Page 4 of 52 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 519

Thread: Why do people defend Serbs?

  1. #31
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Online
    05-27-2019 @ 12:23 AM
    Ethnicity
    Bosniak
    Ancestry
    Podrinje
    Country
    Bosnia
    Gender
    Posts
    1,354
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,176
    Given: 1,201

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Frank Grimes View Post
    It's a question of facts. We know for a fact that a resolution was offered and that it had been accepted by Alija Izetbegović. We know he later rejected it. He signed it and then went back on his word. The results were many deaths and basically the same result there would have been if he had stuck to the agreement but without all the deaths.
    What is not an objective fact is that war would break out. That was not a certainty and it didn't have to. The ball was in the Serbs court, so to say, and they chose armed conflict.
    What's also not a certainty is that it wouldn't have broken out anyway even if Izetbegovic had signed the agreement. 7 days prior the Serbs themselves had rejected that same plan because they wanted more territory.
    Had the agreement gone through they could have simply used their newly recognized political states as launching points for further invasion of territories they wanted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Frank Grimes View Post
    Forced by who? We're speaking of facts here. We're not speaking of assumptions that we hope are true. Facts and credentials, I should say. The Canadian ambassador at the time has more credibility than a random internet persona.
    According to his words, NATO. The west had threatened to bomb Bosnian Army positions if they pressed forward with their offensive. So the only option was to sign.

  2. #32
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Online
    05-27-2019 @ 12:23 AM
    Ethnicity
    Bosniak
    Ancestry
    Podrinje
    Country
    Bosnia
    Gender
    Posts
    1,354
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,176
    Given: 1,201

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vlatko Vukovic View Post
    You are cherrypicking really... Many media only speaking about Serb crimes. In Haag there are no Bosniaks, and minor Croats, while Serbs are massively there.
    I'm not specifically talking about media, although the media does sometimes do it to, but people in general. Go into the comments of those media videos you're talking about and often times you'll find plenty of people arguing against what's being reported.

    Haag is another point. It does the bare minimum to appease Bosniaks while not punishing Serbs to the full extent they deserve.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Last Online
    04-07-2022 @ 08:49 AM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Balkans
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Country
    Albania
    Religion
    Orthodoxy
    Gender
    Posts
    418
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 191
    Given: 10

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmara View Post
    First of all, such thing definetly exists and i've seen it quite a lot.

    Serbs are Christians and Bosniaks are Muslims, that's why European right wing does not put any blame on Serbians.
    But Jesus was not white. Are you telling me that those right wingers consider christianity as a "white" religion ? lol.

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Croatia
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Slavic+Romance
    Ethnicity
    Croatian
    Ancestry
    3/4 Croatian and 1/4 North Italian
    Country
    Croatia
    Region
    Dalmatia
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b
    Taxonomy
    Atlantid+CM
    Politics
    Direct Democracy
    Hero
    Jordan Peterson
    Religion
    Deist
    Gender
    Posts
    9,888
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 12,781
    Given: 8,063

    4 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmara View Post
    First of all, such thing definetly exists and i've seen it quite a lot.

    Serbs are Christians and Bosniaks are Muslims, that's why European right wing does not put any blame on Serbians.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dzihadovic View Post
    I'm not specifically talking about media, although the media does sometimes do it to, but people in general. Go into the comments of those media videos you're talking about and often times you'll find plenty of people arguing against what's being reported.
    First of all, to answer both to you and Marmara;

    How strong right-wing is exactly in Europe (in political & society sence)? ZERO.

    So we are talking here about real life and what real life gives you, AKA; those who dictate what real life is, to someone (on individual level) Serbs are ppl to be defended etc, but in mainstream OFFICIAL Western medias they are portraited AS SATANS THEMSELVES, and you know this.

    For example, whenever I watch some USA TV show (where someone is interviewed, show about stars or whatever), and someone mentions Serbia, you can almost "feel in the air" they (americans, along with a lottttttt of others western medias and mainstream) are thinking; "oh Serbs are those satans, right.".

    Few of Serbian sport stars broke that stereotype in west like Novak Đoković etc, but that stereotype is still there, forced in purpose even today.

    Just an example when I mentioned this about USA shows with interviews, I remember when our Croatian actor (in Hollywood) Goran Visnjić would mention he is from Croatia blah blah, you can just see everyone is thinking; "oh how lovely, must be a nice place etc...", but when someone say he or she is from Serbia, it's like someone sucked the air out of building for minute or two.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dzihadovic View Post
    Haag is another point. It does the bare minimum to appease Bosniaks while not punishing Serbs to the full extent they deserve.
    Oh man, you remind me of some Croatians, honestly, some of them are just like you with this "PUNISH" word, I think Serbs as a people (means picture of them in West etc...) are punished enough, it is time to move forward honestly, let's move forward.
    Last edited by Robocop; 02-20-2018 at 08:47 PM.

  5. #35
    Sup? Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Colonel Frank Grimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Spanish
    Ethnicity
    Galician
    Country
    United States
    Region
    West Virginia
    Y-DNA
    Powerful Male
    mtDNA
    Powerful Female
    Politics
    Of the school of Ron Jeremy
    Hero
    Your mom
    Religion
    Rationalist Materialism
    Gender
    Posts
    24,980
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 25,000
    Given: 12,788

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dzihadovic View Post
    What is not an objective fact is that war would break out. That was not a certainty and it didn't have to. The ball was in the Serbs court, so to say, and they chose armed conflict.
    It's an objective fact that an agreement was signed and then broken by Alija Izetbegović. It's an objective fact that the agreement offered before the war is almost exactly the same agreement accepted at the end of the conflict.

    You can not evade Alija Izetbegović went back on his signature. This is why you pretend he was forced. You can not pretend all three parties agreed to the agreement. Obviously each side tries to haggle for a better deal but a deal was finally made and then broken because Izetbegović realized he had the backing of the US.

    What's also not a certainty is that it wouldn't have broken out anyway even if Izetbegovic had signed the agreement. 7 days prior the Serbs themselves had rejected that same plan because they wanted more territory.
    This is called an 'assumption.' You can't put blame on another party because you assume they would have broken their agreement and so you do it first.

    Lets take a walk down memory lane:

    U.S. Policymakers on Bosnia Admit Errors in Opposing Partition in 1992
    By DAVID BINDER,
    Published: August 29, 1993

    Almost a year and a half ago, the United States opposed a partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina that had been agreed to by leaders of the republic's Serbs, Croats and Muslims. The idea was to stave off a civil war.

    Now, tens of thousands of deaths later, the United States is urging the leaders of the three Bosnian factions to accept a partition agreement similar to the one Washington opposed in 1992.

    Although some of the architects of American policy in the region defend their actions, a number of major figures now acknowledge errors.

    "Our view was that we might be able to head off a Serbian power grab by internationalizing the problem," said Warren Zimmermann, who was then the American Ambassador to Yugoslavia. "Our hope was the Serbs would hold off if it was clear Bosnia had the recognition of Western countries. It turned out we were wrong."

    Although publicly silent on the partition issue in 1992, the United States urged instead a single multi-ethnic state that it promised to recognize as independent, according to officials involved in making policy on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia. Washington argued that partition would set a bad example, especially for the successor republics of the former Soviet Union, where ethnic violence was already spreading.

    This month, leaders of the three Bosnian factions agreed anew to partition of the shattered republic on ethnic lines, although they remain divided on how much territory each should get. On Aug. 19, Secretary of State Warren Christopher sent a letter to President Alija Izetbegovic urging him to endorse a partition plan proposed by Thorvald Stoltenberg, the United Nations envoy, and Lord Owen, the European Community's mediator. Initial Plan Better in Hindsight

    Acknowledging the reversal, several American officials involved at the time say that in hindsight, the initial partition plan agreed to in Lisbon and then abandoned may have been preferable to a policy that failed to avert civil war.

    Other Government specialists on Bosnia are skeptical that partition would have worked then or will work now without renewed fighting. If there was a flaw in United States policy, they say, it was more the failure to back up international recognition of an independent Bosnia with any meaningful support when Serbian and Croatian forces began shelling Muslim towns centers and seizing territory through the terror tactics of "ethnic cleansing."

    The ethnic partition the United States is now backing is far less advantageous for the Muslims than the agreements they rejected in 1992. And, after 17 months of warfare, the Muslims face far worse circumstances and grimmer prospects for survival.

    The original partition plan was negotiated by a special commission of the European Community. Mediators who brokered the agreement argued that partition was the only way to contain the ethnic rivalries. But the Bush Administration was pushing the Europeans to recognize Bosnia as an independent country, with a Muslim-led Government in Sarajevo.

    Over a period of nearly two months, European efforts to negotiate ethnic partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina and American efforts to promote recognition of its independence proceeded on parallel tracks. Initially, neither European mediators nor some Bosnian leaders regarded partition and recognition as mutually negating factors. But they ultimately became stark alternatives.

    Finally, the United States prevailed. In April 1992 the Europeans joined Washington in granting diplomatic recognition to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The partition talks collapsed. Civil War Engulfs Bosnia

    While fierce ethnic clashes had already erupted across the republic, full-scale civil war now ensued.

    Bosnia's agony began in early 1992, when the mountainous republic was still a miniature of the ethnically mixed Yugoslav federation, which began to fall apart six months earlier. Its population of 4 million was 44 percent Muslim, 31 percent Serb and 17 percent Croat.

    Under Communism, ethnic rivalries were submerged. But they sharpened when the Yugoslav Communist Party dissolved in 1990. Slovenia and Croatia seceded from the federation in June 1991, and war between Serbs and Croats raged in Croatia until a cease-fire took hold in January 1992.

    Both the United Nations, whose envoy, Cyrus R. Vance, had brokered the truce in Croatia, and the European Community feared the same kind of violence could break out in Bosnia.

    Partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina was always the favored solution of Bosnia's Serbs and Croats and their sponsors in Belgrade and Zagreb. But Mr. Izetbegovic, the Bosnian President, opposed partition plans from the beginning, although he agreed to them twice in 1992 under pressure, he said, from the Serbs. He backed off then when he became aware of United States plans to push through recognition of his Government.

    The European Community took the lead in trying to resolve the Bosnian problem. It had already set a precedent in trying to deal with the secession of Croatia and Slovenia. Prodded by Germany, it granted recognition to those former Yugoslav republics. At the time, the Bush Administration and Mr. Vance opposed that move as disruptive to peace efforts. Europeans Call For Referendum

    The Europeans began moving toward international recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina by calling for a referendum on independence.

    In part to meet the objections of Serbs, who said they were being "outvoted" by Croats and Muslims, the European Community organized a conference of leaders of the main ethnic parties to determine how the three nationalities would arrange the organization of an independent state.

    On Feb. 23, 1992, in Lisbon, the three Bosnian leaders -- Mr. Izetbegovic, Radovan Karadzic for the Bosnian Serbs and Mate Boban for the Bosnian Croats -- endorsed a proposal that the republic be a confederation divided into three ethnic regions. Mr. Izetbegovic's acceptance of partition, which would have denied him and his Muslim party a dominant role in the republic, shocked not only his supporters at home, but also United States policymakers.

    "We were very surprised at what he had agreed to," said a senior State Department official responsible for Yugoslav policy who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    The impact of Mr. Izetbegovic's decision was all the greater in Washington because the Bush Administration had begun to immerse itself in the Yugoslav crisis and, in a reversal, to favor recognition of the successor republics.

    "The embassy was for recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina from sometime in February on," Mr. Zimmermann said of his policy recommendation from Belgrade. "Meaning me."

    The Administration's concern with Bosnia was heightened by scattered reports of ethnic clashes in the republic and indications that Serbs, Croats and Muslims were organizing militias to defend territories they considered theirs.

    In testimony before a Senate committee, Secretary of State James A. Baker 3d said on Feb. 26 that he was "reviewing our recognition policy on the Yugoslav republics on an almost daily, or certainly weekly basis." Bosnian Chief Signs But Doesn't Like It

    Immediately after Mr. Izetbegovic returned from Lisbon, Mr. Zimmermann called on him in Sarajevo. The Bosnian leader complained bitterly that the European Community and Bosnian Serbs and Croats had pressured him to accept partition.

    "He said he didn't like it," Mr. Zimmermann recalled. "I told him, if he didn't like it, why sign it?"

    In retrospect, Mr. Zimmermann said in a recent interview, "the Lisbon agreement wasn't bad at all."

    But after talking to the Ambassador, Mr. Izetbegovic publicly renounced the Lisbon agreement.

    A referendum on independence concluded on March 1. The vote was largely boycotted by Bosnian Serbs, while Croats and Muslims, representing two-thirds of the electorate, endorsed it by 99.4 percent.

    But Dr. Karadzic, the leader of Bosnia's Serbs, called the referendum "illegal." He warned that international recognition would "worsen the situation." Talks Reconvene In Sharp Discord

    Talks on partition were reconvened on March 7 in Brussels amid sharp disagreements. Mr. Izetbegovic said, "I don't think tripartition is possible."

    Dr. Karadzic countered, "Bosnia and Herzegovina should not be recognized as a unitarian, independent entity." Serbs, he said, "want our own state."

    The Bush Administration pushed ahead with its plan for recognition.

    "The policy was to encourage Izetbegovic to break with the partition plan," said a high-ranking State Department official who asked not to be identified. "It was not committed to paper. We let it be known we would support his Government in the United Nations if they got into trouble. But there were no guarantees, because Baker didn't believe it would happen."

    Meeting with European foreign ministers in Brussels on March 10, Mr. Baker urged them to recognize Mr. Izetbegovic's Government immediately, promising that the United States would swiftly follow with recognition of Croatia and Slovenia as well.

    Mr. Baker "told the Europeans to stop pushing ethnic cantonization of Bosnia," said Richard Johnson, who was the Yugoslav desk officer at the State Department. "We pressed the Europeans to move forward on recognition."

    The European Community members recoiled, in part because of reports of escalating nationalist tensions among Bosnians. Karadzic Warns of Civil War

    On March 16, Dr. Karadzic warned of "a civil war between ethnic groups and religions with hundreds of thousands dead and hundreds of towns destroyed." He added, also accurately, "After such a war we would have completely the same situation: three Bosnia-Herzegovinas, which we have right now."

    That day, the three Bosnian leaders met again in Sarajevo for another round of talks. Late the following night, they signed a new agreement to divide Bosnia into "three constituent units" based on ethnic criteria.

    Dr. Karadzic was momentarily euphoric, calling it "a great day for Bosnia and Herzegovina." But within days Mr. Izetbegovic again voiced strong reservations, saying the only reason he had signed was because the Europeans told him that he had to if he wanted to gain international recognition of his Government.

    There was one more round of negotiations, on March 30 in Brussels, to draw the map of a partitioned Bosnia. But by this time, armed bands of Serbs had crossed the Drina River to begin driving Muslims from Bosnian towns, while in the Herzegovina region, tens of thousands of armed Croats, including main force divisions of the Croatian army had seized control in areas where Croats predominate.

    Fighting broke out in downtown Sarajevo between Muslim and Serb forces. On April 5, Mr. Izetbegovic met in Sarajevo with his Serbian and Croatian counterparts in a television studio. In the presence of a European mediator, they listened grimly while their agreement on a cease-fire was read out by two anchormen. It was the first of many.

    In Luxembourg the following day, 12 European Community foreign ministers announced recognition by their countries of the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As planned, the United States followed the next day with a statement by President Bush recognizing the sovereignty of the Sarajevo government as well as the independence of Croatia and Slovenia.

    Map of Bosnia-Herzegovina, indicating divisions proposed by Lord Owens and Thorvald Stoltenberg.
    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/29/wo...pagewanted=all
    Had the agreement gone through they could have simply used their newly recognized political states as launching points for further invasion of territories they wanted.
    I don't argue against self serving assumptions. I was under the impression we were discussing hard facts.



    According to his words, NATO. The west had threatened to bomb Bosnian Army positions if they pressed forward with their offensive. So the only option was to sign.
    And that's obvious bullshit because the US government was against a partition. Read the news article. It was the Euros who felt it was best. NATO doesn't bomb anyone without the US government giving it the okay.

    Oh, you mean at the end of the war. What does that have to do with the instigation of the war? Without NATO in the first place Bosnia & Herzgovia (however you spell it) would have been over run.

  6. #36
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Online
    05-27-2019 @ 12:23 AM
    Ethnicity
    Bosniak
    Ancestry
    Podrinje
    Country
    Bosnia
    Gender
    Posts
    1,354
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,176
    Given: 1,201

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Serbs committed the same crimes ISIS is committing today and they were given their own state. Can anyone here imagine the west getting together around the negotiating table with ISIS and allowing them to keep the land they took and recognizing their political entity?
    If the roles we're reversed, no way would Bosniaks be allowed to keep 49% of Bosnia. Roflmao, no fucking way.
    That is the west going easy on Serbs.

  7. #37
    Sup? Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Colonel Frank Grimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Spanish
    Ethnicity
    Galician
    Country
    United States
    Region
    West Virginia
    Y-DNA
    Powerful Male
    mtDNA
    Powerful Female
    Politics
    Of the school of Ron Jeremy
    Hero
    Your mom
    Religion
    Rationalist Materialism
    Gender
    Posts
    24,980
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 25,000
    Given: 12,788

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dzihadovic View Post
    Serbs committed the same crimes ISIS is committing today and they were given their own state. Can anyone here imagine the west getting together around the negotiating table with ISIS and allowing them to keep the land they took and recognizing their political entity?
    If the roles we're reversed, no way would Bosniaks be allowed to keep 49% of Bosnia. Roflmao, no fucking way.
    That is the west going easy on Serbs.
    If it wasn't for the West the Bosnian war wouldn't have ended in a draw. Bosniaks would have lost and the area split between Serbs and Croats. Tudsman had no love for Muslims. The only reason Izetbegović took the risk of going against partition is because he had US support and probably assumed he would have gotten more military aid instead of NATO troops bumbling about the land. Izetbegović's gamble would have lost him everything if you subtract the US/West out of the equation.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Croatia
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Slavic+Romance
    Ethnicity
    Croatian
    Ancestry
    3/4 Croatian and 1/4 North Italian
    Country
    Croatia
    Region
    Dalmatia
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b
    Taxonomy
    Atlantid+CM
    Politics
    Direct Democracy
    Hero
    Jordan Peterson
    Religion
    Deist
    Gender
    Posts
    9,888
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 12,781
    Given: 8,063

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dzihadovic View Post
    Serbs committed the same crimes ISIS is committing today and they were given their own state. Can anyone here imagine the west getting together around the negotiating table with ISIS and allowing them to keep the land they took and recognizing their political entity?
    If the roles we're reversed, no way would Bosniaks be allowed to keep 49% of Bosnia. Roflmao, no fucking way.
    That is the west going easy on Serbs.
    And where is that Serbian state?

    Republic of Srpska is not a state, it's an entity INSIDE OF Bosnia and Herzegovina (and that is a true state recognized by entire world), Republic of Srpska at best is somethin like Catalonia in Spain, so ... what country?

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    04-10-2021 @ 08:05 PM
    Location
    Serbia
    Meta-Ethnicity
    South Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Serb
    Country
    Serbia
    Gender
    Posts
    8,523
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 5,951
    Given: 5,518

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dzihadovic View Post
    Serbs committed the same crimes ISIS is committing today and they were given their own state. Can anyone here imagine the west getting together around the negotiating table with ISIS and allowing them to keep the land they took and recognizing their political entity?
    If the roles we're reversed, no way would Bosniaks be allowed to keep 49% of Bosnia. Roflmao, no fucking way.
    That is the west going easy on Serbs.
    You're exaggerating, just chill off.

  10. #40
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Online
    05-27-2019 @ 12:23 AM
    Ethnicity
    Bosniak
    Ancestry
    Podrinje
    Country
    Bosnia
    Gender
    Posts
    1,354
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,176
    Given: 1,201

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Frank Grimes View Post
    It's an objective fact that an agreement was signed and then broken by Alija Izetbegović. It's an objective fact that the agreement offered before the war is almost exactly the same agreement accepted at the end of the conflict.

    You can not evade Alija Izetbegović went back on his signature. This is why you pretend he was forced. You can not pretend all three parties agreed to the agreement. Obviously each side tries to haggle for a better deal but a deal was finally made and then broken because Izetbegović realized he had the backing of the US.
    I'm not evading it. I'm glad that he did, he never should have signed it in the first place.
    And I'm not pretending he was forced, those are words directly from his mouth. It's funny how you people take conspiracy theories about some meeting with Zimmermann as fact but a direct quote from Izetbegovic about being forced to the negotiating table is an obvious lie for some reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Frank Grimes View Post
    This is called an 'assumption.' You can't put blame on another party because you assume they would have broken their agreement and so you do it first.
    I'm not blaming them for that. I'm blaming them for the fact that they choose the war route.
    The hard fact here is that no one force war on the Serbs. They forced it on everyone else.
    You don't beat a spouse for going back on a divorce agreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Frank Grimes View Post

    And that's obvious bullshit because the US government was against a partition. Read the news article. It was the Euros who felt it was best. NATO doesn't bomb anyone without the US government giving it the okay.

    Oh, you mean at the end of the war. What does that have to do with the instigation of the war? Without NATO in the first place Bosnia & Herzgovia (however you spell it) would have been over run.
    Okay, if he renounced his initial signature in Lisbon because of US support than it must follow that he ended up signing Dayton because he lost US support. No?

    And your own article shows that they grew more in favor of a partition as the war went on.
    "Acknowledging the reversal, several American officials involved at the time say that in hindsight, the initial partition plan agreed to in Lisbon and then abandoned may have been preferable to a policy that failed to avert civil war."

Page 4 of 52 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 02-08-2021, 01:54 AM
  2. Replies: 385
    Last Post: 12-24-2018, 03:11 PM
  3. Replies: 631
    Last Post: 10-17-2018, 11:18 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-12-2017, 09:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •