Posted on 12/11/2004 2:57:31 AM PST by Straight Vermonter
How about all those scum who dynamited Serb orthodox churches in Kosovo? They weren't doing it for religions reasons? You fail to realize you are dealing with a terrorist religion here. Go read the life of Muhammad, the first Islamic terrorist. He chopped off heads to terrorize. He had people assassinated. And the Koran commands all Muslims tyro copy his exemplary life.
DYNAMITED KOSOVO CHURCHES=JIHAD
At the end of the day all your tedious material is bullshit because the Muslims got hold of Kosovo. They achieved their objective. I could see you taking up the Muslim side if they had lost. But fact is they won. Serbia was bombed meaning your dreams were realized.
Your objective is to apologize for Islamic imperialism. Why a Christian from the West would do this is beyond me.
the ones not involved with the drugs and crime running of the Albanians get along fine with other non-criminals (Serbs, Maks and Albs). the problem solely exists between the law enforcers/military and the criminals, simple. you have all the others as pawns and caught/trapped. i feel bad for them.
It is hard to discern the differance between the evidence as it is manipulated by all interested parties. The winner is the one with the larger public forum/audience, that meaning the us, the US. As i have said all along, it does not matter what the truth is, what is done is done and whatever the foreign policy dictates, history shall be repeated.
Why don't you tell the Israelis, the American Isralei lobby, the Congress, the Chief Executive, the Evangelical Zionists, and -- the whole world -- that by your own rules Israli "irridentists" had their chance to get their land back, but that right expired in 577 A.D.?
At which point does a stolen property become legitimate possession of the one who stole it? If I start bringing my family as squatters in your back yard and eventually overpopulate your property, does your property become mine when you are pushed to the last room in your house?
You are applying civil justice to something that is neither civil no just. The Muslims recognize only one nation, as Izetbegovic argued -- Islam. If Izetbegovic's declaration is true, ti means whatever Muslims cooperate with the West and whom we support, they are doing it only for their benefit, lying in wait until they can strike the hand that feeds them.
OK, but [Izetvegovic] is Bosnian, he's dead, and he had nothing to do with the Albanian-Serb conflict in Kosovo
Muslims are allowed to lie in order to deceive infidels. If you are not a Muslim, you are doing the lying for them. Izetbegovic was a fundamentalist Muslim first and formost. Bieng a Muslim is above secualr states and nations. This is another example of your fraud -- telling people a diception and knowing very well that Muslims are one nation and not many.
"... In one of the thesis for an Islamic order today we have stated that it is a natural function of the Islamic order to gather all Muslims and Muslim communities throughout the world into one. Under present conditions, this desire means a struggle for creating a great Islamic federation from Morocco to Indonesia, from the tropical Africa to the Central Asia. ..."[Izetbegovic, Islamic Declaration, 1970 (1990), p. 27, 46]
It is not possible to reconcile, negotiate or believe a Muslim -- not because we don't want to, but because their faith forbids them to make friends with infidels lest they become like them.
That's why a discussion with your "objective" analyses of the Balkans, is pointless and a waste of time. I just want to make sure the ignorant readers don't fall for your historical reivsionism and dysinformation.
That's wrong. The most common factor was the lobby money and PR companies that the anti-Serb tribes in the Balkans poured into the America and the West to get the world on their side. Milosevic's refusal to incorporate economic reforms being dicted by the IMF also played a major role.
Its now largely forgotten, but the first significant U.S. military involvement in the Balkans was a U.S. infantry battalion sent to Macedonia as part of UNPROFOR and at the request of the President of Macedonia. Serb nationalists were calling Macedonia "South Serbia" and there was a dispute over the location of the Serbia-Macedonia border. As you well know, both sides were Orthodox; and so were the Greeks who had some interest in that situation as well.
Wrong again. Macedonia was able to split away from the rest of Yugoslavia because it negotiated a split and the Serbian minority wasn't being threatened like it was in Croatia, Bosnia and the Serbian province of Kosovo. The little skirmish with Slovenia and to a certain extent the war in Croatia wasn't clearly just a Serbian issue. Yugoslavia, to a certain extent, was just trying to prevent unlawful succession just like any other country would.
I was actually kind of excited when you first joined the Balkan conversations. You like to claim to be objective, but every post of yours does nothing more than twist and spin each issue in favor of anyone that's opposed to the Serbs. I see no objectivity at all. It's very dissapointing.
Hmmm... no I don't. But then again 10 years ago I was completely submerged in pre-production of the documentary "Yugoslavia: The Avoidable War" so it may have slipped past me.
I do remember that an Albanian guy that was sending tons of money to the KLA owned a tavern down the street from me was very pissed when he found out that a Serbian guy (not me) also owned a tavern on his same block. I never met the Albanian KLA tavern owner, but I had an American friend that bartended for him. She said he was a complete ass. His business bellied within two years.
That is false. The Serbs and the Croats are not the same tribe. They are all Slavs, of course, as much as Norwegians and Austrians are all "German."
The Serbs and the Croats were not divided by religion -- in fact religion (Roman Catholicism) was not an identifier of nationality until Maria Theresa's times. It was the language.
But, you will observe, don't Serbs and Croats speak the same language? Yes and no. But until 1850, they did neither speak nor write the same language. What Croats call "Croatian" is not either of the two Croatian indiginous languages -- the cakavian (pron. chakavian) and the kajkavian, of which the former is the only true Croatian tongue [kajkavian is a derivative of Slovenian and is encountered only in regions bordering with Slovenia].
While all Serbs speak shtokavian (or shtokavski), only a portion of people who identify themselves as Croats speak shtokavian (Serbian). Those Croats living predominantly in western Herzegovina, which was forced to accept Catholicism under Maria Theresa, typically have last names that sound Serbian -- Miloshevich being one of them, and their national instrument is gusle a one-string device originating in Montenegro (as do Miloshevichs). Interestingly, their dialect also contains sound specific for Montenegrin speech. Of course, the converts came from Orthodox ranks wo -- through equating Catholicism with Croatian national identity -- come to identify as such.
Likewise, in Slavonia, the shtokavski speaking "shoktsi" (sokci) come from a line of forced converts to RC. Their name comes from the old Serbian word for hand (shoka) which in the modern language means a clenched hand or fist (shaka). People could tell who were "shoktsi" by the way they crossed -- with the whole hand (shoka) instead of with the three fingers held together as one (the Orthodox manner).
Thus it are clear historical, linguistic, cultural (rleigious) and demographic dicatons that all shtokavski-speaking people in the Balkans were Serbs, just as it is clear from the decrees of Bosnian princes and kings that they were rulers of Serbs (and only Serbs, the only nation mentioned by name "Serblye"), while also in control of areas of the Dalmacia and Croatia.
Croatian documents from early Christianity were written in Old Church Slavonic for a long time, but secular documents were written strictly in cakavski -- a language that has a pleasant character and well suited for poetry, but is utterly underdeveloped for prose, and is close but unintelligible to shtokavski-speaking Serbs. Because of this, and because they were under Hungarian and Austrian rulers, Croatians used either Hungarian, German or Latin as the official written language for centuries. for example, at the beginning of the 19th century, the Croatian diet used exclusively Latin, and only German-language books could be bought in Zagreb, Croatia's capital then known under the name Agram).
In 1850, with the help of Austrian Court, and with clearly delineated political reasons having to do with weakining Russian influence in the Balkans, a naive and foolish Serb self-styled language reformer by the name of Vuk Stefanivich-Karadzhich, together with a Croatian representatives singed, without any authority or mandate, on behalf of their nations a Language Agreement which established shtokavian, the living spoken language of Serbs, as the linguistic norm for the common literally language of Serbs and Croats, written accoridng to the alphabetical rules pushed by Vuk and written either in Cyrillic or Roman alphabets.
Thus, Croats accepted Serbian as their linguistic standard and under the guise of "Illyrian" unity and pan-Yugoslav (South Slav) idealism called it "Croatian." This would be equivalent to saying that "American" is a language distinct from English, and that it is American, not English, for no reason other than Americans use it.
Just for the record.
You are right. And even the Islamofacists even play this critisizing Russian neo-Nazis who haven't determined their own racial background.
Great post - thanks.
Ditto. But I did post a wonderful story once, and I will ping you to it later, about the Greeks having stood in front of churches in Kosovo to protect them, even having been burned and injured while doing so.
God Bless your people!
Exactly what happened and will happen again, is happening again, all over Europe. As James George Jatras pointed out way back in 1998.
Col Jatras and his wife Stella are real experts for the Balkans, but unfortunately they don't find fault with the Serbs as much as it is politically correct, which is why you won't find them interviewd on Fox and Retards.
The demonization was very well-done. How sad that people were so gullible. Perhaps I would have been also without the church.
Good posts. Mark is a humanitarian do gooder fool. I never support Islam in it's varies disputes and wars. Five years ago I was stupid and would not have made such a blanket statement.
However.... despite being Jewish (and considered neo con by some) I never supported Clinton/NATO war on Serbia. I wasn't that stupid. The Serbs did commit some atrocities. Still doesn't mean I would support the eternal pestilence of mankind, the army of Allah.
It's post #116+ and I want to thank no one in particular for not (((pinging))) me...
Recent statement by the departing Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge that a profile of a terrorist must be described in a different way is an encouraging sign. Ridge said that al-Qaeda is actively recruiting terrorists among the white race: Bosnians, Chechens and among the Muslims integrated in the Western society, in particular, women. The new profile of a terrorist - the white al-Qaeda - removes another constraint in the battle against the islamic terrorism that has become a world struggle.
>>>
That thing about Muhammadan males in America over 13: just make it ALL of them...
Annan hates christians. The christians in the Sudan, the farmers and starving Zimbabweans, the boers in rural South Africa can all go eat worms.
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.