

If there was a situation where Croatian citizen killed someone (without excuse) from ..let's say Turkey, and we did not try him, you would be right, yes. If we refused to hand him over to Turkey, the whole country should be hold responsible, since it's obvious that a country has interest over what he did and doesn't mind it. I hope this is clear enough?

Now, as for Ustashe regime, can you explain to me what this has to do with all of this? Ustashe were colaborators with the Nazis, and in case you didn't know, Nazis installed puppet states just about everywhere. You had people in Norway helping Nazis, in Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, just about everywhere. They had their political reasons to support Nazis, but that's not debatable. The problem is that you're trying to equalize Croatia as an independent democratic state today, with a minority Ustashe regime which did not even have the support of majority of Croats, and which was just a puppet state divided between Italy and Germany. BTW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quisling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state
Now for some facts; unlike in some other countries (Serbia etc), majority of Croats joined the anti-nazi communistic movement, which was led (in whole Yugoslavia mind you), by a Croat (wow interesting eh?). That movement  won  the war against Ustashe and Nazis, so really what's your point? Do you know who was the head of Ustashe regime? Someone who did not even live in Croatia, they brought him here from Italy and installed him, after the leader of the biggest Croatian party refused to cooperate with Nazis (they asked him). The only reason why Ustashe had even such support, was because of decades of Serbian hegemony in first Yugoslavia; they didn't care about Nazis as much as getting some revenge, which honestly I can't blame em. Before WW2, Ustashe were actually a quite positive movement, literary meaning "those who stood up" against that hegemony. Along with IMRO (Macedonian movement) they assassinated Yugoslav (well, Serbian) king Alexander, which was kinda cool.
BTW, in case you didn't know, Ustashe symbols are forbidden in Croatia by law, just as Nazi ones are.

And with such irony, and proof of your chauvinism, that you use a local hit on a emperor and occupier, as a example of expansionism

What irony? What chauvinism? What local hit? What single example?

It was Austrian Empire that attacked Serbia (and started WW1), causing a huge amount of Serbs to die. No one can compare this aggression, with a militant hit on a head of state.

Yea, no one can compare militant hit on Two Towers either. Oh wait, they just did, and it resulted in the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq.
I'm sure you also don't mind some militant Kurds then.

as for 'evidence', bring it on and teach. some of us, are much more opened minded than you may assume.

Open minded? Wow, I would not want to see a close-minded Turk.

I don't think it has anything to do with Sunni or Shia. Since that is only a belief in who had the right to be Caliph and  this is a matter of actual religion.  The woman is considered to have the belief in the Prophet and God upon agreeing to marry a Muslim.

Zagros, I never heard such thing.we believe, A muslim husband dont have any right to force women. Infact He should even maintain christian women for his praying

Originally posted by Josip Originally posted by Leonidas Im not to sure the Croatian track record on handing over war criminals is good enough to make a moral stand on this.  Should i equate, using your logic, the today's Croatia with the fascist, Nazi loving and expansionist Utashe regime? Sound fair? I am not quite sure I understand you, can you clarify please?

when Serbia didn't hand over one criminal it didn't have, to the Austrians in the second decade of last century...

Originally posted by Josip I don't see the difference. If Serbia had something against it, it would put the guy into jail

.... You find the whole country guilty and deserving of war, and also expansionism. A big leap in logic  and smacks of chauvinism

Originally posted by Josip Now, as for Ustashe regime, can you explain to me what this has to do with all of this?

  what does a Bosnian Serb hit on the Austrian emperor has to do with the modern state of serbia?
 

Originally posted by Josip Ustashe were colaborators with the Nazis, and in case you didn't know, Nazis installed puppet states just about everywhere. You had people in Norway helping Nazis, in Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, just about everywhere.

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.

Originally posted by Josip They had their political reasons to support Nazis, but that's not debatable. The problem is that you're trying to equalize Croatia as an independent democratic state today, with a minority Ustashe regime which did not even have the support of majority of Croats, and which was just a puppet state divided between Italy and Germany. BTW:.

I am simply using your biased logic, back on you to see how it feels. it doesn't feel nice does it, being judged about the past in such a sweeping way.

The second defence of an apologist 'but we really didn't support them'

  

Originally posted by Josip Now for some facts; unlike in some other countries (Serbia etc), majority of Croats joined the anti-nazi communistic movement, which was led (in whole Yugoslavia mind you), by a Croat (wow interesting eh?). That movement  won  the war against Ustashe and Nazis, so really what's your point?.

The communists was full of Serbs , Croatians and Bosnians, it was a political ideology that transcends ethnic nationalism, they fought both chetniks and Utashe.

Are you now claiming the partisans as a Croatian movement?

Originally posted by Josip Do you know who was the head of Ustashe regime? Someone who did not even live in Croatia, they brought him here from Italy and installed him, after the leader of the biggest Croatian party refused to cooperate with Nazis (they asked him).

irrelevant were he came from, you didn't import the rest of those thugs, now did you. without all that support who manned the Croatian army or the concentrations camps?

BTW Tito's ethnicity is also irrelevant.  His regime wasn't very popular in Croatia or Slovenia, with all that sharing of their relative wealth with such poor project provinces like Macedonia. Hence why they wanted to split when they could.

Originally posted by Josip The only reason why Ustashe had even such support, was because of decades of Serbian hegemony in first Yugoslavia; they didn't care about Nazis as much as getting some revenge, which honestly I can't blame em. Before WW2, Ustashe were actually a quite positive movement, literary meaning "those who stood up" against that hegemony.

  ok now they were supported, 'but only by a little bit' . But an apologist couldnt help but to justify such support anyway.

Utashe apologist is no different to those in serbia  that are chetnik apologist. I treat both the same. 'One mans terrorist is another freedom fighter', its a very important cliche you need to remember when defending your own, yet in the same breath accusing your neighbors.

 

Originally posted by Josip Along with IMRO (Macedonian movement) they assassinated Yugoslav (well, Serbian) king Alexander, which was kinda cool.

Originally posted by Josip It was Austrian Empire that attacked Serbia (and started WW1), causing a huge amount of Serbs to die. No one can compare this aggression, with a militant hit on a head of state. Yea, no one can compare militant hit on Two Towers either. Oh wait, they just did, and it resulted in the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq.

   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......

Originally posted by Mortaza Open minded? Wow, I would not want to see a close-minded Turk.   Leonidas, I always suspecter your root.. Why did you hide your Turkish root, my greek friend..

It had to come out eventually

Originally posted by Bulldog Josip Open minded? Wow, I would not want to see a close-minded Turk.   Leonadis, whhhhhhhhhhhhy you terrible Turk!

 


Edited by Leonidas - 15-Jul-2007 at 11:01

I still insist that you are wasting your time with a racist.

Originally posted by Mortaza I still insist that you are wasting your time with a racist.   Their words are always same.   In Turkey It is kurds, USA, It is latins, Germany It is Turks and france it is muslims who are trying to over populate locals..   Every fasist repeat same tale..