[Asuko]

What I want to know is how there can be dumbass governments like Turkey denying the Armenian genocide and things like the Yugoslavia conflict and everyone hates America for causing relatively few deaths. You'd think people would at least get pissed at the US for things like turning back shiploads of Jewish refugees and slaughtering Native Americans.

I also want to know how someone can go from "every death is tragic" to "we didn't kill that many"

Um, alright. That first part of the comment isn't really taking in other views. Most other countries don't like America because of its' attitude as being a cop for the world. Granted, these 'few deaths,' as you phrased it, would be a secondary reason but you do realize that other countries want to take care of their problems themselves.

For the second part, that quote must've been made from someone who is trying to deny actions that have occurred. It's only a form of justification for their morale. It seems rather obvious who might say this.

[Mars]

Ah drunkness  sorry just got back from a concert when I wrote that... I'll come up with something intelligable in a few hours / days.

[TrashMan]

For the second part, that quote must've been made from someone who is trying to deny actions that have occurred. It's only a form of justification for their morale. It seems rather obvious who might say this.

Tell me mr. psychoanlaist, who might say that? I'm dying of curiosty.


And jsut FYI - I'd liek to point ut that I was tehre from the begning to the end. I've seen a lot of things happen. I've seen some things happen that the EU/NATO denied that happened. I KNOW they're lying about some things.

Not that it changes anything in the long run.

[karajorma]

Ah. Yet another unverifiable source of information. Yet another attempt to claim you know the truth and documented sources are wrong.

Your country has been an independent nation since the end of the war and yet you still have no proof? Who are you going to blame for that?

[TrashMan]

F'courese...why belive a eyewitness when you have books written by historians who never set foot in the place?
Sadly, knowing something is one thing, and proving it another.


As for other things I said - most are easily veryfiable.
The Haag being a politcal court whos legal system no sane country in the world would adopt - you have critis written by established lawyers all over the wrold as well as some ex-court employees, including one judge and 2 assistants to the chief prosecutor.

NATO actions during the war? Als oeasy to confirm. Name ONE thing they did during the conflct?

As for other proof. It doesn't help that our president has been giving secret documents to Haag by truckloads wihtout consulting anyone or that our government is a bunch of suck-ups who odn't dare to go agaisnt what the big players say, regardless how harmful lit is for the country in the long run.
It's times like this I wish I lived in Serbia. Their politicans, as crazy as they may be, at least got some BALLS!

[karajorma]

If you want to claim that the Hague war crimes tribunals are being run badly that's one thing. But to ascribe this to some Machiavellian plan to keep the Croats down and force a reunification of Yugoslavia is paranoid fantasy. There's a huge difference between inept and malicious behaviour and you've not proved at all that it's the latter which is going on.

The same goes for NATO's actions during the Balkan wars. No one in the NATO countries was interested in getting dragged into a European Vietnam. The general desire of the UN, NATO and the EU wasn't a reunification of Yugoslavia but simply a wish that you'd stop killing each other. The role of the UN was to act as peacekeepers and to try to get both sides to agree to a ceasefire. Not to fight the war on the side of whoever they thought was correct.
 I should point out that when KFOR did directly intervene in Kosovo that was similarly a disaster. Funny how the same EU that you claim is on the side of the Serbs and  trying to reunite Yugoslavia would act to prevent that from happening isn't it? I suppose you're going to tell me next that the plan was to let the ethnic Albanians run the Balkans.

[TrashMan]

A lot of little things Kaj.

One thing might be a conincidence...two? Ok.. several? Not bloody likely.

If no one is trying to force us into another YU, why then are we "encouraged" to sing trade, legal and other treaties that affect ONLY the countries out of former YU, despite the fact that we'll be entering EU soon? What's the point of those region-centered deals?

As for the "Hague war crimes tribunals are being run badly" - not badly, politicly. Multiple employes of the court have stated that the court was political in nature - both in selecting the proosecutions and handling and collecting evidence. Florence Haartman (chief assistant to Carla Del Ponte) even published a book about it.

You want more? How about this - Both Croata and Serbia have ben given specific conditions that HAD to be met before talks about joining the Union could start. Croatia had to deliver general Gotovina (who is innocent b.t.w.) and Serbia had to deliver Mladić and Karadžić. Croata did deliver gotovina and the joining talk were postponed as moe conditions have been thrust upon it, while talks with the Serba started despite her not fulfilling the conditions. Same treatment my ass.

Oh, b.t.w. - realistcly Serbia couldn't fulfil lthem, since Mladić isn't in Serbia - he was securely taken out of the country by foreign agents (americans or brits, cna't remeber which atm). A little tidbit that's also from the said book.

The only thing NATO did during the war was watch... and it even sucked doing that. They just watched as Serbs shelled croatian villages - so much for peacekeeping.
I can tell you a few things some of the DID do, but I rather not...since they fall into the "crimes" category.

Kosovo was another matter. The cat was out of the bag and by that time they couldn't not intervene and still end up looking like the good guys. Milošević also overplayed is hand.

Tehre's more that enough evidence for msot of the stuff, but it's damn hard to come by.
And there's a lot more. I only mentioned some of the more known and bigger things.

 

[karajorma]

Apparently you don't understand the difference between a peacekeeper and a peacemaker.

[Asuko]

For the second part, that quote must've been made from someone who is trying to deny actions that have occurred. It's only a form of justification for their morale. It seems rather obvious who might say this.

Tell me mr. psychoanlaist, who might say that? I'm dying of curiosty.


And jsut FYI - I'd liek to point ut that I was tehre from the begning to the end. I've seen a lot of things happen. I've seen some things happen that the EU/NATO denied that happened. I KNOW they're lying about some things.

Not that it changes anything in the long run.

I'll take the psychoanalyst comment as a complement. Either way, you and I both know who might say this. Examples: Bush, his cabinet, the military generals who haven't quit, anyone who is in a war for an apparently "righteous" cause.

The way I see this, you could start a flame war rather easily because of how obsinate you are in keeping your position yet you never show any real proof of what you say. List sources, write a book if you have to since your personal experiences are valid. Either way, think before you act.

[karajorma]

Of course the real irony is that if you check his facts you find that they're wrong. For instance Croatia was allowed into talks about EU membership in October 2005 but Gotovina was arrested in December.

Now while I won't deny that Croatia was instrumental in that arrest it shows what a load on nonsense Trashman is talking. Especially as Croatia is actually considered an official candidate for EU membership while Serbia continues to languish in potential candidate status.

Furthermore talks with Serbia over entrance to the EU were suspended for over a year due to their refusal to hand over Ratko Mladić.


And I think that should make it obvious why I continually ask Trashman to provide support for his statements. As soon as you investigate them you find that they're nothing more than a pack of lies and/or hazy recollections.

[TrashMan]

The way I see this, you could start a flame war rather easily because of how obsinate you are in keeping your position yet you never show any real proof of what you say. List sources, write a book if you have to since your personal experiences are valid. Either way, think before you act.

Well, I mayself am thinking, than you very much...alltough I can't guarantee for you.

Kepping my position? Why would I sway in my position if it's the truth? Regardless if I can come up with some proof in 5 minutes or not, this is not a court and you are not the jury.
I listed several examples where if you do a little google seach, you can find some of the proof you ask for (more specificly the HAAG court and the EU's handling of Croatia & Serbia.) Not all of it tough.
Eyewitness accounts apperenty are worth nothing and most relevant documents are allready in poseation of Haag (and I doubt they'll surface). There are a few others alltough I don't know how sucesfull you'd be in looking for them on the net, or translating them if you found em.
And why would you consider a few links proof anyway? Any page I link you to could be falsified or pictures of documents could be too.

You wanna know why I'm so obsinate? Becoause I'm sick of the lies I hear, I'm sick of hearing my country, our generals, our people (and some of my friends) dragged trough mud.

THINK what you want...
I know better.

[TrashMan]

Of course the real irony is that if you check his facts you find that they're wrong. For instance Croatia was allowed into talks about EU membership in October 2005 but Gotovina was arrested in December.

Now while I won't deny that Croatia was instrumental in that arrest it shows what a load on nonsense Trashman is talking. Especially as Croatia is actually considered an official candidate for EU membership while Serbia continues to languish in potential candidate status.
Furthermore talks with Serbia over entrance to the EU were suspended for over a year due to their refusal to hand over Ratko Mladić.

So I messed up on the date - big deal.
It's not like Gotovina was the only condition... Yes, we were allowed the talk (probably becouse they knew he wasn't in Croata by that time).
Seriba has been cut a LOT of slack as long as it was playing along... which wasn't really for long. It's foreign rehtoric becam colder again, especially with this Kosovo crisis. Serbia had the balls to stand up to the EU on some accounts and it's paying the price for it.
It's not the hading over of Mladić, as he isn't in Serbia.

And I think that should make it obvious why I continually ask Trashman to provide support for his statements. As soon as you investigate them you find that they're nothing more than a pack of lies and/or hazy recollections.

I don't wanna start a flame war, so I'll refrain from saying things to you that normally wouldn't even show up on the boards.
I don't lie....EVER.

[Hazaanko]

Don't you just love how the phrase 'he lied' 'she lied' is thrown around today like its going out of style?

[karajorma]

So I messed up on the date - big deal.
It's not like Gotovina was the only condition... Yes, we were allowed the talk (probably becouse they knew he wasn't in Croata by that time).
Seriba has been cut a LOT of slack as long as it was playing along... which wasn't really for long. It's foreign rehtoric becam colder again, especially with this Kosovo crisis. Serbia had the balls to stand up to the EU on some accounts and it's paying the price for it.
It's not the hading over of Mladić, as he isn't in Serbia.

You messed up on a lot more than the date. Your entire argument is full of holes. Serbia isn't expected to gain entry into the EU for at least 5 more years and 8 is a much better prediction. Croatia might get it in 3. So how does that fit in with your claims that Serbia is getting preferential treatment?

And what Kosovo crisis are you speaking of?

And I think that should make it obvious why I continually ask Trashman to provide support for his statements. As soon as you investigate them you find that they're nothing more than a pack of lies and/or hazy recollections.

I don't wanna start a flame war, so I'll refrain from saying things to you that normally wouldn't even show up on the boards.
I don't lie....EVER.

I said it's one or the other. Maybe it's hazy recollections that you vaguely remember as being true. However you present them as fact. And when I check up on them they are false. So either you lied or you simply can't be bothered to check your facts. Either way that completely undermines your position. You've stated with almost every post stuff that you claim to know. And you have not verified a word of it. And the one time I was in a position to check your facts I find them to be wrong.  Which makes the rest of your statements dubious at the very least.

Which is why I continually ask you to prove your positions. It's not my job to prove them. It's yours. I prove my arguments. Not yours.

I know better.

That's the problem. You don't You just think you do. If your theories were actual truth when I'd checked up the stuff you know I would have found that it was correct.

Or are you going to claim that I'm also part of the EU plot to keep Croatia down?

[TrashMan]

You messed up on a lot more than the date. Your entire argument is full of holes. Serbia isn't expected to gain entry into the EU for at least 5 more years and 8 is a much better prediction. Croatia might get it in 3. So how does that fit in with your claims that Serbia is getting preferential treatment?

And what Kosovo crisis are you speaking of?

Was getting preferential treatment..and who said it had only to do with the joining talk. There's lot of other stuff.

Kosovo independace? never heard ofthat?

I said it's one or the other. Maybe it's hazy recollections that you vaguely remember as being true. However you present them as fact. And when I check up on them they are false. So either you lied or you simply can't be bothered to check your facts. Either way that completely undermines your position. You've stated with almost every post stuff that you claim to know. And you have not verified a word of it. And the one time I was in a position to check your facts I find them to be wrong.  Which makes the rest of your statements dubious at the very least.

Which is why I continually ask you to prove your positions. It's not my job to prove them. It's yours. I prove my arguments. Not yours.

I'm not asking you to belive me, I'm asking you to stop calling me a liar.
I don't know what you've been checking or how you been checking, but only one thing came false (the joining date thing) so calling everything I post false is ..well.. not nice to put it mildy.

Secondly, I don't have to prove anything. This is a forum discussion, not a court proceeding. I am free to say things I belive/know are right and am under no obligation to prove anything.

I know better.

That's the problem. You don't. You just think you do.
If your theories were actual truth when I'd checked up the stuff you know I would have found that it was correct.

[/quote]

That's the problem. You don't know sh**. You just think you do. You think a 5 minute net surf makes you an expert on a subject? Or do you just enjoy trying to prove me wrong in every single thread?
You can't even check upon half the stuff like that, as it would take a far more in-depth research and field work.

I'm aslo wondering what kind of checking you did do. Did you look into the Florence Hartman and othet HAAG ex-empoyes? You didn't? Or you did, but you "conviniently" forgot to mention it, since it isn't in your favor?

I live here. You don't. If the serbian army marched trough my town I'll know that, regardless of what's on the net. You won't.

Belive me, don't belive me, I don't give a damn Kaj.
It's not like your oppinion matters to me at all. I've said my piece. Good night.

[Lt.Cannonfodder]

Secondly, I don't have to prove anything. This is a forum discussion, not a court proceeding. I am free to say things I belive/know are right and am under no obligation to prove anything.

Bull****. You can claim whatever you want but if you have nothing to back it up with, your beliefs are worth nothing.

[Hazaanko]

Secondly, I don't have to prove anything. This is a forum discussion, not a court proceeding. I am free to say things I belive/know are right and am under no obligation to prove anything.

Bull****. You can claim whatever you want but if you have nothing to back it up with, your beliefs are worth nothing.

He lives there.  That counts for something in my book, if nothing more than honest consideration.

[Mefustae]

Bull****. You can claim whatever you want but if you have nothing to back it up with, your beliefs are worth nothing.

He lives there.  That counts for something in my book, if nothing more than honest consideration.

That doesn't mean he should expect us all to take him at his word without giving us the  least bit of proof to back up his claims. A link to well-supported online info, a quote from a book, anything.

[karajorma]

He lives there.  That counts for something in my book, if nothing more than honest consideration.

Which means that you must also consider the element of local bias. The fact that he's from Croatia and claims that Serbia (which his country recently fought a war with) is getting preferential treatment must be treated as biased on the grounds that he is likely only hearing one side of the story. I very much doubt that the Croatian media is going to be completely unbiased when it comes to who is getting a fair deal between their own country and an old enemy like Serbia.

That doesn't mean that his "on the ground" views are automatically wrong but simply that the element of bias means that he can't simply say that he's there and therefore he's saying is correct without supporting his views. Cause there is a huge influence on him to see Serbia as getting the best of everything.

and who said it had only to do with the joining talk. There's lot of other stuff.

You did! You said it had to do with the joining talks

Both Croata and Serbia have ben given specific conditions that HAD to be met before talks about joining the Union could start. Croatia had to deliver general Gotovina (who is innocent b.t.w.) and Serbia had to deliver Mladić and Karadžić. Croata did deliver gotovina and the joining talk were postponed as moe conditions have been thrust upon it, while talks with the Serba started despite her not fulfilling the conditions. Same treatment my ass.

.

If not the joining talks what are you saying wasn't preferential treatment with that last line?

Oh and that line about the talks being postponed was also incorrect. Basically almost that entire statement was false. The EU demanding all 3 suspects were handed over was the only truthful element in that. And even in that case the talks started again in both cases without the suspects being handed over.

Since you're trying to ascribe a malicious motive to all this, you got a lot more wrong than just the dates.

Kosovo independace? never heard ofthat?

Hardly a crisis yet although it is a cause for concern. But the fact still remains that you have yet to prove any of your claims that Serbia is getting a deal over EU membership Croatia isn't. And your one attempt to prove it was a complete farce as pretty much every fact in it was provably false. 

I'm not asking you to belive me, I'm asking you to stop calling me a liar.

I will when you stop quoting as fact stuff you don't know is true. How about adding some IIRCs and AFAIKs to the stuff you aren't certain about? Surely that is more honest than misrepresenting stuff you don't know as if it were true?
  That way at least I have an idea what you are claiming to be true and what you think is true. Because right now you're stating every word as a proclamation from on high and pretty much everything I've looked up has been wrong.

I don't know what you've been checking or how you been checking, but only one thing came false (the joining date thing) so calling everything I post false is ..well.. not nice to put it mildy.

Not one thing. The entire list

1) There were only 30,000 Serbian deaths due to ethnic cleansing during WWII - False - All data I can find puts the figures at least 10 times as high as this.
2) You claimed that all these deaths occurred at Jasenovac. - False - Even the highest figures for Jasenovac come in at less than the total number of Serbs killed in Croatia during the Holocaust.
3) You claimed that Croatia didn't have a high enough Serbian population for the numbers to be that high. - False - Every estimate of the population of the time puts the Serbian population at 30% of the 6 million people in Croatia at the time.
4) You claimed that Croatia has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. False - The term itself is derived from Ustaše's use of the word cleaning to rid Croatia of the Serbian population by death, expulsion and assimilation.

The list just goes on and on. With most of your pronouncements being either suspect or flat out provably wrong. So I'm treating everything you post as wrong unless I can be bothered to look up for myself. Because every time I have looked it up you've been wrong. Now maybe I am wrong about all the stuff I've said above. But at least I've bothered to check up my facts.

Secondly, I don't have to prove anything. This is a forum discussion, not a court proceeding. I am free to say things I belive/know are right and am under no obligation to prove anything.

Fine but if you don't wish to prove it I'm under no obligation to treat it as anything other than paranoid fantasy.

That's the problem. You don't know sh**. You just think you do. You think a 5 minute net surf makes you an expert on a subject? Or do you just enjoy trying to prove me wrong in every single thread?
You can't even check upon half the stuff like that, as it would take a far more in-depth research and field work.

I'll quite happily admit I'm not an expert. Neither are you.

You however have challenged the expert opinion. And you've not given any proof that you are correct. When it comes to picking who to believe I pick the experts.

I'm aslo wondering what kind of checking you did do. Did you look into the Florence Hartman and othet HAAG ex-empoyes? You didn't? Or you did, but you "conviniently" forgot to mention it, since it isn't in your favor?

I can't spend all my time checking up on your nonsense. What specifically are you claiming that she has to say that supports your position? Remember that I've already claimed that the Hague war crimes trials are being very poorly run. My issue is with your claim that it's part of some EU plan to force Croatia to be part of some new Yugoslavian state. What did they say that backed up that claim?

I live here. You don't. If the serbian army marched trough my town I'll know that, regardless of what's on the net. You won't.

When have I ever said that they didn't? The Serbs committed all kinds of war crimes during that war. I'll go in just as furiously against anyone who tries to deny it or change the figures to suit them.

[Asuko]

Trashman, write a book.