[Hunden]

I am an advocate of property rights: the legitimate owners have the right to remain on their property, to invite whomever they please, and to expel intruders.

The judgement I cast on "ethnic cleansing" is therefore dependent on whom I deem to be the legitimate owners of the country.

Since the Kosovars had every right to live in Kosovo, and the Bosniaks in Bosnia, their forced expulsion was certainly criminal, and the attendant murders and plunder would have been in any case.

[palmer]

The judgement I cast on "ethnic cleansing" is therefore dependent on whom I deem to be the legitimate owners of the country.

Therefore you wouldn't have a problem with the legitimate owners of the American Southwest, descendants of hispanics and indians, performing ethnic cleansing on the white minority there.

[dervish]

"The judgement I cast on "ethnic cleansing" is therefore dependent on whom I deem to be the legitimate owners of the country."

Your "judgment" therefore lacks morality. The judgment I cast on ethnic cleansing is that it is indefensible. Ethnic cleansing is not a legitimate response to enforce property rights. There is law and war, there is terror and there is ethnic cleansing. If you can not tell the difference then you lack moral clarity.

In today's world the condemnation of ehtnic cleansing is contingent on the identity of the victims not the universal application of principles. Muslim victims garner cries of atrocities world round. Christian victims are not sympathetic to the European left with their post colonial self-flagelation. And Muslims who are usually the perpetrators of the killing are definitely not owning up. They are still crying victim even as they wield the stick.

[montyspython]

"I am an advocate of property rights: the legitimate owners have the right to remain on their property,"

Excellent, then you won't mind returning Krajina and Dalmatia back to it's rightful owners correct?