3 ms·

I call Bullshit on you. The one of the product of that excellent education system was Milosevic as well. Serbia with Milosevic started the last Balkan Wars in i

I call Bullshit on you. The one of the product of that excellent education system was Milosevic as well. Serbia with Milosevic started the last Balkan Wars in its desire to renew Dusan's Empire, or in common tongue, to make a greater Serbia. First in Slovenia, later on in Croatia then in Bosnia and Herzegovina. When it started on the south, in between Serbia, Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, it became too dangerous not to stop it. The US waited for Srebrenica to happen to put a stop on it in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This time the US and the EU correctly recognized the danger of leaving the situation to deteriorate to something that would be danger to the region and the ordinary people. Those in Serbia included.

acqq 9y ago
Your version is as true as it was true that Iraq had WMD. Or that those against Assad are all "moderate rebels." There are definite similarities. In reality, Bosniak Muslims were supported by al-Qaeda, bin Laden and his closest men had the passports made by the Bosniak Muslim government, which was also supported by the U.S. It was all before 9/11, or "Iraq had WMD" affair, so it was very easy to sell.
- cxromos 9y ago
  Another schizophrenic view of the world.
  - acqq 9y ago
    Which fact from these that I've specified you not believe? WMD in Iraq story was actually fabricated, the UK actually stole an article of a student Ibrahim al-Marashi to present it as the result of the work of their intelligence services. bin Laden actually had a Bosniak Muslim passport. There were "Bosnian mujahideen" soldiers from the foreign lands fighting there, just like now in Syria. They were actually supported by the U.S, but also by the "allies" of the U.S. from the Muslim world. The "moderate rebels" in Syria as the U.S. calls them, are in fact much bigger Islamists than Assad ever can be, etc. There are clear decades of similarity in the politics.
    - cxromos 9y ago
      I don't dispute that fact. The Muslims in Bosnia are moderate in nature. It's traditional. Ottoman empire was against the type of Islam like the one that originated in Saudi Arabia. I don't dispute the fact that WMD was a stunt of the crony capitalism of Cheney and his friends. But those Muslims in Syria, 'moderate' rebels, were victims of Assad family for decades. It's bound to happen, sooner or later, for people to rebel, when victimized. One doesn't need to study history to recognize this basic truth.
      - acqq 9y ago
        > The Muslims in Bosnia are moderate in nature. The real "moderates" haven't had a chance or influence. The Muslim Bosniak leader in the nineties was a known Islamist. He hasn't accidentally received the support of the Islamists abroad. The Wahhabis are there since that times (decades already): "Sharia Villages Bosnia's Islamic State Problem" (2016) http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/islamic-state-presence-in-bosnia-cause-for-concern-a-1085326.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/islamic-state-pre... Regarding "the nature" the history of the WWII (1939-1945) is also clear, even then the inherent religious intolerance (most of the Quran) towards the others was used: http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/muslim-waffen-ss-13th-division-1943/ http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/muslim-waffen-ss-13th-divisi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_(1st_Croatian) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_... Going back to even earlier times, the Ottoman empire removed some typical obligations inherent in Islamic Sharia law only after it was defeated, only around the middle of 19th century. The "moderation" of Muslims probably started only after Austria took over the control of Bosnia in 1878. It was also surely helped by the abolition of the Caliphate by the secularist Turkish president Ataturk in 1924. But then see WWII and the Nazi influence, above. Similar to what happened in the nineties. Regarding Syria, the "rebels" were fought against by Assad also because they were Islamists, that means, wanted the rule of the Islamic law for everything. Their fanaticism and readiness for destruction is now widely known. There's nothing in these beliefs that anybody (but the Islamists) can wish: intolerance towards women, towards other religions, and the death for insulting the "religion of pieces." But the rebeles were supported by the Arab states and the U.S. because Assad wasn't an Islamist and he was potentially closer to Shia Iran (and Sunni Arabs don't like that) and because he's too close to Russia too (and the U.S. politics doesn't like that). Thanks to the support from the abroad, the Islamic State claims to have a functioning Caliphate since 2014, a religiously (eschatologically!) important part of it in Syria. Also see the effective destruction of the secularism in Turkey, an U.S. ally. Same old.
builditand 9y ago
> The one of the product of that excellent education system was Milosevic as well. Not the best phrasing, one could deduct from it that the education system was broken. Of course bad people will benefit from education as well as good people, but this is not a reason to stop educating people.
- cxromos 9y ago
  By "excellent education system" I mean the combination of Nationalism and Communism, which, I first hand experienced, as National Socialism. Every story I've learned about Nazis, what they spoke and believed in, was present in the speech and in the deeds. I am well aware of why and how that happened, the rise of National Socialism on Balkans, one of them being 50 years of Communism and lack of the benefits of balanced democratic evolution of the society.
coldtea 9y ago
>I call Bullshit on you. The one of the product of that excellent education system was Milosevic as well. Serbia with Milosevic started the last Balkan Wars in its desire to renew Dusan's Empire, or in common tongue, to make a greater Serbia. Rather that's the party line. Because other sides weren't angels either, and a lot of the atrocities/stories pilled on the Serbian side were manufactured BS. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/16/denying-the-srebrenica-genocide-because-its-not-true-an-interview-with-diana-johnstone/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/16/denying-the-srebrenic... In the end, it was all for creating another protectorate (Kossovo) -- and militant islamism penetration thriving.
- cxromos 9y ago
  There's nothing about those wars that you can teach me, nor the idiot from the link posted.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Being directly involved (if that's what you mean by "can't teach me") doesn't help for more partial/accurate views. The exact same answer as yours could be given by anybody on the other side as well.
    - cxromos 9y ago
      I was on every side.
salesguy222 9y ago
Milosevic and Tudjman were nationalistic idiots who LITEALLY conspired together to start the war. It was agreed upon. Banque Franco Yugoslave was jointly owned by them- they started the war so that they could raid state assets from it under the guise of war and strife. Please don't be so one-sided. The Yugoslav education system in the 70s was excellent and produced scholars from all nationalities and religions who are still working today. Milosevic was a partisan idiot elected after a decade of economic instability (once again orchestrated by the West)

acqq 9y ago

Your version is as true as it was true that Iraq had WMD. Or that those against Assad are all "moderate rebels." There are definite similarities. In reality, Bosniak Muslims were supported by al-Qaeda, bin Laden and his closest men had the passports made by the Bosniak Muslim government, which was also supported by the U.S. It was all before 9/11, or "Iraq had WMD" affair, so it was very easy to sell.

cxromos 9y ago
Another schizophrenic view of the world.
- acqq 9y ago
  Which fact from these that I've specified you not believe? WMD in Iraq story was actually fabricated, the UK actually stole an article of a student Ibrahim al-Marashi to present it as the result of the work of their intelligence services. bin Laden actually had a Bosniak Muslim passport. There were "Bosnian mujahideen" soldiers from the foreign lands fighting there, just like now in Syria. They were actually supported by the U.S, but also by the "allies" of the U.S. from the Muslim world. The "moderate rebels" in Syria as the U.S. calls them, are in fact much bigger Islamists than Assad ever can be, etc. There are clear decades of similarity in the politics.
  - cxromos 9y ago
    I don't dispute that fact. The Muslims in Bosnia are moderate in nature. It's traditional. Ottoman empire was against the type of Islam like the one that originated in Saudi Arabia. I don't dispute the fact that WMD was a stunt of the crony capitalism of Cheney and his friends. But those Muslims in Syria, 'moderate' rebels, were victims of Assad family for decades. It's bound to happen, sooner or later, for people to rebel, when victimized. One doesn't need to study history to recognize this basic truth.
    - acqq 9y ago
      > The Muslims in Bosnia are moderate in nature. The real "moderates" haven't had a chance or influence. The Muslim Bosniak leader in the nineties was a known Islamist. He hasn't accidentally received the support of the Islamists abroad. The Wahhabis are there since that times (decades already): "Sharia Villages Bosnia's Islamic State Problem" (2016) http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/islamic-state-presence-in-bosnia-cause-for-concern-a-1085326.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/islamic-state-pre... Regarding "the nature" the history of the WWII (1939-1945) is also clear, even then the inherent religious intolerance (most of the Quran) towards the others was used: http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/muslim-waffen-ss-13th-division-1943/ http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/muslim-waffen-ss-13th-divisi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_(1st_Croatian) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_... Going back to even earlier times, the Ottoman empire removed some typical obligations inherent in Islamic Sharia law only after it was defeated, only around the middle of 19th century. The "moderation" of Muslims probably started only after Austria took over the control of Bosnia in 1878. It was also surely helped by the abolition of the Caliphate by the secularist Turkish president Ataturk in 1924. But then see WWII and the Nazi influence, above. Similar to what happened in the nineties. Regarding Syria, the "rebels" were fought against by Assad also because they were Islamists, that means, wanted the rule of the Islamic law for everything. Their fanaticism and readiness for destruction is now widely known. There's nothing in these beliefs that anybody (but the Islamists) can wish: intolerance towards women, towards other religions, and the death for insulting the "religion of pieces." But the rebeles were supported by the Arab states and the U.S. because Assad wasn't an Islamist and he was potentially closer to Shia Iran (and Sunni Arabs don't like that) and because he's too close to Russia too (and the U.S. politics doesn't like that). Thanks to the support from the abroad, the Islamic State claims to have a functioning Caliphate since 2014, a religiously (eschatologically!) important part of it in Syria. Also see the effective destruction of the secularism in Turkey, an U.S. ally. Same old.

builditand 9y ago

> The one of the product of that excellent education system was Milosevic as well. Not the best phrasing, one could deduct from it that the education system was broken. Of course bad people will benefit from education as well as good people, but this is not a reason to stop educating people.

cxromos 9y ago
By "excellent education system" I mean the combination of Nationalism and Communism, which, I first hand experienced, as National Socialism. Every story I've learned about Nazis, what they spoke and believed in, was present in the speech and in the deeds. I am well aware of why and how that happened, the rise of National Socialism on Balkans, one of them being 50 years of Communism and lack of the benefits of balanced democratic evolution of the society.

coldtea 9y ago

>I call Bullshit on you. The one of the product of that excellent education system was Milosevic as well. Serbia with Milosevic started the last Balkan Wars in its desire to renew Dusan's Empire, or in common tongue, to make a greater Serbia. Rather that's the party line. Because other sides weren't angels either, and a lot of the atrocities/stories pilled on the Serbian side were manufactured BS. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/16/denying-the-srebrenica-genocide-because-its-not-true-an-interview-with-diana-johnstone/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/16/denying-the-srebrenic... In the end, it was all for creating another protectorate (Kossovo) -- and militant islamism penetration thriving.

cxromos 9y ago
There's nothing about those wars that you can teach me, nor the idiot from the link posted.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Being directly involved (if that's what you mean by "can't teach me") doesn't help for more partial/accurate views. The exact same answer as yours could be given by anybody on the other side as well.
  - cxromos 9y ago
    I was on every side.

salesguy222 9y ago

Milosevic and Tudjman were nationalistic idiots who LITEALLY conspired together to start the war. It was agreed upon. Banque Franco Yugoslave was jointly owned by them- they started the war so that they could raid state assets from it under the guise of war and strife. Please don't be so one-sided. The Yugoslav education system in the 70s was excellent and produced scholars from all nationalities and religions who are still working today. Milosevic was a partisan idiot elected after a decade of economic instability (once again orchestrated by the West)