5 ms·

Interestingly, this also goes toward explaining the attitude of many south-eastern European countries toward the current immigration waves. Most countries in t

by Radim 11y ago

Interestingly, this also goes toward explaining the attitude of many south-eastern European countries toward the current immigration waves. Most countries in the Balkans (not just Slovenia) have fought the Turks for extended periods of time. For example, in Romania, Stephen the Great had a habit of celebrating victories over the Ottomans by building new churches and monasteries [1]. These still form the country's landmarks and pilgrimage points today, and Stephen is a celebrated hero. Basically many nations have linked their national identities to resisting waves of the "Musulman". It's hard to rewrite peoples' roots and archetypes at the strike of a politician's pen now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_churches_established_by_Stephen_III_of_Moldavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_churches_established_b...

Swizec 11y ago
It's even worse than you think. The last wars we had about Christian vs. Muslim were in the 90's and led to NATO bombing the hell out of the Balkans. People are still sore about that. I have friends who remember hiding from NATO bombs.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  > People are still sore about that. Vladimir Putin's whole foreign policy relates to these events... It's the reason he intervened in Georgia (remember that?), Ukraine, and now Syria.
  - varjag 11y ago
    It's a pretext, not the reason.
- mirimir 11y ago
  > People are still sore about that. I have friends who remember hiding from NATO bombs. "Death From Above" in Party Animals (2005) by Turbonegro.
- NotSammyHagar 11y ago
  Innocent people must have been killed, it was a war. I remember the US accidentally bombed the Chinese Embassy. What the US was trying to do was stop the genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide
  - Swizec 11y ago
    They bombed Serbia in 1999 as well. That was supposedly about Kosovo, but they were bombing cities that weren't in Kosovo and didn't have military infrastructure to "destroy economy and infrastructure". It was kind of a dick move really. Serbian economy already wasn't much back then. Kosovo being a majority muslim state within orthodox Serbia. Afaik their independence/sovereignty is still questionable so the NATO bombings didn't really do much.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - acqq 11y ago
    > the US was trying to do was stop the genocide That's just how the West media presented the events at that time. In reality, the event you link to happened after the more years of war, where the victims of the mass-murder event renamed as genocide were the side which the US actively supported (Bosnian Muslims), and which had their own "kind-of-ISIS" fighters and committed enough atrocities before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33345618 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33345618 The US supported these Muslims the same way they supported Mujaheddin in Afghanistan before http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/ http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-... and just how they effectively supported Al-Qaeda and other extremists in Libya later, or all the Islamic extremist "rebels" in Syria. The US has a long history of using the Muslim fanatics to destroy the countries the leaders of which it doesn't favor, like Assad's now. The Yugoslavia events were of course with more actors just like in today's Syria it's not just Assad and ISIS. The basis of US foreign policy is the commitment to prevent the rise of powers capable of constraining Washington’s unilateral action. Washington is not opposed to terrorism. Washington has been purposely creating terrorism for many years. Weakening Russia is one of the decades-long tasks, read honest Brzezinski in the article from 1998 I've linked.
trhway 11y ago
>Most countries in the Balkans (not just Slovenia) have fought the Turks for extended periods of time. Count Dracula - Vlad the Impaler - comes immediately to mind. I'm always surprised at the similarity between how Dracula and Milosevic were both demonized for defending their people against the "Musulman" aggression.

by Radim 11y ago

Swizec 11y ago

It's even worse than you think. The last wars we had about Christian vs. Muslim were in the 90's and led to NATO bombing the hell out of the Balkans. People are still sore about that. I have friends who remember hiding from NATO bombs.

Mikeb85 11y ago
> People are still sore about that. Vladimir Putin's whole foreign policy relates to these events... It's the reason he intervened in Georgia (remember that?), Ukraine, and now Syria.
- varjag 11y ago
  It's a pretext, not the reason.
mirimir 11y ago
> People are still sore about that. I have friends who remember hiding from NATO bombs. "Death From Above" in Party Animals (2005) by Turbonegro.
NotSammyHagar 11y ago
Innocent people must have been killed, it was a war. I remember the US accidentally bombed the Chinese Embassy. What the US was trying to do was stop the genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide
- Swizec 11y ago
  They bombed Serbia in 1999 as well. That was supposedly about Kosovo, but they were bombing cities that weren't in Kosovo and didn't have military infrastructure to "destroy economy and infrastructure". It was kind of a dick move really. Serbian economy already wasn't much back then. Kosovo being a majority muslim state within orthodox Serbia. Afaik their independence/sovereignty is still questionable so the NATO bombings didn't really do much.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- acqq 11y ago
  > the US was trying to do was stop the genocide That's just how the West media presented the events at that time. In reality, the event you link to happened after the more years of war, where the victims of the mass-murder event renamed as genocide were the side which the US actively supported (Bosnian Muslims), and which had their own "kind-of-ISIS" fighters and committed enough atrocities before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_mujahideen http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33345618 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33345618 The US supported these Muslims the same way they supported Mujaheddin in Afghanistan before http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/ http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-... and just how they effectively supported Al-Qaeda and other extremists in Libya later, or all the Islamic extremist "rebels" in Syria. The US has a long history of using the Muslim fanatics to destroy the countries the leaders of which it doesn't favor, like Assad's now. The Yugoslavia events were of course with more actors just like in today's Syria it's not just Assad and ISIS. The basis of US foreign policy is the commitment to prevent the rise of powers capable of constraining Washington’s unilateral action. Washington is not opposed to terrorism. Washington has been purposely creating terrorism for many years. Weakening Russia is one of the decades-long tasks, read honest Brzezinski in the article from 1998 I've linked.

trhway 11y ago

>Most countries in the Balkans (not just Slovenia) have fought the Turks for extended periods of time. Count Dracula - Vlad the Impaler - comes immediately to mind. I'm always surprised at the similarity between how Dracula and Milosevic were both demonized for defending their people against the "Musulman" aggression.