Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
It is the word "free" that caught my eye. That's why I'd like you to explain what you mean by 'free' before I react on this.
Operation Storm was a successful military action intended to free Croatian territory occupied by rebel Serbs which were being helped by Yugoslav Army. I actually don't understand why the word free caught your eye there. I mean, the whole war in Croatia was a war for freedom.
By the way, maybe it's a good idea to not use Bosnians but Bosniaks (which are the people you meant by using Bosnians I believe, correct me if I'm wrong). As you have Croation, Bosniak and Serbian Bosnians, using just Bosnians would make it complicated I think.
Yes, you noticed it well. I should have written Bosniaks. Sorry about that.
Operation Storm was a successful military action intended to free Croatian territory occupied by rebel Serbs which were being helped by Yugoslav Army. I actually don't understand why the word free caught your eye there. I mean, the whole war in Croatia was a war for freedom.
By the way, maybe it's a good idea to not use Bosnians but Bosniaks (which are the people you meant by using Bosnians I believe, correct me if I'm wrong). As you have Croation, Bosniak and Serbian Bosnians, using just Bosnians would make it complicated I think.
Yes, you noticed it well. I should have written Bosniaks. Sorry about that.
This is not news, you are debatting an old war..... maybe make a topic named "Debat"... and we again could have some news in here??
Mitch started this debate for no reason stating some really horrible lies. And actually, this is not an old war. I mean, it happened when I was 14-18 and I am now 35. To you it's old news but people who lived it would never call it old.
Anyway, I am done with this subject. I don't have anything more to add to the simple truth about it.
Mitch started this debate for no reason stating some really horrible lies. And actually, this is not an old war. I mean, it happened when I was 14-18 and I am now 35. To you it's old news but people who lived it would never call it old.
Anyway, I am done with this subject. I don't have anything more to add to the simple truth about it.
Maybe old war was insensitive... i had the a project about it in school while the war was on, and i still cant imagine how horrible it must have been and you have my deepest symphati.
But what i mean is, this topic was for NEWS... news is like, press releases, news from this week and so on.. :)
But what i mean is, this topic was for NEWS... news is like, press releases, news from this week and so on.. :)
btw. dont listen to mitch, that man is an lunatic.. :)
Operation Storm was a successful military action intended to free Croatian territory occupied by rebel Serbs which were being helped by Yugoslav Army. I actually don't understand why the word free caught your eye there. I mean, the whole war in Croatia was a war for freedom.
I understand it was a liberation of a part of Croatia from the Yugoslav army. But the Croation army - under Gotovina - also 'removed' Serb citizens from that area into Serb areas in Bosnia and Serbia (and yes, I know that Croation citizens had suffered the same during Serb rule). That is not what I would call 'free'.
Yes, you noticed it well. I should have written Bosniaks. Sorry about that.
No need to apologize, I just wanted to ensure things wouldn't become to difficult when someone talks about Bosnians, as they are a nationality, not a ethnicity.
I understand it was a liberation of a part of Croatia from the Yugoslav army. But the Croation army - under Gotovina - also 'removed' Serb citizens from that area into Serb areas in Bosnia and Serbia (and yes, I know that Croation citizens had suffered the same during Serb rule). That is not what I would call 'free'.
Yes, you noticed it well. I should have written Bosniaks. Sorry about that.
No need to apologize, I just wanted to ensure things wouldn't become to difficult when someone talks about Bosnians, as they are a nationality, not a ethnicity.
I understand it was a liberation of a part of Croatia from the Yugoslav army. But the Croation army - under Gotovina - also 'removed' Serb citizens from that area into Serb areas in Bosnia and Serbia (and yes, I know that Croation citizens had suffered the same during Serb rule). That is not what I would call 'free'.
The cause and consequence relations are crucial for this whole story. Croatia declares independence which causes Serbs to occupy parts of territory which causes Croats to refuge from there which causes Croats to fight and regain territory which causes Serbs to refuge from there. It is very difficult to determine the difference between being chased away and running away in both cases of Serbian occupation and Croatian liberation. But that's not even the main question. The main question is which step caused the violence of war and the answer to this question is Serbian occupation of Croatian territory. Simple as that.
What would happen to history of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia if Russian academics wrote a document in 1986 claiming that all Russians must always remain in one state? What if Russians in Latvia made baricades after separation, attacked Latvian police and then called Russian army for help? What if Russian army would come? Do you think that it would all end peacefully as it was? Who would be responsible for that? What if Latvians would eventually liberate their territory and all Russians who were not loyal to Lithuania for 5 years would run away from Latvia? Would that be also called "ethnical cleansing"?
edit: Latvia is a better example. They have 27% of Russians there.
(edited)
The cause and consequence relations are crucial for this whole story. Croatia declares independence which causes Serbs to occupy parts of territory which causes Croats to refuge from there which causes Croats to fight and regain territory which causes Serbs to refuge from there. It is very difficult to determine the difference between being chased away and running away in both cases of Serbian occupation and Croatian liberation. But that's not even the main question. The main question is which step caused the violence of war and the answer to this question is Serbian occupation of Croatian territory. Simple as that.
What would happen to history of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia if Russian academics wrote a document in 1986 claiming that all Russians must always remain in one state? What if Russians in Latvia made baricades after separation, attacked Latvian police and then called Russian army for help? What if Russian army would come? Do you think that it would all end peacefully as it was? Who would be responsible for that? What if Latvians would eventually liberate their territory and all Russians who were not loyal to Lithuania for 5 years would run away from Latvia? Would that be also called "ethnical cleansing"?
edit: Latvia is a better example. They have 27% of Russians there.
(edited)
What would happen to history of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia if Russian academics wrote a document in 1986 claiming that all Russians must always remain in one state? What if Russians in Lithuania made baricades after separation, attacked Lithuanian police and then called Russian army for help? What if Russian army would come? Do you think that it would all end peacefully as it was? Who would be responsible for that? What if Lithuanians would eventually liberate their territory and all Russians who were not loyal to Lithuania for 5 years would run away from Lithuania? Would that be also called "ethnical cleansing"?
They did write such a document. A few times. :P
You know Croatian army has forced the Serb citizens to move away. I understand it, but that doesn't make it right. It's not that the Serbs are responsible for everything that went (seriously) wrong in Balkan War.
You know Croatian army has forced the Serb citizens to move away.
That's not true. What did you based this mistaken opinion on?
How do you explain share of Serbs of stil 4,5% (before war: 12,2%). If you take a look by Croatian areas in 2001: Serbs by areas, you will see they are stil mostly in the same areas where there was war. Why didn't they run away and how come they are stil alive?
In Bosnia and Herzegovina the share of Croatians was reduced from 17,4% to 12,6% and in Serbian entity Republika Srpska their share was reduced from 9% to 1%(!?) - from 140.000 to only 10.000.
In Zagreb, we all know examples of Serbian families from the cities that started to move away from Croatia even before the war started. My best friend in the neighbourhood moved away over night in 1989. Everyone from Sarajevo knows how many Serbs left before anything started to happen.
How are you able to determine from Belgium about whether Serbs were chased away or they simply ran away because they didn't want to live in Croatia as it exists today?
That's not true. What did you based this mistaken opinion on?
How do you explain share of Serbs of stil 4,5% (before war: 12,2%). If you take a look by Croatian areas in 2001: Serbs by areas, you will see they are stil mostly in the same areas where there was war. Why didn't they run away and how come they are stil alive?
In Bosnia and Herzegovina the share of Croatians was reduced from 17,4% to 12,6% and in Serbian entity Republika Srpska their share was reduced from 9% to 1%(!?) - from 140.000 to only 10.000.
In Zagreb, we all know examples of Serbian families from the cities that started to move away from Croatia even before the war started. My best friend in the neighbourhood moved away over night in 1989. Everyone from Sarajevo knows how many Serbs left before anything started to happen.
How are you able to determine from Belgium about whether Serbs were chased away or they simply ran away because they didn't want to live in Croatia as it exists today?
They did write such a document. A few times. :P
Well, luckily for Lithuanians, Estonians and Latvians, they stopped at wishful writing. Also, they had mild tempered Gorbachov and Yeltsin for opponents. I wonder how Putin would handle that political situation... No, actually, I don't want to know that...
Well, luckily for Lithuanians, Estonians and Latvians, they stopped at wishful writing. Also, they had mild tempered Gorbachov and Yeltsin for opponents. I wonder how Putin would handle that political situation... No, actually, I don't want to know that...
U R constantly substitute theory. Do u think that 300 000 Serbs form Croatia voluntarily leave properties where lived for centuries just because they didn't want to live in Croatia as it exists today.
And its all happened in a few days.
No one will belive U.
This was classic ethnic cleansing.
And its all happened in a few days.
No one will belive U.
This was classic ethnic cleansing.
That's not true. What did you based this mistaken opinion on?
On the fact that Gotovina and other major Croatian generals have been brought to court for crimes against humanity and expelling Serb inhabitants of nowadays Croatia. And I see The Hague as quite a neutral source, yes.
How do you explain share of Serbs of stil 4,5% (before war: 12,2%). If you take a look by Croatian areas in 2001: Serbs by areas, you will see they are stil mostly in the same areas where there was war. Why didn't they run away and how come they are stil alive?
In Bosnia and Herzegovina the share of Croatians was reduced from 17,4% to 12,6% and in Serbian entity Republika Srpska their share was reduced from 9% to 1%(!?) - from 140.000 to only 10.000.
I don't speak Croatian, so I have no idea what is on the site, so if it is important, can you give me an English / French / German site? I see you say that there are still 4,5% Serbs in Croatia and it used to be 12,2%. In Bosnia & Herzegovina there used to be 17,4% Croatians and now there are 12,6% (CIA says 14% btw), and in the Serbian Republic is was severely reduced. So, what I say (both sides (Croatian and Serb) have made themselves guilty of ethnic cleansing) seems correct to me.
Examples are worth nothing.
By International Court.
On the fact that Gotovina and other major Croatian generals have been brought to court for crimes against humanity and expelling Serb inhabitants of nowadays Croatia. And I see The Hague as quite a neutral source, yes.
How do you explain share of Serbs of stil 4,5% (before war: 12,2%). If you take a look by Croatian areas in 2001: Serbs by areas, you will see they are stil mostly in the same areas where there was war. Why didn't they run away and how come they are stil alive?
In Bosnia and Herzegovina the share of Croatians was reduced from 17,4% to 12,6% and in Serbian entity Republika Srpska their share was reduced from 9% to 1%(!?) - from 140.000 to only 10.000.
I don't speak Croatian, so I have no idea what is on the site, so if it is important, can you give me an English / French / German site? I see you say that there are still 4,5% Serbs in Croatia and it used to be 12,2%. In Bosnia & Herzegovina there used to be 17,4% Croatians and now there are 12,6% (CIA says 14% btw), and in the Serbian Republic is was severely reduced. So, what I say (both sides (Croatian and Serb) have made themselves guilty of ethnic cleansing) seems correct to me.
Examples are worth nothing.
By International Court.
So, what I say (both sides (Croatian and Serb) have made themselves guilty of ethnic cleansing) seems correct to me.
I must agree with U, but U forgot a third part-Bosnian Muslims.
I must agree with U, but U forgot a third part-Bosnian Muslims.
And I see The Hague as quite a neutral source, yes.
I respect the court's decisions but any court can also make mistakes. Law and justice often don't go hand in hand and relying solely on legal justice is one of the ways to go crazy.
And I don't see this court as neutral. I see it as merely a political court. It's agenda is not to bring justice to all war criminals according to objective merit but to enforce a political consensus about what happened. And even if it was a neutral court, being neutral is not the prerequisite for being right. It is possible to be right even if you are subjective.
I don't see this court as neutral because the truth I am telling here actually puts international community to a very unpleasant position. If they would acknowledge it, that would mean that their reaction to the Yugoslav wars was rather inadequate. It would mean that Serbia's role in the war was simmilar to one of Germany, Italy and Japan in WWII and that UN, EU etc. tried to resolve such clear situation by staying neutral instead of clearly taking side and helping with full power. Such reaction would actually save many lives and other war damages. Nobody responsible wants to know that if they are in a position to get away with a different version.
Croatian country and army did not even start to exist at the time we were attacked. That is our only fault in this war and our generals are scape goats to take the bullets because of it. None of them has blood on their hands and I am sure that they would put to trial any soldier making an unnecessary civilian kill during combat. We have prosecuted numerous such cases in our courts. Our courts are far from perfect but we're prosecuting these cases and Hague is free to help wherever our courts are unable.
But putting our generals to trial and putting to text that liberating our territory was an organised criminal endeavour is simply saying "you did by yourselves something that we are proud of not helping you with". And that is utterly wrong. You should have resolved Milošević in 1991 and the war would end then and there. Simple as that. So simple it really hurts to know it.
I respect the court's decisions but any court can also make mistakes. Law and justice often don't go hand in hand and relying solely on legal justice is one of the ways to go crazy.
And I don't see this court as neutral. I see it as merely a political court. It's agenda is not to bring justice to all war criminals according to objective merit but to enforce a political consensus about what happened. And even if it was a neutral court, being neutral is not the prerequisite for being right. It is possible to be right even if you are subjective.
I don't see this court as neutral because the truth I am telling here actually puts international community to a very unpleasant position. If they would acknowledge it, that would mean that their reaction to the Yugoslav wars was rather inadequate. It would mean that Serbia's role in the war was simmilar to one of Germany, Italy and Japan in WWII and that UN, EU etc. tried to resolve such clear situation by staying neutral instead of clearly taking side and helping with full power. Such reaction would actually save many lives and other war damages. Nobody responsible wants to know that if they are in a position to get away with a different version.
Croatian country and army did not even start to exist at the time we were attacked. That is our only fault in this war and our generals are scape goats to take the bullets because of it. None of them has blood on their hands and I am sure that they would put to trial any soldier making an unnecessary civilian kill during combat. We have prosecuted numerous such cases in our courts. Our courts are far from perfect but we're prosecuting these cases and Hague is free to help wherever our courts are unable.
But putting our generals to trial and putting to text that liberating our territory was an organised criminal endeavour is simply saying "you did by yourselves something that we are proud of not helping you with". And that is utterly wrong. You should have resolved Milošević in 1991 and the war would end then and there. Simple as that. So simple it really hurts to know it.
First of all, the international community has made mistakes concerning Yugoslavia. For instance not supporting Slovenians, Croatians, Bosniaks, Kosovars and Macedonians when they asked for independence from a state in which the Serbs were trying to pull all the power towards them. Let's agree on that. However, that is not a reason to not put the generals of all parties (Croatian, Bosniak and Serb) that committed crimes behind bars. Gotovina for instance is just a war criminal. Okay, he's a national hero in Croatia, but he's a war criminal. That is a fact. Just like it's a fact Mladic, Milosevic, ... are war criminals too. What is true too, is that it is for the international community not always simple to see who is wrong and who is right. Okay, Srebrenica is quite clear the Serbs did a horrible thing there. But most of those crimes are only known after quite some time (which is not the case in the Srebrenica massacre though).
What I am saying is that it is 'easier' for The Hague to be objective than for former Yugoslavians and therefore it's 'easier' to determine what was right and wrong. The comparison of Serbia with Nazi-Germany is a step too far I believe, although there are indeed similarities.
(edited)
What I am saying is that it is 'easier' for The Hague to be objective than for former Yugoslavians and therefore it's 'easier' to determine what was right and wrong. The comparison of Serbia with Nazi-Germany is a step too far I believe, although there are indeed similarities.
(edited)