Posted on 02/15/2007 1:40:58 PM PST by Serb29
The boy appeared to be psychologically unstable with a history of threats and attempted violence with knives. He seemed very unhappy, lost, and empty - and it shows in his photographs. From his father's statements, it appears he is unaware of what his son did with his time, where he went, etc., which is why he is speculating. The police aren't bothering with Sulejman's computer, so they don't want to know.
Perhaps the father should investigate and will find clues there.
Of course, what I said was that you denigrated Allied soldiers because they were Muslims, not for the fact that they were Muslims. You questioned the loyalty of Africans under Vichy occupation.
Rather, I have simply sought a more accurate accounting of the numbers and roles of French colonial muslims on the allied side than has been given to date.
Then stop fudging the numbers.
She is entitled to hold that religious belief without being slandered as a bigot or maliciously compared to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by zimdog
Its an objective comparison to the official Iranian position, which holds that the Baha'i worship a false god. If it's donna's perogative to attack the faith of other Freepers, I can call her misguided opinions what I believe them to be.
I have never insulted muslim African soldiers in WWII - merely demanded an accurate accounting of their numbers, roles, and contributions
You insult Muslim African soldiers when you belittle their service (such as when you suggest that they only fought on the periphery of the war, and never in the heart of Europe, despite the fact that 44,000 Muslim West African soldiers were on the front lines defending France from the Nazi invasion.
Eleni121 made no such insult.
eleni121 flatly stated, several times, that no Muslim troops fought for the Allies. This is an insult to the Muslim troops who fought for the Allies and it is an insult to their non-Muslim brothers who fought alongside them in the battle against fascism.
Another personal attack by Zimdog against multiple freepers. There are very few if any freepers out there denying that there's such a thing as a non-arab muslim. Zimdog invented this strawman slander to justify his personal attacks on other freepers.
Apparently you didn't read the thread that you cherry-picked that post from. And on top of that, you're mischaracterizing my posts. It should be clear that my truck with with people insisted -- in the face of clear evidence to the contrary -- that all Arabs are Muslims. This is very different than lqclamar's claim that I "invented a strawman" claiming that all Muslims are Arab.
This is intellectually dishonest. Unfortunately, it has come to be par for the course for lqclamar. And I'm sure that he will try to call me to the carpet to suggesting that highlighting his back-to-back intellectual dishonest (intellectual dishonesty in defense of his intellectual dishonesty) is somehow a personal attack.
...and an admission by Zimdog that his purpose here is not to discuss, but rather an effort to penalize any Freeper who disagrees with him or objects to his abusive and inflamatory personal attacks on them.
More like a statement of purpose that I am here to discuss issues with fellow conservatives in an intellectually honest environment. Your recent posts have shown that you don't value that.
For the record #182 contains yet another inflamatory, false, and personal attack-laden post by Zimdog - all in violation of the rules of FR.
That's a terrible burden for a father to have. Furthermore, if someone pushed and trained his son to become a murderer, a non-professional could easily erase incriminating files on the computer. (And 95% of fathers can be classified as "non-professionals" when it comes to computers!) What we need is for the SLC police to do their job.
Face it, lqclamar, your half-quote misquote of me in #157 is intellectually dishonest. So is the logical inversion you use to make my (quote-supported) rebuttal a "strawman" in your #176.
It seems I possibly made you some enemies in this thread, and for that I apologize. My reasoning as to why I feel it wasn't ethnic cleansing is due to the simple fact that to this day, Serbs, Bosnians, Croatians, and even Albanians still live in Serbia in relative peace. The Yugoslav war, in my opinion, seemed to be more based on territorial disputes, and not so much ethnical. And my reasoning that Serbs didn't initiate the war is due to the fact that they were the only ones that wanted the country to stay together...but I'm still trying to learn more.
"What happened to the bodies? Anybody ever bother to count them or, did the journo just dream up the number?"
Unfortunately, I think that exaggerated statistic is permanently etched in history and may never be corrected.
"So what!"
Crawl back under your rock and don't worry about it...didn't mean to wake you.
Oh no, don't worry about it. They've been after me for some time. If not this thread, it would be another.
My reasoning as to why I feel it wasn't ethnic cleansing is due to the simple fact that to this day, Serbs, Bosnians, Croatians, and even Albanians still live in Serbia in relative peace. The Yugoslav war, in my opinion, seemed to be more based on territorial disputes, and not so much ethnical.
Well, I think there were national/ethnic claims to different territories, and that's how the war was organized. This does not mean that Serbs, Bosnians, Croats, Albanians (and Slovenes and Montenegrans!) can't live in peace. Certainly they do. But it's also important not to dismiss the fact that armies and atrocities in the Yugoslav war were organized along ethnic and religious lines.
And my reasoning that Serbs didn't initiate the war is due to the fact that they were the only ones that wanted the country to stay together...but I'm still trying to learn more.
I don't know enough about the subject to answer this, but I do know that the non-Serb nationalities in Yugoslavia felt that the state was becoming increasingly Serb-dominated. Unfortunately, their desire for greater representation was picked up by warmongers who said that Bosnians should live in Bosnia, Croats in Croatia, Serbs in Serbia, etc. even though those people were all neighbors in, say, Sarajevo. And inflammatory rhetoric like, "the Muslim is the natural enemy of the Christian and they were all Nazis," "the Serb wants only to dominate the other Slavs," Albanians want to deliver Kosovo to Albania," etc. scared some people who were ethnic minorities in their region. (Any possibility of being joined to Albania ca. 1990 would have been particularly terrifying.) And on this fear grew a terrible civil war that we're still trying to recover from.
And because the war was instigated by several actors who organized their armies and support on ethnic/religious lines, there was ethnic cleansing. I'm not suggesting that "The Serb" was trying to kill all Bosnians (or, for the 28 year-olds: I'm not suggesting that Teh Serb wanted to kill Teh Bosnian) but there were armies and paramilitary groups and rogue commanders who were genuine racists and saw the war as a racial/ethnic conflict over territory. These are the people who ordered that Serbs be driven from their villages, that Bosnians be shot, that Croat women be raped, etc. As another poster said earlier, I understand very well that this was going on on all sides in the war. But that must not be an excuse for ignoring its horror.
Very good points, Joan.
My main reason for posting this article was because of how quick it was to implicate the war for having been the sole reason this young man did what he did, and in effect almost excusing him for his actions. Outside of having to leave his former home due to a civil war he himself never witnessed, that seems to me to be incredibly wrong. Keeping that in mind, do you not feel the Serbs are indirectly being unjustly targeted by this article, Zimdog?
"or, for the 28 year-olds: I'm not suggesting that Teh Serb wanted to kill Teh Bosnian"
I'm the 28 yr. old and do not understand what your "teh" statement means. Am I misspelling something?
Good point!
Oh, it's silly internet lingo that refers to a Platonic ideal, but with a much more lowbrow and sarcastic connotation, as in "That joke was teh funny."
You're probably better off not knowing. Sorry to introduce you to it.
I think it's "teh funnay." :)
That and his grandfather was killed. But it's hardly unusual to lose a grandparent at the age of two.
Keeping that in mind, do you not feel the Serbs are indirectly being unjustly targeted by this article, Zimdog?
I can't say if Serbs are being unjustly targetted by the article, but it's a slapdash treatment of the war that paints Serbs in a bad light, whether intentionally or not.
ha.
The ICTY is Euro/NATO/USA/UN vehicle of official rationalization ('denial'?) and so far they've managed to look like biased and inept fools at that task.
In a war I expect both sides to lie and to vilify the other guy. In this regard and in this instance I believe the islamists and burgeoning cartels far outdid the tottering communists and Serb nationalists; IMHO.
That the ICTY is lying is a given considering their function: If the Serbs cannot be shown to be the bad guys - then we are the bad guys. That a large part of western officialdom, press, and political parties support this policy is also a given.
At least you and I can debate what makes a massacre, when it is possible to massacre two people just as it is possible to massacre two thousand.
You and I are talking about approximately two thousand over a period of weeks, we don't even know how many of those were armed insurgents but 2 to 3K seems a core number. Meanwhile, the press, the ICTY, and the western left, will gladly trumpet numbers in many tens of thousands right along with accepting muslim reports at face value.
Sympathetic sources continue to claim the numeric variance is due to truck convoys hauling bodies back to Serbia, back to the capital city even, in order to hide evidence - despite that being one of the most absurd concepts I've ever heard put forward by presumed rational minds.
In the meantime, those same sources easily make references to over 600,000 Iraqi civilian deaths based on clear blue sky, unfounded reports and mystical formulas used to estimate our sins.
Two different wars and two different sets of allies so the 'news' tells us that we did good in the Balkans but we did bad in Iraq.
Who's propaganda should we assume that reflected?
difficult questions. i'll have to think on this some.
regards,
zimdog
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.