"Their own country is Serbia if they’re Serbs".
Being "a Serb" means being a Serbian Orthodox Christian" -- or as it is used in an "ethnic sense", at least being a the descendant of an Orthodox Christian regardless of one's religiosity. It is unrelated to "Serbia" in terms of nationality. Bosnian Serbs were baptized into Serbian Orthodox Christianity on the Bosnian soil where they stood hundreds of years ago, before Islam ever reached Bosnia! Just like not every Jew is an Israeli, not every Serb is related to Serbia, nor is every Serb religious.
And if you don't get that, you don't understand anything, Vlad. Your context beyond this point will be completely flawed, if you can't absorb that simple fact.
"Bosnian Muslims tried to seize the whole of Bosnia with indigenous Serbs and Croats in it and take control of the entire country.”
"Maybe they (Bosnian Muslims) did (start the war). How does that excuse Srebrenica? It doesn’t."
No one is trying to "excuse Srebrenica". You just drug in a red herring of what happened later (Srebrenica in 1995) to destroy the scent of what caused the war in the first place (in 1992). You painted your little story "backwards" from Srebrenica, writing on the players a motive that fit a story you wanted to tell.
That was effectively like taking Abu Ghraib as "a centerpiece" and writing whatever story you want to tell about America & building "America's motives" around it. From a propaganda point of view, this is a very effective ploy, but from the point of view of assessing the real truth, it is just a distraction from the whole picture of what happened.
The "maybe they (Bosnian Muslims) did" (start the war) is the crux of the issue and you are brushing it off like it doesn't matter. "Who started this war" (and why?) is the central issue of the article you are supposed to be commenting on, but you seem to have forgotten that completely. The rest of "the poor Bosnian Muslim story" has been beaten to death. But no one has dealt with what really started it and why -- especially given what we know now that we didn't know then -- and you seem particularly afraid of dealing with that, Vlad.
"Croats sometimes fought them, sometimes didn’t. And in legal terms this point is already moot since in 2007 the ICJ determined the war to be international"
The ICTY was a corrupt kangaroo court from day one, intended to "legally sanction" the BS political decisions made by ruling politicians. It claimed the heritage of "Nuremberg" while rejecting Nuremberg's values, because Nuremberg's values were too cumbersome for a court of political expediency, "Do unto unto others as you would have them do unto you. Judge others by the same standards by which you would be willing to submit to judgement" were Nuremberg's standards. But we, in the US, would never submit to the ICTY's standards -- as an American, I say "Thank God that we don't have to!". As a Christian, "I say, that's not fair or right. I have no right to judge someone by a standard by which I would not wish to be judged".
Instead, the ICTY used the ethnic groups involved as pawns to tell their political story -- with "ethnic quotas" of guilty verdicts to support their BS version of history.
Do we not understand that this is what has happened with every imperialist incursion before? That this is the reason that the all the ethnic groups in this region hate each other? -- because it has been a constant competition among them, for hundreds of years as to who (which ethnic group) will stand up for justice and who will be better at licking the conquerors' boots better than the others and hate themselves (and each other) for it later? The peoples of the Balkans are "a family" -- an extremely dysfunctional, played-against-each-other, screwed-up family, but "a family of peoples" none the less. And all that we have just done is to give them one more run at "lie or die" -- the favorite "game of all conquerors".
"“Do not think you will not lead Bosnia and Herzegovina into hell and the Muslim people into possible annihilation, as the Muslim people cannot defend themselves in case of war here.”
At that time, that was not just a threat, that was a fact (minus the editorializing). The Yugoslav military had one of the best equipped armies in Europe. If it was a case of raw military power in that neighborhood, the Bosnian Muslims were out-manned and out-gunned on an enormous scale and any war on those terms was bound to be "a slaughter of Muslims". Who in the hell could know then that Bosnia could import mujahaddin from the Arab states? Or that NATO was going to use Bosnia as the excuse to continue its existence beyond the Cold War? Lest anyone think that this was just "a real win for the Muslims", stop & think of just how long it took for NATO to ride in on that "white horse" to justify its continued existence and you'll understand how little NATO cares about human life -- theirs, ours, anyone's! Lucky for NATO, that it was dealing with the Islamist Izetbegovic, who was willing to "throw as many of his own Muslims in front of a truck" and pose for the cameras, as it was necessary for his "Allah-willed Islam" to gain a primary beachhead in Europe called "Bosnia".
"Bosnia was a republic in a federation. There was no Serb federation within Bosnia until the Serbs set one up. The Bosnians certainly had more right as the dominant population in Bosnia to go the way Croatia and Slovenia already had."
Again, you still don't get it -- Serbs ARE Bosnians, Serbs WERE Bosnians. That they happened to be Orthodox Christians as opposed to Muslims, did not make them any the less "BOSNIANS". Serbs are the most native Bosnians-- quit trying to use semantics to prove a point which does not exist -- when you say, "Bosnians", you need to include "Bosnian Serbs" and "Bosnian Croats", as these are about 60% of "Bosnians" -- the Muslims are only around 35-40% today.
All anyone needs to know about your real motives about posting on this issue regarding "Serbs" --Serbian Orthodox Christians -- (when you have been noticeably absent on virtually every discussion we have had on the Balkans for the last several years), you have posted on your FR webpage, Vlad, which summarized comes down to "Someone who was an Orthodox Christian once hurt my feelings on a message board, therefore anyone who is an Orthodox Christian is "wrong, evil and a menace" and I will provide you with a Bible quote to prove why I am exempt from having to forgive them".
That's truly sick, Vlad. If I used the religion of every person who has ever hurt my feelings as a self-righteous "excuse to hate them and those of their religion", I am sure that I could come up with a list so long that it would include a few Zoroastrians and Druids! It's a very non-Christian viewpoint to think that you can hide behind God by using the Bible as an excuse.
You wrote:
“Yes, you reiterated the the history of the Bosnian wars like a good little parrot (if the parrot had internet access). And yet you proved that you have no understanding of those facts with this major slip:”
I made no slip. The next sentence said this: “If they’re Bosnian Serbs then their own country is Bosnia...”
You conveniently didn’t mention that I wrote that. You also skipped over about 18 statements I made before that because you know you can’t refute any of it. You skipped over, for instance, where I noted that you mistakenly said I compared Bosnia to the American Revolution. When you cannot refute something you avoid it. You avoid quite a bit - 18 paragraphs so far in one post.
“Being “a Serb” means being a Serbian Orthodox Christian” — or as it is used in an “ethnic sense”, at least being a the descendant of an Orthodox Christian regardless of one’s religiosity. It is unrelated to “Serbia” in terms of nationality. Bosnian Serbs were baptized into Serbian Orthodox Christianity on the Bosnian soil where they stood hundreds of years ago, before Islam ever reached Bosnia!”
Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that Islam reached Bosnia late. Srebrenica was not in the 17th century or remote past. It was 1995. The Bosnians were in their home too. The Serbs also had a right to live there - and no one was trying to take that right away from them in 1991-1992.
“Just like not every Jew is an Israeli, not every Serb is related to Serbia, nor is every Serb religious.”
Again, irrelevant.
“And if you don’t get that, you don’t understand anything, Vlad. Your context beyond this point will be completely flawed, if you can’t absorb that simple fact.”
Your point is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what makes a Serb or what a Serb is. What matters is whether or not he is a criminal if he murders thousands of unarmed men with their hands tied behind their backs. No one is on trial for being a Serb. If that were true then many more people would be on trial and no Croat or Bosnian would ever go on trial.
“No one is trying to “excuse Srebrenica”.”
Yeah, actually you are. That’s what I have largely stayed focused on and yet you have danced around it as much as possible.
“You just drug in a red herring of what happened later (Srebrenica in 1995) to destroy the scent of what caused the war in the first place (in 1992).”
Uh, no. First, I didn’t drag in Srebrenica. It is mentioned in the article that YOU POSTED. Srebrenica was also mentioned in post #3 by Citizen Blade. YOU RESPONDED TO THAT POST in post #4 with: “A few thousand is far from “killing off all of its men”, especially during an ongoing war. It would be a war crime, yes, but a genocide?” Thus, BEFORE I EVEN ENTERED THE THREAD (in post #13!!!) Srebrenica was already mentioned and downplayed by you.
You are wrong again.
“You painted your little story “backwards” from Srebrenica, writing on the players a motive that fit a story you wanted to tell.”
No. I stayed focused on the idea that Srebrenica is genocide as understood by international law while you tried to dismiss that and failed. I also - IN MY FIRST POST - made it clear that a war crime was a war crime whether committed by the Serbs or Ante Gotovina.
Then, after several posts from pro-Serbs who downplayed Srebrenica (almost making excuses for it), posts that brought up Operation Storm’s ethnic cleansing as a war crime (I ALREADY DID THAT IN POST 13!), you tried to dismiss the idea of rape as a part of a genocidal action or campaign.
“That was effectively like taking Abu Ghraib as “a centerpiece” and writing whatever story you want to tell about America & building “America’s motives” around it.”
The article YOU POSTED mentioned Srebrenica. You discussed it BEFORE I did by responding to post 3 from Citizen Blade. Stop claiming I brought it up when it was already up there in black and white. Also, stop claiming I built a case around it when all I did was say it was wrong because it was wrong. I mentioned the fact that atrocities or great magnitude can make moot the supposedly just motives of a nation’s going to war. That’s simply a fact. I never said the Serbs were wrong to establish their own republic because of Srebrenica. Such a claim would be irrational since it is anachronistic and therefore impossible for me to claim anyway. I think the Serbs were wrong on the republic for reasons have to do with the establishment of the republic and they were wrong on Srebrenica for what they did at Srebrenica. Period. The two issues are essentially unconnected except the same players are involved.
“From a propaganda point of view, this is a very effective ploy, but from the point of view of assessing the real truth, it is just a distraction from the whole picture of what happened.”
This is a complete failure as propaganda since it is anachronistic. I don’t even see anyone here making that argument. Who is? Post his/her name. Can you?
“The “maybe they (Bosnian Muslims) did” (start the war) is the crux of the issue and you are brushing it off like it doesn’t matter.”
It doesn’t. Srebrenica was in 1995. Who started the war in 1992 is essentially irrelevant. The crimes at Srebrenica took place in 1995 not 1992. You are the one making a connection between the two when you just got done accusing me of linking the two and anachronistically using them. In reality it is you who confuse the issue of the one with the other. The murder of 7,000 men is the issue in Srebrenica.
“”Who started this war” (and why?) is the central issue of the article you are supposed to be commenting on, but you seem to have forgotten that completely.”
The article mentioned Srebrenica. Citizen Blade mentioned Srebrenica. You downplayed it in response to him. I showed up only in post 13 after genocide had been mentioned in one or two more posts even before that.
“The rest of “the poor Bosnian Muslim story” has been beaten to death. But no one has dealt with what really started it and why — especially given what we know now that we didn’t know then — and you seem particularly afraid of dealing with that, Vlad.”
Uh, Citizen Blade mentioned Srebrenica and you downplayed it. It then was mentioned and genocide was mentioned several more times. That was what I responded to. I am not afraid of dealing with anything. There simply is nothing in the foundation of the Serb republic which excuses Srebrenica. Thus, it is irrelevant.
“The ICTY was a corrupt kangaroo court from day one, intended to “legally sanction” the BS political decisions made by ruling politicians.”
Your view of the court is irrelevant.
“It claimed the heritage of “Nuremberg” while rejecting Nuremberg’s values, because Nuremberg’s values were too cumbersome for a court of political expediency, “Do unto unto others as you would have them do unto you. Judge others by the same standards by which you would be willing to submit to judgement” were Nuremberg’s standards.”
No, not really. How many Soviet citizens voluntarily lined up for trial at Nuremberg for their slaughter of millions of Ukrainians and other communist victims? What? None? You mean the soviets didn’t want to be treated as they and they other allies were treating the Germans? No doubt.
“But we, in the US, would never submit to the ICTY’s standards — as an American, I say “Thank God that we don’t have to!”. As a Christian, “I say, that’s not fair or right. I have no right to judge someone by a standard by which I would not wish to be judged”.”
Again, irrelevant. We do not submit to foreign tribunals. What you believe as a Christian in no way excuses Srebrenica. And how you would wish to be judged in no way excuses Srebrenica either.
“Instead, the ICTY used the ethnic groups involved as pawns to tell their political story — with “ethnic quotas” of guilty verdicts to support their BS version of history.”
Thousands of dead men, many with their hands tied behind their backs, is not BS. Men murdered in front of Serbian film journalists is not BS. You go on and on about all these things as if they somehow excuse Srebrenica. They don’t.
“Do we not understand that this is what has happened with every imperialist incursion before? That this is the reason that the all the ethnic groups in this region hate each other? — because it has been a constant competition among them, for hundreds of years as to who (which ethnic group) will stand up for justice and who will be better at licking the conquerors’ boots better than the others and hate themselves (and each other) for it later? The peoples of the Balkans are “a family” — an extremely dysfunctional, played-against-each-other, screwed-up family, but “a family of peoples” none the less. And all that we have just done is to give them one more run at “lie or die” — the favorite “game of all conquerors”.”
All irrelevant. None of that excuses Srebrenica.
“At that time, that was not just a threat, that was a fact (minus the editorializing). The Yugoslav military had one of the best equipped armies in Europe.”
None of that excuses Srebrenica.
“If it was a case of raw military power in that neighborhood, the Bosnian Muslims were out-manned and out-gunned on an enormous scale and any war on those terms was bound to be “a slaughter of Muslims”.”
Only is Serbs chose to slaughter them. Why would they? What is it that made the Bosnians deserve to be slaughtered? What made them deserve to be murdered with their hands tied behind their backs?
“Who in the hell could know then that Bosnia could import mujahaddin from the Arab states? Or that NATO was going to use Bosnia as the excuse to continue its existence beyond the Cold War? Lest anyone think that this was just “a real win for the Muslims”, stop & think of just how long it took for NATO to ride in on that “white horse” to justify its continued existence and you’ll understand how little NATO cares about human life — theirs, ours, anyone’s! Lucky for NATO, that it was dealing with the Islamist Izetbegovic, who was willing to “throw as many of his own Muslims in front of a truck” and pose for the cameras, as it was necessary for his “Allah-willed Islam” to gain a primary beachhead in Europe called “Bosnia”.”
And none of that excuses Srebrenica. Incredible. After falsely claiming that I was anachronistically using Srebrenica to mount an attack against the founding of the Serb republic 3 years earlier you now throw in seemingly every subsequent event in the Balkan war as if they anachronistically legitimize the foundation of that Serb republic and dismiss responsibility for Srebrenica.
“Again, you still don’t get it — Serbs ARE Bosnians, Serbs WERE Bosnians.”
I do get it. I, in fact, said exactly that. Here is the earlier statement that you edited out of your response: “If they’re Bosnian Serbs then their own country is Bosnia...”
Do you see that? I had it right all along, but you edited out of your response and claimed I believed otherwise TWICE.
“That they happened to be Orthodox Christians as opposed to Muslims, did not make them any the less “BOSNIANS”.”
And who here said otherwise? Not me.
“Serbs are the most native Bosnians— quit trying to use semantics to prove a point which does not exist — when you say, “Bosnians”, you need to include “Bosnian Serbs” “
No, I do not. You, for instance, have said Muslims instead of Bosnian Muslims but we all know who you mean. You yourself have also said “Serbs” when you really meant - according to what you just wrote - Bosnian Serbs. I see no reason to say Bosnian Muslims unless I specifically mean ONLY Bosnian Muslims. There were plenty of Bosnians in Sarajevo who were not Muslim but they suffered from Serb attacks anyway. Go ahead. Downplay that now too.
“and “Bosnian Croats”, as these are about 60% of “Bosnians” — the Muslims are only around 35-40% today.”
No matter how many there are or were, Serbs murdered thousands of them, many with their hands tied behind their backs.
“All anyone needs to know about your real motives about posting on this issue regarding “Serbs” —Serbian Orthodox Christians — (when you have been noticeably absent on virtually every discussion we have had on the Balkans for the last several years),”
Actually I have posted in a number of threads about Croatia, Serbia, and the Balkans.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1973821/posts#15
A year ago: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1884611/posts
2006: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1855162/posts
Here I was pinged to a thread by a pro-Serb: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1965482/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1973821/posts
I have posted in many more Balkan threads. What I have never done is signed up for Balkan pings and I have no interest in doing so. You are wrong again.
“... you have posted on your FR webpage, Vlad, which summarized comes down to “Someone who was an Orthodox Christian once hurt my feelings on a message board, therefore anyone who is an Orthodox Christian is “wrong, evil and a menace” and I will provide you with a Bible quote to prove why I am exempt from having to forgive them”.”
1) I never said anything about hurt feelings because my feelings were not hurt. I did say I was surprised that someone would stoop so low as to do what he did. I said that precisely because I was surprised.
2) I never indicted or blamed all Orthdox Christians. I specifically said: “The fact that the person responsible calls himself an Orthodox Christian made it all the more surprising.” Notice I said PERSON? I was very clearly speaking about one PERSON and NOT speaking about all Eastern Orthodox Christians.
3) I did refer to a Bible verse: “You will know them by their fruit.” The use of a Bible verse - which is about recognizing a person by their actions - in no way implies that I did not forgive that person. The verse is not about forgiveness or about not forgiving someone. It is simply about recognizing people by their actions. You have misrepresented what I posted there. What does that tell us? What should we recognize by such an action?
“That’s truly sick, Vlad. If I used the religion of every person who has ever hurt my feelings as a self-righteous “excuse to hate them and those of their religion”, I am sure that I could come up with a list so long that it would include a few Zoroastrians and Druids!”
I don’t hate anyone, and I have NEVER used anyone’s religion as an excuse to hate anyone. Hate is a waste of time and energy to say the least. Also, again, I suffered no hurt feelings. No one here could possibly hurt my feelings because this is merely a message board. I posted the new profile so that people would know what happened to the old one. I have seen no reason to take it down since because it doesn’t really matter enough to me to do so. what is clearly wrong, however, is for you to claim I hate anyone when I have never once made that claim myself in any way. You also have completely misrepresented what I said, why I said it, and how I felt. This misrepresentation is most clearly shown by the fact that you couldn’t even use the statement I actually posted (because it says NOTHING like what you claim it does) and had to create fictional quotes to furnish your misrepresentation. How sad. You are apparently very desperate.
“It’s a very non-Christian viewpoint to think that you can hide behind God by using the Bible as an excuse.”
Again, I didn’t use the Bible verse as an excuse of anything. This is what I wrote: “The fact that the person responsible calls himself an Orthodox Christian made it all the more surprising. You will know them by their fruit.” Where’s the excuse there? There isn’t one. There never was. Clearly I am referring to ONE PERSON. The verse was perfectly appropriate to use as an example of recognizing what someone is really like. You are clearly misrepresenting what I wrote. How sad that you feel the need to do so. You can’t refute any of my arguments. You can’t dispute the facts I have posted. You skipped more than 18 statements and paragraphs I posted because you are unable to deal with them. No, instead, you create a fictional rendering of my profile page to falsely claim that I hate all Orthodox Christians.
And there are still 7,000 dead Bosnians, many with their hands died behind their backs.