This is what western globalists really think of slavs and east europeans

[Atlantic Reptilian]

Yes, it's annoying. I should have just ignored Atlantic_Reptilian's example.

Well, that is what happens when you have some members that are too emotional. I was respectful to them from the beginning but they don't really deserve it. And since they are more in quantity than I am it results in this. But whatever.
I respect your opinion I just don't believe that Russia is innocent in this stuff. And I don't trust pro-Russian media outlets. Same thing goes for i.e. CNN.

Interesting. I always thought that the islamized people from the Balkans were more akin to the Spanish who unfortunately never had their own equivalent of reconquista. If what you are saying is true, the islamized Balkanites were more akin to Berbers. In one of my arguments with Nassbean, he once pointed out that many Berber leaders allied with Arabs against other Berbers and thus the Arabs taking over wasn't 'really' a conquest, because some of the Berbers just didn't put up a fight and joined the invaders 'because reasons'. Against their own people, but he apparently forgot to mention that. Not sure if I included that in my reply but I was thinking 'And are you proud of that? Of the fact that many of your leaders can be described only as traitors, you self-hater?' The Berbers quickly become genuinely loyal to the Arabs either by force or otherwise, unlike the Spanish who were always seen as troublemakers never willing to subject. There were no raids by from the south to the north committed by the Spanish when the country was divided. My question is, do we have any evidence that the case of the Bosniaks was similar to the Berbers? I really hope not.

Well, the problem with such statements is that they are always prone to bias, hence I have no reason to dedicate more time to them than any other history book. Anyways, if someone is barbarian in their behavior I argue that it would be noticed, even to this day?

"Bosniak" identity is non-existent outside their Islamic faith.
If you exclude that part of their life and culture, there is not a single thing that would indicate their difference from either Serbs or Croats.

But there is. There is a lot of history behind it. Like the Bosnian kingdom etc.
First of all, restricting the 500 years of Ottoman Empire presence and influence in the Balkans solely on the Muslim communities, is denial. Ottoman civilization also influenced Christian communities, whether they like it or not.

On the other hand, the Ottoman civilization itself was built upon Persian high culture (part of the Persianate world) + Sunni Islam (Hanafi school with heavy Sufi influence) + Turkic military organization + whether they like it or not, huge latent and persistent Byzantine influence, that never really disappeared.

This is why I define the Balkan as a civilizational area as the product of the Byzantine-Ottoman synthesis (which explains why Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary are not "Balkans" - to close that debate).

Then the notion that Balkan Muslims are one group and whose identity (ethnogenesis) is just a product of Ottoman Empire, is wrong. Indeed, some groups are purely a consequence of Ottoman Empire, there is no doubt : Bosniaks (that would have been simply Serbian or Croats otherwise, because the Bosniak identity was a weak regional identity), Gorani/Torbesh (Macedonians), Pomaks (Bulgarians).

I don't agree since who were the people who ruled in the Bosnian Kingdom? I assume that those are the same as most of the people who nowadays originate from Bosnia and also call themselves Bosniak.

Note that also the massive migration of Balkan Muslims (relative to the total population) after the collapse of Ottoman Empire (and persecutions afterwards) to Turkey, where they assimilated very well.

But they weren't seen as Turks though? They weren't same as same class as native Turks.

When i mentioned Hasan Pasha Predojević, former Bosniak user Bosniensis worship him. Because he conquered Bosniensis city Bihać and surrounding area in 1592, and from that time over 400 years Muslims are majority there. Bosniensis also worship Omer Pasha Latas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Pasha
Unlike Atlantic Reptilian who claim Bosniaks are separate people from Serbs and Croatians since middle age, Bosniensis say Bosniaks are recent creation. He said his parents were declared Serbs (of Muslim religion) in Yugoslavian time. Bosniensis is pro-Ottoman, Reptilian is pro-western/Austrohungarian.

and i don't want to trigger bosnian fellas but i think that's why in turkey albanians more aware their roots and they usually less consider themselves as turkish than bosnians imo.

I say so because I have noticed a clear distinction between, if you take those two cases. Bosniensis even claimed he had Albanian roots, AFAIK. I have no roots Serb, Croat or Albanian roots whatsoever. If you ask "what if they just didn't mention it?" well, they do mention when someone is Serb, Croat or Albanian, so it doesn't make sense. You would also noticed it culturally too.
But this is probably rather an issue of what Bosniak means. I have mine and outsiders probably have other?

Bosniak identity is very weak, and was pushed artificially by politicians after the breakdown of Yugoslavia

Then under brutal secularization of the Communist regime of Yugoslavia, because of the weak, historical depth of the Bosniak identity, Bosniak Muslims naively and massively felt into the trap of the rootless, non-ethnic "Yugoslavian" identity... while Serbs and Croats much less, and kept largely their deep identities.

After the brutal Yugoslavian war and the massacres of Bosniak Muslims, many started to realize that their naive assimilation into the Communist secular Yugoslavian project only made them weak and potential victims to Croat and Serbian hegemonia. So they started to develop that "Bosniak" identity, which is still very weak.

This weak identity is indeed the reason why when most of them migrated to Turkey (muhacirs), they quickly assimilated and mixed into mainstream Turkish society.

I disagree. I have lots of ancestors, who throughout time, declared their Bosniak ethnicity. None of them immigrated to Turkey. They didn't want to. Nobody was unsure of their ethnicity.
They didn't "become secularized" because of a weak identity but because they wanted religion not play that big of a role. Many of them thought it was backwards (no matter which religion) and thus the Yugoslavian era became a time to look beyond differences.

But these details are difficult to see when you don't come from those areas.

[Rumata]

Your religious and political leader said it clear and loud: "Our mother is Turkey"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Ceri%C4%87

Why don't they join the mother then?

[robertb]

Why don't they join the mother then?

Probably the same reason their brother turks come to EU countries. Better goodies there. lol

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I respect your opinion I just don't believe that Russia is innocent in this stuff. And I don't trust pro-Russian media outlets. Same thing goes for i.e. CNN.

What you don't like is what was stated in Canadian intelligence files written 30 years ago about what was happening in Bosnia. Whether it's the Grayzone or CNN what is written by people trained to gather information in the mid-1990s has nothing to do with the politics of others reporting on it 3 decades later. These people aren't pro-Russian, Pro-Bosniak, Pro-Croat, or pro-Serb. They're intelligence officers gathering information for the Canadian government. They carry more weight than some family member who isn't exactly going to be emotionally detached from the conflict and whose experience will be limited. What do some Canadian intelligence officers care about either group? Hence they're an objective third party.

[Atlantic Reptilian]

What you don't like is what was stated in Canadian intelligence files written 30 years ago about what was happening in Bosnia. Whether it's the Grayzone or CNN what is written by people trained to gather information in the mid-1990s has nothing to do with the politics of others reporting on it 3 decades later. These people aren't pro-Russian, Pro-Bosniak, Pro-Croat, or pro-Serb. They're intelligence officers gathering information for the Canadian government. They carry more weight than some family member who isn't exactly going to be emotionally detached from the conflict and whose experience will be limited. What do some Canadian intelligence officers care about either group? Hence they're an objective third party.

Not true. Being in the war zone and protecting your people isn't exactly being emotionally attached, it's doing what you must. The way you voice your opinion was already heard back in those days, and was halting possible help from the West to protect the civilians and stop the war.

As for whether these people were for one side or not, you can clearly see the Wests reluctance in dealing with what was happening in the war. If you are a soldier, you would also not want to be exposed to danger since you might die. Those intelligence officers do not carry more weight than the people who were directly making progress in the war by helping out the wounded and the victims of atrocities. It is way different to be in the UN and talk about what to do than doing what you must do.
Also, when it comes to being an objective third party or not, what you are saying is not necessarily true, it could be but could also be false. Let's not forget that the population were seen as Muslims, which might make more people reluctant to help, for historical reasons. You know this yourself. The supposed acceptance of Muslim people wasn't the same back in those days.
Still to this day these same people who were in the battle zones don't have a favorable view of how the UN, NATO and the US acted in the war because they did too little too late, despite there being voices who said that something had to be done, like Jens Stoltenberg.

Also, there are a lot of stuff reported by the CIA, the UN etc. that contradict what that article says. You see, writing is also a lot about how the writer interprets the given information. It's not necessarily wrong, but shouldn't be ignored when someone clearly have a political stance.

edit: please check the sources of the article you posted.

[Dick]

[Hexachordia]

Although I worried about Russia will attack other countries if the war yielded any little favor to their side, I still believe China should help Russia ending the war in a calculable way. Russia being intentionally evil as NATO strategically, an awkward situation for other countries who are not in direct involvement in these parties. I think it is safer for more involvements of all countries than like going along the suggestions by the USA to sit put and steady. If China did not help Russia, this war will eventually become uncontrollable, so even at the risk of direct conflict with the west, a definitive level of involvement is mandatory for China as a way of self-concern. The last two WWs had become widespread because they fought between themselves in WW1 as the rest of the world kept watching, then comes WW2，this case is the same, when you take it as a regional war, they will succeed in bringing the aftermath into more unexpecting countries worldwide. The west is already trying to propagate the seeds of wars and corruption globally as we can only be an onlooker on Ukraine. Who will be winning nominally is not important, they can make sure the world order will be in their favor, making a fourth world from the third world, and a third world from nothing, the war itself is their core interest. Onlookerism is a sure oneway ticket to the third worldism.

[Avgvstvs]

Stopped reading at Soros being mentioned.

Inviato dal mio SM-A405FN utilizzando Tapatalk